Contains graphic elements possibly inspired by works from Flickr user Nathalie 05, ZumaPress, Picasa user Jonathan S, Sirotti, John Pierce, Cervelo’s website, and of course, Zero Wing

[background information, if this makes no sense]

But after a surprising finish at the Vuelta today, GoGo really missed the move on sorting things out. The audio is a follows is from Universal Sports’ efforts at “breaking down” the Stage 2 finish—and unless they were making an untoward implication about Hutarovich’s mother, it’s “Minsk“, not “minx“.

So according to Gogulski, Hutarovich won because:

1. he’s a very good sprinter
2. he’s good in the early season
3. he has five wins so far this season
4. he’s in front of Petacchi
5. he’s always been fast
6. he’s never won against these guys at this time of the year.

While many of those statements are indeed true, other than “he’s always been fast”, I don’t think any do much for describing how Hutarovich got across the line first today. Here are my reasons for the surprise win, a few even illustrated with stills from Eurosport:

1. While the bunch did come in together, with a start and finish near sea-level and a high point of 1,100 meters, it wasn’t your typical sprinters’ day.
2. Cavendish has a history of coming into Grand Tours in less-than-perfect shape. (see ‘09 Giro, this year’s TdF)
3. Farrar was beaten in a near-identical fashion at Plouay last weekend and may be out of gas after racing at top level since the spring.
4. Hutarovich likes technical sprints, this finish was curving and narrow.
5. Hutarovich is in good form, having won a stage at the recent Tour of Poland.
6. Julian Dean crashed yesterday was not there to help Farrar.
7. Bernhard Eisel cramped up and was not there to help Cav.
8. The finish was very disorganized:
   

9. Farrar (readily admitting I can’t see more than Jawbones in this screenshot) might have eaten a significant amount of wind at 5km to go to get into position:
   

10. And for me, the smoking gun. HTC’s leadout (visible at right of image—Velits?) was so much slower than Hondo that Cav was forced to jump across onto Farrar’s wheel. Aside from having to burn some serious wattage making the move, the Brit also handed Hutarovich the golden ticket by slotting in ahead of him:
    

Coming around Cavendish is no mean feat, regardless of the situation leading up to it, so don’t take this as a knock on Hutarovich. After all, Petacchi was set up pretty nicely and the Belarusian dusted him as easily as anyone else in the field.

As for GoGo—well, I wish he’d tighten it up because I’m pretty sure he can do better. I’d wager it didn’t take me any longer to write this post than it did for Universal to piece together that post-race voiceover.

Consider Rabobank—though widely considered a de facto Dutch national squad, they’ve made large and successful investments in foreign athletes. Since the retirements of Erik Dekker and Michael Boogerd, nearly all of their major victories have come courtesy of the Spaniard Oscar Freire or the soon-to-depart Russian Denis Menchov. It’s not like the team has suffered for the outsourcing, with the two riders bringing in a Giro, two Vueltas, two Tour podiums, several Tour stages, a Green Jersey, three San Remos and a gaggle of other assorted trophies.

There’ve been more than enough Dutch riders who could have stepped up at Rabobank, but many have chosen to ply their trades elsewhere—Karsten Kroon, Steven de Jongh, Theo Bos, among others. After Servais Knaven became the first Dutchman to win Roubaix in almost two decades in 2001, for a Belgian-registered but thoroughly international squad, I think it was laid clear to a lot of riders that their talents could be more successfully employed—even as lieutenants—on foreign teams that focused on their strongest races.

Given the success both Rabobank and Dutch ex-pats have had following this course over the past few years, it sounds ridiculous that Lars Boom would say his squad should develop more Dutch riders instead of aquiring the most underutilized classics talent of the 2010 season. It’s not like he’ll get a bigger share of the winnings if a Dutch rider is parcelling out prize money, or that Rabobank will get less camera time if a Dane crosses the line with their name on his chest.

Contrast Rabobank’s importation of talent to the approach of the major French squads, who, outside of one high-profile and ill-omened acquisition, have never shown much interest in top-tier foreign riders. While it was nice to see so many French teams and cyclists taking stages at this year’s Tour, the fact remains that at any high-profile event, they’re all still second-level players. And for the few Frenchmen who’ve elected to ride elsewhere—Sylvain Chavanel, Cedric Vasseur, Richard Virenque—the switch to a foreign squad has paid dividends.

The impression I get is that multi-national squads are better run, more focused in their objectives, and just plain tighter-knit. Bjarne Riis’ legendary commando-style training camps seemed to forge a bond stronger than any national affiliation—not really surprising, considering how many times the map of Europe’s been re-drawn over the past few centuries. Jon Vaughters has mentioned that having a core set of values can similarly draw a team together, and the team-building lesson hasn’t been lost on Columbia-HTC, either.

While national affiliation is an important historical constant in a sport where teams, sponsors, and riders reshuffle yearly, the fact remains that it’s an increasingly outdated notion—and not just because the Tour hasn’t been contested by national squads since the ’60’s. Nicholas Roche, Heinrich Haussler, and Guido Trenti have each confounded the traditional notion of nationality, and even artificial changes aren’t hard to pull off when the situation requires.

When riders feel compelled to be the best rider from their country at an event it never ends well, as Paolo Bettini recently pointed out, and as Roche discovered first hand. It’s a problem even in America—lord knows how many US title races have been won by foreigners while Americans mark each other in the battle for least mediocre. Don’t even get me started on the Best Utah Rider jersey.

So while some nationalistic appeal might appear to be good business at first, any benefit will be short term as more professional international squads extend the performance gap. While Team Sky, the first major British outfit in a generation, overspent badly to bring in a home-grown Tour contender, they had the good sense to hedge the bet by placing him amongst a veteran, multi-national team, stocked with riders from similarly diverse squads—a move that paid off almost immediately in their 2010 campaign.

Kloedi encouraged his fellow riders to “stop arguing on Internet” and earn more points through the rest of the season, before going on to trash the management of the German cycling federation over Twitter; unfortunately, at last check, the UCI did not award points for irony.

In all seriousness, though, if Kloeden’s looking for someone to blame for this predicament, the mirror would be a good place to start. Dismiss the field trip to Freiburg as mere allegation and you’ll still have to explain the Lost Generation of caught and convicted countrymen and teammates that came up under his tutelage—restarting a career on some second-tier outfit is no way to rack up UCI points for your national squad.

Maybe if he and the still-delusional Ullrich had made some effort to instill some ethical foundation in up-and-coming riders, there wouldn’t be this pallid miasma hovering over the world of German cycling. Even riders who are almost certainly clean endure daily the scourge of a skeptical fanbase and reluctant sponsors—is it any wonder the most consistently successful German rider of this generation has been riding for non-German teams the entirety of his professional carrer?

Voigt himself has expressed sadness that the last German ProTour team is disbanding, but I think he’s too quick to forget the crowds on l’Alpe in ‘04. Nationalism, even of the benign sort, isn’t good business practice. Cycling’s a business, and international teams and sponsorships bring the sport more money and greater exposure; I have no doubt that more reliable paychecks and happier teammates will see both Gerald Ciolek and Linus Gerdemann will perform better on foreign registered squads next season.

With the continued inexorable progression of the Armstrong investigation, it might be suggested that German cycling is undergoing a dry run of what the sport in America will experience when the curtain is finally pulled back on the Bruyneel Era. But I think otherwise; along with the proliferation of top-level American teams has come an attitude, most prominently proselytized by Garmin’s Jon Vaughters that commitment to clean competition trumps results.

A welcoming environment for “the guys who said no” and a longer-term definition of success have already begun paying dividends, both for the squad—consider Dan Martin’s recent wins at Poland and Varesine—and for American cycling, whose Worlds team boasts a full roster, despite what was essentially a non-season for the US’ historic UCI points winner.

So when Bernhard Kohl, one of Kloeden’s former understudies at T-Mobile, insists it’s impossible to win without doping, his assessment is—perhaps in reflection of the environment he came up in—woefully shortsighted. One only need gaze upon the disasterous state of the cycling in Germany to see how much more successful Slipstream’s winless ‘08 Tour was than the dope-riddled campaign waged by Kohl’s Gerolsteiner squad that same year.

That said, the not-so-recently-returned Italian’s marriage to either team hardly represents particularly deep planning. Quick.Step is where GC riders have repeatedly gone to die; while plenty of fans and many in the peloton seem to think that wouldn’t be so bad, I’m doubting Ricco is particularly excited about the prospect. Vacansoleil and Ricco do each have an interest in getting invited to higher-profile races, but I just don’t see how an ostracized ex-doper make a second-tier squad with a history of being snubbed improve each others’ appeal.

But then again, maybe I’m not giving the value of a big-name signing the weight it truly deserves. Despite a lackluster season and advancing age, Carlos Sastre still makes a newsworthy title signing for a new team sponsor. Robbie McEwen, 38 years young and barely managing a footnote of a win this year, claims to have at least interest from other teams.

I hesitate to mention Vino’s recently-announced re-signing; unlike Sastre and McEwen, he’s had a fantastic season, and I think most fans were aware the Vino-4-Ever jersey wasn’t merely a statement of Astana’s faith in their homegrown talent, but also the official terms of his contract.

But as a larger trend, it seems that retirement has been going out of style as of late. One wonders if the popularity of Comeback 2.0 didn’t play something of a role in that; Armstrong’s performance at the 2009 Tour certainly may have emboldened a few riders to try and compete at a higher level than they’d otherwise planned, and he certainly didn’t hold back in exploring new technologies to achieve that end.

Lance’s small-door exit at this year’s TdF may have attracted additional interest as well; after years of suffering at the Texan’s hands in head-to-head competition, a generation of riders may find a measure of revenge in being able to carry on with high-level performances at an age where Armstrong was forced to unceremoniously throw in the towel.

Regardless of the motivations of riders and teams, though, one thing seems certain: a second post-Lance recession is unlikely. Fourteen applicants are competing for the remaining eight ProTour spots—a number that does not include Cervelo TestTeam, who will continue their thus-far successful strategy of circumventing the expense and frustration of the UCI’s red tape by focusing on producing results instead of bank guarantees.

Given the runty performance and unsteady funding delivered by the ProTour structure thus far, it’s a model the UCI might want to consider encouraging in the future.

Over at Universal Sports, BikeSnobNYC has continued his blogging as well. He’s a sharp enough writer that I can almost overlook his misattribution of Sungard’s sponsorship to promises of a Contador Grand Slam; Sungard’s sponsor affiliation with Saxo dates back to the beginning of this year, and their move to title sponsor was pretty much a given long before Contador’s third Tour win, let alone the Spaniard’s (and his most trusted domestiques’) acquisition by Riis.

What it almost seems like is that Versus and US are competing to retain viewer interest at least through the Vuelta a Espana, which begins later this month. It’d be a fairly unprecedented move, especially considering that Team RadioShack (whose marketing machinery all but declared the season over in July) will not be attending. I say “almost” because it appears Versus hasn’t updated their cycling schedule since before the Tour and probably isn’t even broadcasting the race.

While Universal Sports will indeed be offering live video coverage of the event, it’s doubtful, given the criticism of both usability and level of commentary during their Giro broadcasts, that anyone will elect to pay the $15 dollars when so many easier-to-use sites are giving away better commentary for free.

At any rate, since both NBC Universal and Versus are owned by the same cable megalopoly—and have their online video services delivered by the same company—it’s hard to imagine that we, as consumers, would see any benefit from market competition between the two broadcasters.

All of this leaves me scratching my head at why Versus or Universal Sports even bother. I can’t imagine BikeSnob or whoever the heck Gerard Wright is cost much, but they must cost something. Why continue to spend money when you know better professional outlets, fan-based efforts, and a few tech-savvy pirates are going to bury you in terms of both coverage and quality during non-Tour events?

Even with an American winner defending his title at Vattenfalls, or the best-known American squad fighting to make a point at Tour l’Ain, I can’t find anything about either race on either company’s website. I can’t imagine lip-service text posts—without at least a tip of the hat to ongoing racing—are going to convince fans that the two legitimate US broadcasters are in any way serious about the sport.

I’m guessing that Joel Felicio or whoever has his job at Universal Sports would counter by saying that without them, there’d be no cycling for American audiences. But that’s just not true anymore; even Lance Armstrong, who’s made tweets I can’t find about how he never pirates music, knows where to find coverage if legitimate sources don’t make an effort to cover it.

My challenge to both Versus and US is this: take 2011 off. You say you’re tired of having fans tear you down for your hard work, so stop doing it. If it’s too hard to find advertisers, or if too few people are watching, or if no one will pay for anything online, it would make sense to stop, right?

So just don’t bid for exclusive US or online rights to any major cycling events —the only real thing limiting other video to Eastern European dudes with screencast software—for one year, and let an open and competitive market determine the future of cycling coverage.

Then, in 2012, you’ll have your change to come back and prove to everyone that you’re doing the best job possible, and that most criticism against you is levied based on spite and delusion. If you have as much confidence in your opinion as I have in mine, you should be as eager as I am to see this little experiment take place.

Euro Junior courses are so burley that “even the pro guys would protest” if people tried to put them on in the States, and Ted King frequently states the level of focus required to negotiate a course like Liege or Amstel makes Euro cycling “virtually a different sport“.

But, y’know, there are times when that kind of cutthroat racing seems limited to one-days in Belgium and the Netherlands—or at least that’s the impression one gets when the Tour de France peloton absolutely wets its britches when they’re forced to battle the chaotic thoroughfares of the low countries. With high mountains and long time trials, plus prizes and stages segmented out for riders of practically any different ability, stage races have become civilized, almost parliamentary, in how they produce winners.

Fortunately, there are events like the Tour of Poland to keep that seat-of-the-pants brand of racing alive in multi-day comptetions. Those unsatisfied with the post-Tour race offerings—especially fans of the spring classics—should consider Poland mandatory viewing. Lunatic grades to compete with anything at Fleche Wallonne, roads as narrow as the Netherlands, but with poor design and worse maintenance—enough that the kicker humps and gravelly patches make it so even solo breakaways can’t pedal some sections. Add to that truly demented finishing circuits and late-day starts and you’ve got a recipe for exciting, unpredictable racing that favors aggression.

One of the Eurosport commentators—David Harmon, I think—referred to it as “old-style racing”, and I’m inclined to agree. Even speaking as a radio-positive commentator, I’ll admit that there is a certain purity to racing where the selections come up quickly, and where success relies as much on skill and nerve as watts and the team car.

While the risks to the riders might be a little much over the course of a week (there’s a reason DePanne is only three days), I think the win at a race like Poland speaks more about the character of its winner—in this case, Garmin’s long-tabbed Irish talent Dan Martin—than the prestige of the event would suggest.

After citing a lack of “scientific evidence” (there’s actually a bit here and there, if you’re truly curious) presented in the press thus far, Daly attempted to play up the “witch hunt” aspect of the case, saying:

“If Lance Armstrong came in second in those Tour de France races, there’s no way that Lance Armstrong would be involved in these cases,” Daly said. “I think that the concern is that they are caught up in the pursuit of a celebrity to catch him in a lie.”

Bryan, that is a terrible point and you’ve brought shame to your law firm and alma mater. Let’s take a look at the legal histories of the second-place finishers in Lance Armstrong’s TdF wins:

• 1999 – Alex Zulle: Caught in Festina Affair in 1998, admitted to EPO use; found to have 52.3% hematocrit months afterwards.
• 2000, 2001, 2003 – Jan Ullrich: Implicated in Operacion Puerto in 2006; DNA matched to nine Operacion Puerto blood bags in 2007; paid 250,000 EUR fine to avoid prosecution on doping charges in 2008; former manager admitted his and Ullrich’s role in Operacion Puerto in 2010.
• 2002 – Joseba Beloki: Implicated in Operacion Puerto in 2006; “cleared” by Spanish courts (just like Alejandro Valverde, currently serving a suspension for his role in the scandal); further investigation likely stymied by end of career.
• 2004 – Andreas Kloeden: Implicated in 2006 pre-Tour doping trip to Freiburg with then-teammates and convicted dopers Patrick Sinkewitz and Mattias Kessler in 2009; additional positive tests/DNA links from teammates include Ullrich, Sergei Gonchar, Alexandre Vinokourov, Andrey Kashechkin; later Bernhard Kohl.
• 2005 – Ivan Basso: Implicated in Operacion Puerto scandal in 2006, confessed to preparing to dope later that year.

While I will readily admit that there’s a positive correlation between depth of investigation and rider celebrity, when only a single second-placed rider has dodged either serving a suspension or retiring under a massive cloud of doubt, I hardly think you can slap the “witch hunt” tag on the investigation.

If anything, it’s the near-universal guilt [cached version] of the riders Lance vanquished that should should raise the biggest questions in the rational mind over whether or not Armstrong raced clean.

In January, SaxoBank was done with this whole cycling thing: “the sponsorship has not been ideal in reaching our narrow target group”, though the bank added ”we couldn’t have hoped for a better collaboration with the team.”

Well, apparently, they could. Lars Seier Kristensen, who carries the typically Norse title of “co-CEO” at SaxoBank, said his mind was changed by hearing “Bjarne Riis talk about his ideas about the future”—hard to see how there wasn’t a bait-and-switch in there somewhere.

Despite the fact that Contador’s 2010 Tour win was decidely lackluster, the Spaniard is still the top favorite for 2011. And sure, after Andy Schelck fat-fingered one of the best opportunities to unseat Contador since 2007, I might not be entirely disappointed to see the Luxemburger leave my shop. But a bigger picture view reveals some pretty serious gaps in the 2011 SaxoTeam.

Great chunks of the squad that drove Schleck to positions of advantage at the Tour seem poised to follow the gawky Luxemburger to his new operation headed by Kim Anderson. While a fistful of the choicest Astana domestiques are rumored to be coming with Contador, they did relatively little work treading that tightrope between pace-setting and leg-saving. It’s a given that the race will be hewn down to the heads of state in the hills; whether Dani Navarro or another spritely climber wields the ax is largely irrelevant. What matters is that a team’s favorite reaches that final selection with matches to burn and cards to play.

I think SaxoBank may also have been a bit too impressed by the exposure they’ve received through their sponsorship in the first seven months of this year. Their discontinuation announcement came in January, well ahead of a team Classics campaign remarkable not only for its dominance, but also for the international headlines spawned by speculation over what exactly was inside of Cancellara’s Saxo-branded seat tube. Add to that a surprise maglia rosa at a topsy-turvy Giro, and the furor over Chaingate and you’ve got a return on investment that far exceeds expectation.

But, as SaxoBank is legally obligated to inform its investors, past returns are no guarantee of future performance. While Cance shows no signs of slowing, the one-days are a notoriously volatile affair—a bad line on the cobbles, a single mechanical failure, and a season’s work goes up in smoke. Plus, Contador is hardly the lovable, quoteable, “gawky ectomorph” that Andy Schleck is. Combine that with thirteen months of mudslinging from Brand Armstrong, an unimpressive Tour ride, still-seething dissatisfaction over Chaingate, and the inherent dislike of persistent Tour winners among the cycling fanbase, and you’ve got an asset that’s looking decidedly distressed.

Of course, Riis is a master at turning riders around, both in terms of performance and marketability. His team-building and motivational efforts produced the the rejuvenation of Bobby Julich, the reinvention of Stuart O’Grady as a Roubaix winner, and have made his squads into media darlings—no small feat from a man once glibly referred to as Mr. 60%.

But Contador, who’s had, since 2006, perhaps the roughest go of any three-time Tour winner, may—to borrow Riis’ own expression—prove a tougher diamond to polish. Certainly, I’m hoping that Riis sudden reacquisition of a big money sponsor doesn’t trigger a bout of irrational exuberance among potential cycling investors. Sure, it’s great to see more money coming into the sport, but with the Armstrong bubble deflating for good, it’d be a shame if Riis’ repackaged acquisition leads to another collapse.

Most of the race—certainly its chaotic opening—still seem compelling; Chatreau and Pineau trading off breakaways and battling for KOMs was good fun while waiting for the GC riders to open hostilities. And seeing the aggression pay off for so many breakaways was a nice change—something many have taken as the sign of a cleaner race, though others are not so convinced.

Cav did make the sprints something of a foregone conclusion toward the end of the race, but his early struggles and the drama surrounding the Renshaw ejection certainly had me looking forward to the final three kilometers on nearly every flat stage. Petacchi might not have been the sentimental favorite for Green—even without the whole perfluorocarbon investigation, Cav was flat out faster, and Thor made a more concerted effort at chasing the points crown—but Ale-Jet brought enough to the competition that I wasn’t sad to see him win it.

Looking back today, though, I’m really wondering at all the excitement I felt for the GC race. Sure, the narrow time margin between Schleck and Contador for much of the race kept the tension high, but really, where were the differences made? A slipped chain? Holding Cancellara’s wheel across a section of pavé? A ham-fisted, bobbling attack on a Third Category climb?

While the time gaps were smaller this time around, what made the 2003 Tour an awesome spectacle was the way the GC favorites seemed to just trade haymakers. On Alpe du Huez, Armstrong claimed yellow, but lost two minutes to Iban Mayo. Vino’s eff-you attack on the descent into Gap the next day lead took Beloki out of the race, and led to the now-famous shortcut. Then there was Jan Ullrich’s leg-shattering TT effort on Stage 12, Armstrong slowly bleeding time over the following days, break pads, Ullrich’s attack over the Tourmalet, Luz-Ardiden, fog, musette bags, the final TT, the rain…

I’m not saying the 2010 event wasn’t a great race, full of all the right kinds of intrigue and polemics. I’m not even saying that the battle between Schleck and Contador wasn’t a good contest—they worked together to distance their rivals, then took their shots against each other. I don’ think either left anything out on the course—and in the case of Contador, some are still arguing he tried a little bit too hard.

But for me, the greatest GC battles are back-and-forth affairs—rivals constantly trying to leverage their strength against their opponents weakness, and struggling to limit their losses when the tide turns the other way. Maybe Schleck’s and Contador’s abilities were just too closely aligned this July, or maybe this is just how most Grand Tours will be contested until the memory of “the refills” has slipped from the peloton’s collective memory.

Hopefully next year, another closely- and cleanly-fought Tour will shed some more light on the subject.