Ok, so I finally finished watching the Tour. And what a great one it was.
Contador may be lacking in personality, but he's clearly a great rider. Even if he hadn't taken advantage of the chain incident he surely would have won anyway (despite the fact that he won by 39 seconds and the chain incident cost Schleck 39 seconds).
Schleck -- even greater than Contador. White jersey three years in a row. Next year it will be yellow. And a few more times after that. And a true sportsman, handled the chain incident well, got over it, forgave Contador and moved on without whining and complaining.
Cavendish -- damn, the guy's amazing. He may have just one trick in his bag, but what a trick it is. Fastest man on two wheels by a considerable margin. Not bad. And he couldn't be humbler, pointing out every single time that he's only the last man in the chain and he is deeply indebted to all the other guys who do such an outstanding job setting him up.
At 39 years of age, Christophe Moreau completed his 15 Tour and almost took a stage or two.
Armstrong, eh. . . Only placed 23d, but if he hadn't had such bad luck in the early stages with crashes, who knows. But his time is thankfully over, except for the results of the investigation.
Oh yeah, my question:
How come at the end of the final TT the commentators announced so matter of factly that Contador won the Tour? I know the last stage is largely ceremonial, looping round and round the Champs de Lycee until the sprinters have their final moment of glory. But does it have to be like that? Has there ever been a successful breakaway in the final stage that beat out the sprinters/peloton? If you were Schleck, down by 39 seconds, wouldn't it make sense to try to break away early and somehow miraculously hold on? Sure the odds of making it might be extremely slim, but what does he have to lose? Isn't it worth a try?