Seán Kelly was known as the man for all seasons because he was as competitive at Paris-Nice in March as he was at the Tour of Lombardy in October. He seemed to be at peak or near-peak form right throughout the year. While this is a reputation that has stayed with Kelly, he was by no means unique in this regard. In the eighties the modern idea of preparing for a season and basing an entire training regime around one or two races was quite alien. Plenty of riders were highly competitive right throughout the season. What is actually more impressive about ‘King Kelly’ was his ability to challenge in such a wide variety of races.

A mudcaked Sean Kelly in Paris Roubaix. Just one of the variety of races that Kelly was capable of winning.

There is no other rider (besides Eddy Merckx obviously) who can claim to have won completely different prizes such as a Grand Tour, the Green Jersey in the Tour de France, Milan San Remo, Paris-Roubaix and the Tour of Lombardy. Kelly was in fact the last rider in the peloton who could honestly claim to be competitive in all of cycling’s monument classics. He won Milan San Remo, Paris-Roubaix, Liége-Bastogne-Liége and the Tour of Lombardy all more than once. Although he was never victorious in the Tour of Flanders he did finish second an agonizing three times. In total he won 9 monument classics, he was 27 years old before he won his first and he took his last at Milan San Remo in 1992 at the ripe age of 35.

It takes a very special rider to be able to challenge in all of the monument classics. Milan San Remo is historically a sprinter’s race (it must be if Cipollini was able to win it) and more often than not does end up in a bunch gallop. However, there’s also room here for rider’s who are capable of riding away from the peloton with 1 or 2 kilometres to go. Then there’s the two cobbled classics, Paris – Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders. In an interview with Shane Stokes a couple of years back, Kelly himself described the kind of rider needed to win these races: “these are the ones for the strong guys, the big roulers with a little bit of extra weight. The sort of guys who can’t get up the big climbs but who can really power along on the cobbles”. Although Paris-Roubaix is pretty much pan flat and Flanders is somewhat hilly, it takes the same type of rider to win both. Proven by the fact that Tom Boonen and Johan Museeuw have won these races 11 times between them but neither have one any of the other monuments. Finally then it’s the hilly races of Liége-Bastogne-Liége and the Tour of Lombardy which Kelly has said “it is more a question of a rider who is an all-rounder. In other words, the guy who can do well in Paris-Nice, who can do well in Pays Basques and those sort of races.”

Of the five monument classics there seems to be three distinct categories of race to be won, sprints, cobbles and hills. So who, since Kelly, has even come close to challenging in all three categories. There was Andrea Tafi and Andrea Tchmil in the mid-nineties. Tafi won one edition each of Flanders, Roubaix and Lombardy but never featured in Milan San Remo. Tchmil was somewhat the opposite in that he too also won a Tour of Flanders and a Paris-Roubaix but never featured in either of the hilly races, instead taking victory in Milan San Remo. Then there’s Michele Bartoli who won Flanders, L-B-L twice and Lombardy twice but, like Tafi, never won Milan San Remo. Finally, in more recent years there’s been Paolo Bettini who comes closest to ticking all three boxes. He won four editions of the two hilly races, a Milan San Remo and once finished 7th in the Tour of Flanders.

Paolo Bettini winning Milan San Remo wearing the leader's jersey of the now defunct World Cup.

So no rider since Kelly has won a monument classic in all three of the categories. Is there anyone in the current peloton capable of doing so? Currently racing, there are only two riders who’ve won more than one of the five monuments. Tom Boonen (ToF ‘05, ‘06 and P-R ‘05, ‘08, ‘09) and Fabian Cancellara (MSR ‘08 and P-R ‘06). Perhaps it’s the lack of a year long one-day racing competition like the old World Cup that has contributed to the demise of all round classics specialists. Or perhaps it’s the current trend in the peloton for riders to focus on very specific races which makes it very difficult for one man to be competitive in all of them.

But there must be somebody out there who’s willing to break the mold. Edvald Boassan Hagen has been tipped for greatness. The only classic he’s won so far has been Ghent-Wevelgem, but he’s only 23 and he’s already won one-day races, time trials and week long stage races. Then there’s Cancellara himself who’s already got two boxes ticked with Milan San Remo and Paris-Roubaix but how about the hilly classics? Well he proved this year that he’s capable of going uphill with the best of them at the Tour de Suisse and at the recent World Championships it must have been hard for him to stomach how a rider in such form and looking that strong failed to take the victory (the lack of a team didn’t help). The abilities needed to win on that course in Mendrisio would be comparable to those required for either Liége-Bastogne-Liége or the Tour of Lombardy. He’s also stated his desire to win all five before he retires.

What of the other men who showed their strength at the early season classics this year, Heinrich Haussler and Fillipo Pozzato? Pozzato has won an edition of Milan San Remo, finished 2nd in Paris-Roubaix and 5th in the Tour of Flanders but has never applied himself to the hilly races, his best result coming in Lombardy where he once took 19th. Haussler is a similar story, missing out on Milan San Remo by the slimmest of margins earlier this year, he also took 2nd in Flanders this year and finished 7th in Paris-Roubaix. But he has never even attempted the other two races. Although he did take a medium mountain stage victory in the Tour this year, but that was when the peloton had thrown their toys out of the pram due to the race radio ban so maybe we shouldn’t read too much into this for his hilly credentials.

Finally, the man in the current peloton who by far has the most potential to win all five of cycling’s monuments…Phillipe Gilbert. He’s just won his first monument by taking the Tour of Lombardy two weeks ago and that surely will be the first of many. He’s finished 3rd in both Milan San Remo and the Tour of Flanders and has also finished 4th in Liége-Bastogne-Liége. He meets all the criteria for potential and has started to come good now on filling that potential. He’s still only 27 years old and the way in which he dominated the late season races, taking 4 wins in a row over an 8-day period, was utterly impressive. Seán Kelly won the Tour of Lombardy in 1983, his first monument classic, at the age of 27. Phillipe Gilbert has just done exactly the same. It takes a special rider to juggle all of the attributes needed to win all of the major one day races but Gilbert is doing a better job than most.

In the 2008 Tour de France Riccardo Riccó was ejected from the race after Stage 11 having tested positive for CERA, the next generation of the blood-booster EPO. This week UCI, the world cycling governing body, have reduced his 2 year suspension to 20 months after a successful appeal by Riccó to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This means that he will now be eligible to ride as and from the Milan San Remo next March.

I had written in a previous post that ex-dopers aren’t welcomed easily back to the peloton. They find it difficult to find a top team willing to sign them and even harder to instill enough confidence in their team mates to convince them to ride for their newly reformed leader. It was pointed out however, that there are exceptions. Ivan Basso for example, returned to Grand Tour racing at the Giro earlier this year without registering too much on the returning-doper-animosity scale. Perhaps the two riders that currently lie on opposite ends of this scale are British rider David Millar and Alexander Vinokorouv from Kazakhstan. They were both cheats and were both found guilty of taking drugs. But Millar is now more well-known for his anti-doping stance rather than his prior misdemeanors, whereas ‘Vino’ is probably more synonymous with the phrase ‘unapologetic wanker’.

Riccardo Riccó shortly after being ejected from the 2008 Tour de France

Before their respective bans, Millar had won three stages of the Tour de France, three stages of the Vuelta a Espana and the World Time Trial Championship, while Vinokourov had also won three stages of the Tour, along with the overall title at major stage races such as the Vuelta a Espana, Paris-Nice, Dauphiné Libéré and the Tour de Suisse. Both were very high profile riders within the pro peloton and both had been caught cheating, so why the differing attitudes towards them?

It was their difference in attitude in the aftermath of being caught that has resulted in the difference in public opinion of them now. Millar eventually confessed and offered full disclosure of what was involved in his doping practices. He has since joined the uber anti-doping squad of Jonathan Vaughters at Garmin and has shown to be very willing to reform and speak out against doping in the sport. When Riccó tested positive at the Tour last year, Millar said to Cycling News:

“It is bullshit… I think it’s unfortunate that when things look too good to be true, generally they are too good to be true – and he did look pretty f***ing good. It is just amazing that he is that irresponsible and doesn’t have any love or care for the sport.”

While I appreciate Millar’s anti-doping sentiments these days, it is a tad rich considering he had been that irresponsible four years earlier. Perhaps he should leave comments like that to riders who’ve never been found guilty of doping. Vinokourov on the other hand hasn’t offered the fans any apology or even acknowledgment of any wrong-doing. This has not endeared him to fans and has resulted in widespread contempt for him. Perhaps the general regard that he is held in is best summed up by Cycle Sport Magazine’s comment on Twitter when he appeared at the front of the race at the Tour of Lombardy: ‘Vino up to the front. Eurgh.’

If Vinokourov thinks that the attitudes towards him have been prickly, I fear that the animosity towards Riccó upon his return will be even worse. Despite Riccó’s admission and apology he is grossly unpopular within the peloton. Robbie Hunter once said of him:

“He needs to be punched in the nose for his arrogance. Idiot, I doubt he will ever show his face in the pro peloton again ’cause nobody likes him, and for sure nobody will miss him. I certainly won’t. He is a cheat and should be treated like one.”

Vinokourov winning the final stage of the 2005 Tour de France. The sight of Vino crossing the finish line first these days would prove to be very unpopular.

Well, unfortunately Robbie, he is going to show his face again, but how will he fare? Riders returning from suspension have often found it difficult to get back to the level they were at before their ban. Of course (although we can only presume) a returning rider is now racing without the aid of performance enhancing drugs and as as a result tend to struggle. Ivan Basso took 2nd place in the 2005 Tour de France and dominated the 2006 Giro. After Armstrong’s retirement he became most people’s favourite to win the Tour. But then the trouble started for him and he hasn’t ridden the Tour since. In his first year back from suspension he hasn’t had the same strength in the mountains and his time trialling seems to have also deteriorated, although he did manage a commendable 4th place in both the Giro and the Vuelta. But this is certainly not the form that suggests he was supposed to be the man to dominate the Tour after Armstrong’s departure.

Vinokourov’s first major race as a former doper was the Vuelta this year where he managed 4th place on one of the stages but never made the final selection on the mountain stages and then abandoned with 9 days of racing to go. David Millar also wasn’t the same rider since his return from suspension. His time trial victory in the Vuelta this year was his first victory (excepting national championships) since the Paris-Nice prologue in 2007, a barren spell of more than two and a half years. Other notable former dopers Floyd Landis, Oscar Sevilla, Tyler Hamilton and Francisco Mancebo have all moved from the highest level of the sport to the U.S. domestic scene where they’ve picked up a few modest victories but have been nowhere near the riders they were before their doping cases.

It’s clear that returning to top level racing after a doping ban isn’t easy. Between the lack of form that returning dopers suffer from and the general disdain held for Riccó amongst his peers, he will surely find his return to top level racing very difficult indeed.

The route for the 2010 Tour de France was unveiled last week by Tour director Christian Prudhomme. The major talking points are that there is no team time trial, the Col de Tourmalet will be climbed twice and there will be 13.2 kilometres of cobbles on Stage 3. Despite there being some interesting aspects to the route, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed. Too many of the mountain stages end in a long descent to the finish, which usually neutralises the specialist climbers and doesn’t really do enough to shake up the General Classement. The route needs more mountain top finishes. In last year’s Tour, of the road stages it was only those with finishes at a summit where the favourites gained and lost significant time.

Stage 9 last year, which included the climbs of the Col d’Aspin and the Col de Tourmalet, finished with a descent and a flat run into the finish. This almost culminated in Oscar Freire winning a Pyreneean mountain stage when he won the bunch gallop for third spot 34 seconds behind a two man breakaway. If the stage had finished on the top of the Tourmalet, the big guns would have had to show themselves which would have led to more exciting racing. This disrespect of the Col de Tourmalet has been addressed this year but in total there are only three summit finishes. These three stages, along with the final 51km time trial, as far as I can see are the only realistic opportunities for the main contenders to distance each other. Four stages out of twenty-one? I feel cheated. Not to mention the fact that Alpe d’Huez has been ignored for 2 consecutive years for the first time since it’s Tour début in 1976 (although it will appear as a summit finish in next year’s Dauphiné Libéré).

Lance Armstrong leading George Hincapie and Jan Ullrich over the pavé the last time they appeared on the Tour route in 2004.

The lack of a team time trial means that riders like Cadel Evans and Denis Menchov will not be victims of their inept teams and will probably still be in contention after the first week. Although one suspects Menchov will have to spend a bit of time over the winter learning how not to fall off his bike (he’s even crashed whilst riding uphill before).

The cobbles on Stage 3 are intriguing and besides the four stages I mentioned already, they provide the only other possibility where the G.C. contenders might gain some time on their rivals. The cobbles only stretch for a total of 13.2 kilometres on the stage but most of the favourites could struggle to cope. Of the main protagonists, Contador, Schleck, Evans, Menchov and Valverde have all never ridden a cobbled race. Armstrong rode and finished the Tour of Flanders twice during his Tour winning years. By far the most experienced Tour contender on the cobbles is Bradley Wiggins, who throughout his career has ridden all the major cobbled races. As the saying goes, the Tour won’t be won here, but it could certainly be lost. Some bad weather and a lapse in concentration, the slippery cobbles could strike and one’s Tour could be over. The favourites will have to rely heavily on their more experienced team mates to get through all the way to the Arenberg forest unscathed. Don’t be surprised to see some unfamiliar names on the startlists of some cobbled classics next Spring.

So while there will be some interesting stages I do think that the route isn’t very conducive to exciting racing. So what would I do if I was in Christian Prudhomme’s shoes and given licence to design the Tour I’ve always wanted? Bear with me on this because it’s a little bit outrageous. I would have six mountain top finishes, three in the Alps and three in the Pyrenees. This would give the specialist climbers a good opportunity to distance themselves from those more inclined towards the time trial, for whom, I would have one individual time trial. A pan flat 110km course scheduled for the penultimate stage. Think about it, it would make the entire race engrossing.

Could Fabian Cancellara conceivably win the Tour with the addition of a 110km time trial?

Riders like the Schlecks, Robert Gesink, Carlos Sastre and Alberto Contador would have to constantly attack in the mountains to take as much time as possible from those who would excel in such a long time trial. Perhaps such a route might be perfect for Wiggins or Armstrong, or indeed Contador who seem to able to juggle the two disciplines to good effect. But who’s to know how each will perform in a time trial of such length, none of them would have ridden against the clock for so long a distance before. The last occasion a time trial even close to this distance was included in the Tour was 1987 when there was an individual test of 87.5km, although it appeared relatively early in the race on Stage 10 (won by Stephen Roche).

Having so many mountain top finishes and the mammoth time trial towards the end of the race would introduce a whole host of new contenders for the Tour. Riders who can suck wheels admirably in the mountains but who generally fail to make the final selection, but who also excel at time trials would suddenly find themselves capable of challenging. Enter new Tour contenders, Fabian Cancellara, Tony Martin, David Zabriskie, Andreas Kloden, Levi Leipheimer, David Millar, Gustav Larsson. The monstrous time trial would provide extra incentive for these riders to reduce their deficits in the mountains as much as possible. The permutations of who will attack, when and where are boundless.

Perhaps such an unusual format will never be given a chance by a Tour director. But I really feel that Prudhomme hasn’t set the stage for an exciting race. We should be prepared for a lot of stages dominated by breakaways with the Tour remaining stagnant through the Alps and only coming to life in when we finally reach the Pyrenees on Stage 14.