Put it this way, Tejay van Garderen comes across as a nice guy, but I've literally never seen a bike race I've thought was improved for him being it, except maybe the 2010 Vuelta where he was a breath of fresh air and actually had some pretty decent puncheur skills honed in his time at Rabobank Developmental, which have been neglected since as he's become more of a diesel climber. Actually, in fairness that's a bit harsh, he's been a decent addition to some editions of the Volta a Catalunya. Tejay's issue is that he is a stage racer who is best suited to low to medium gradients, and a strong TTer, which means that he's not going to be suited to most routes for the Vuelta or Giro, and the Tour is of course the GT with the strongest field. Apart from the win on the Rettenbachferner all of his best stage racing results have come in events in the USA or the Volta a Catalunya, where the climbing tends to be on lower gradient climbs, or on more consistent roads which have been made more recently and with more modern equipment, which suits his style - but means that he's somebody who tends to follow rather than lead when it comes to the big inconsistent climbs and steeper ones that are increasingly being preferred in European races, to try to ensure time gaps due to the increased professionalism in the péloton and the proliferation of train templates.
As a result, I have nothing against Tejay van Garderen, but I have never learned to care about him or his results. As a result, mainly I see him as somebody who's just kind of there in the group of heads of state, until such point as he isn't anymore. A rider who will serve as a good 'option B' if you have a leader who can attack and let Tejay sit in the group as they chase them, or a leader for a team which has no aspirations of actually winning the race but wants a good GC position for the earnings it brings. But as a result, this means he makes nary a dent in my conscience unless something controversial happens, like the nullification of time gaps. Now, it's also true that a lot of people may go back to the 2011 Tour de France and point out that Contador crashed outside the 3km to the finish point, Schleck crashed inside it, so it was only fair and right that Schleck was given +0" time gap (I didn't think that applied on uphill finishes, remembering Schumacher losing the maillot jaune in 2008, but whatever your take, the case can be made), however the Schleck crash blocked the Contador group from getting through to the finish, and increased their deficit, leading to Contador riding to the finish at a similar time to Schleck but losing almost a minute GC-wise. And a lot of people thought that unfair too. It's a problem of the 3k rule - it's a good rule to have to stop absolute carnage when crashes happen, but at the same time, you can't just extend the rule indefinitely to any rider who crashes at any time, because crashing is just a part of bike racing, so at some point there has to be a cutoff and there will then be an issue surrounding it.
Nullifying Tejay's timegap for being baulked by another group that crashed would have been controversial enough with the 2011 precedent in mind but it would have been reasonable, considering people's issue with the Contador timeloss, however with that other crash being outside the 3k, with Tejay being the only American in the top 10 (and with, let's be honest, American cycling rather ailing at the moment, with none of the new prospects looking like assuming the GC contender mantle that the American general public needs, as the Lance days have perpetuated the all-about-Le-Tour mindset there, one of the few immediately recognizable names to the fans there), the decision to nullify all time gaps and put him back into his leading position was bound to attract controversy. I mean, considering all the flak other race organisers have received for blatant homer calls in the past, it's only right that the organisers' motives get called into question. I mean, we still talk about Moser's helicopter and the lying timegaps to Delgado on the boards to this day; if a Spanish race organiser did this for a Spanish rider, or an Italian race organiser for an Italian rider, they would be absolutely pilloried for it.
But none of it is Tejay's fault. Vaughters said he thought Tejay would win by a minute anyway, which proved to be typical Vaughters bluster. It's kind of strange really, since the Tour of California achieved its goal of becoming a WT race, it's actually dropped away in terms of startlist and interest. And while its winners may go on to be future stars, it seems to be taking the role that Romandie had 10-15 years ago of being a good WT primer for young talent, sitting in a calendar spot where most teams' A-listers aren't looking to be at peak form. Romandie suffered from a generation of GC candidates who were also prime Ardennes battlers - Valverde, Schleck brothers, Cunego, Kirchen, Evans, Rodríguez - and this has somewhat been rectified by its role as a warmup stage race for the likes of Froome and Wiggins who aren't one-day racers. Most people targeting May will be racing in Italy, and most people targeting July won't want to be in full race shape now, so California has kind of assumed that position of being a window into the future of GC battles. It's a good race for that role, with heat, some tough climbs, and exposure to more of the complete idiot fans (it seems to be very good at attracting those) than most comparable level races, the question will just be if the race organisers are happy with that role given all of the fanfare the race was launched with on its move to May in 2010. They attracted ridicule then, but the race has carved out a decent niche since.
)-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram