Is it just me or are stage winners are just phoning it in these days, with interviewers' unoriginal questions that make me wonder why I ever stick around after the slow-mo replay of the stage finish to hear any insight about the race.
Today EddyBo took a beautiful victory and of course couldn't muster anything past the canned "I'm here to help Bradley, but of course if an opportunity presents itself to win a stage then I will take it" response, because when everyone expects a bunch sprint with the bunch sprinters at the front, the post-race interview consists merely of a "that was unexpected, wasn't it?" question that is rather meaningless.
What about asking whether the effort tired him out at all? Or about if Sean Yates basically gives him carte blanche to take a stage whenever he has the opportunity? Or about how hard he plans to push it in tomorrow's time trial?
All I'm saying is that if we can get these people on television, shouldn't we try to get something of substance out of it? It's like the post-race interview is just another stop on the way to the team bus and the massage, when really it should be a chance to get to know these heroes of cycling a little bit better each time.
I have to say the highlight of my Dauphine was watching Cadel Evans give an earnest, if barely intelligible, interview in French to the France3 team after stage 1, because I learned something about him. He won the tour, he's learning French, and he clearly expects to be giving more interviews to French media in the near future.
As long as all pros are not as candid as our good friend Bradley Wiggins ("I don't think I've ever been as disappointed taking the yellow jersey as I am today..."), it's up to the interviewers to tease out something interesting, especially with the stage winners who have been in front of that camera a dozen times before.