After the Pharmstrong tyranny I enjoyed the swashbuckling panache of Alberto Contador, basically because I despise monotonous, insipid and prepotent reigns in which everything is programed and nothing goes awry, for which I was similarly enthusiastic about Pantani. Although I guess it's just my destiny to always be attracted to those of immense pedigree, but who always have the greater interests of the sport working unremittingly against them. It's not at all surprising that the bookends of the US Postal/Sky regimes have been Pantani and Contador. The robotic, algorithmic like inevitability of an Armstrong or Froome, in which economic power and laboratory producion produces the desired results every time, is the diametric oppossite of what I like about the individual class and showmanship of these other famous ones. It is also a question of style between Latin and Anglican peoples and the relative economic weight they carry within the sport, which, unfortunately, has under the forces of globalizzation been driven away from the former and into the latter domain.
Having said that it is, however looked upon, singularly bizarre that Contador has been the only GC contender to not improve since the Dauphine, at which he already was sub par. How is that possible? I don't think age has as much to do with it as do other factors. At any rate it's the big media empire of a Sky, or the state backed resources of an Astana that have impacted upon the outcomes of this sport in ways that sponsorship never could in the past (pre US Postal). Then it was about the sponsors benefiting from the individual talents, now it's the sponsors themselves creating the rider destined to be the next champion, who is thus molded by its apparatus into the desired corporate image it is looking to promote. So either it's that sponsorship that has predestined you as the next super champion, or even the greats don't have a place in that arena. Sad really.