Armstrong never said himself that he had "little chance" of winning, only that winning the Tour de France would be "very difficult." Must this man's obvious statements be whipped up as doubt every year?

Mmmm... Bluff I wonder? Wouldn't be the first time...

Mmmm... Bluff I wonder? Wouldn't be the first time...

Hmmm... Bluff I wonder? Wouldn't be the first time...

of course he can't beat him. Contador is clearly the better rider.

He got on the poium last year, while clearly not fully race fit, so could get 2nd.

Although Contador is clearly the better rider, Lance is the better tactician.

Age and treachery will always give an advantage over youth and inexperience

Love is the only things that matters.

People have to remember also that there are a lot of other riders out there that will also like to have a go at a podium finish at the tour, it's not just about these two! Plus i think as a lot of the younger riders are getting better with age, Lance is past the age where you 'get better with age'.

Whatever lance says to the media about the Tour must be laced with double secret code, the likes of which only acid stoking code breakers could decipher. The man is a fox and a master of self discipline; he will have scouted and reconnoitred every shred of the 2010 route and he will know when and where to make his move.

There is one small problem however, a wisp of a man who possesses the fire to rival that of the burly old Texan, a man for whom roads turn to clouds; when they venture forth to heaven, Contador is his name.

I can only assume that Andy has put in some serious TT training in the off season and worked out how to limit his loses there, because without damage control in the TT’s things will run second for a long time indeed for one of my favourite cyclist. But if he can crack some good runs against the clock then he stands a great chance of defeating Contador, especially with the amount of heart he has.

Baring injury or mishap I venture that the top three spots of the 2010 Tour will be exactly the same as 2009, with a very slim chance that Gesink or Menchov could topple Armstrong from third to fourth.

It should be epic though; bring it, cant wait.

carrock, what do you mean youth and inexperience. You may not have noticed, but Contador has one a few stage races.

kung-fu panda, brilliant rehash in your comment of what was already said in the main article!

'There is one small problem however, a wisp of a man who possesses the fire to rival that of the burly old Texan, a man for whom roads turn to clouds; when they venture forth to heaven, Contador is his name.'

The whole gist of Armstrong's comments are that Contador is the man to beat, and beating him is 99% impossible. Brilliant attempt at rehashing a to the point comment from Lance into some metaphorical prose about Alberto.

And yes, for 'brilliant' read ironic.

Doping makes this whole endeavor tainted.

As a former national class racer of the seventies i have watched countless "heroes" of cycling fall from grace as we learn they were not super human just super medicated.

The very best athletes not head and shoulders better than the rest, just a niche better.

e

Contador for his weight and muscle mass can not possibly be as good as he is in both time trials and climbing both. He has surely found either a way to use EPO or HGH to aid both O2 transport, strength, and recovery.

I know, people will feel I am a cynic, but the history of these incongruities has invariably shown this to be true, i.e., Marco Pantani for example, Pedro Delgado, Ris, Fignon, Tyler Hamilton, Landis, and so on.

The great riders like Hinault and Lemond and others even when in top form struggled, had to recover, and showed weaknesses day to day. In other words this is what racers are like when not doping.

Contador's early season form is a giant red flag.

To Mr Richardspooner:

I have no idea why you need to rubbish, ridicule or sardonically chastise what I was saying, it was my take on what was written, which I thought was the whole idea of blogging and as far as a rehash by definition most things are, few of us have any singular original thoughts (you may be special). Then why not write your opinion one way or another with regards to the article as opposed to having a crack at me.

And if you think this whole blog process is a platform for your hatred of whatever then please leave me out and go find the other haters.

Dear kung-fu panda

Thanks for your posts. I enjoyed reading the first one more far than the article itself, so thank you.

As for the second post - I totally agree as well. I for one prefer to read interesting and well reasoned discussion or argument on Bike Radar but unfortunately, much of the time, we have hateful people keen to criticise anything and everything simply because they feel, I assume, that their opinion is important and everyone else's is worthless.

Shame.