As an ex racer myself I have always been very suspicious of guys who race very little, having perhaps shown little form earlier in the season, who then show up at a certain time and rip everyone's legs off, after weeks spent just "training".
Training doesn't build the top end speed that gives you "form", and there is no better way to build fitness than blocks of racing followed by good recovery. The less I raced, or the fewer races I finished, the worse my form got - the more likely i was to get dropped and so forth.....and all training did was tire me out and dull my speed.
I also laugh at guys like Andy Schleck who are useless all spring, and then emerge as a strong tour contender. Not wanting to get too technical it seems his FTP increases by more than 100w in the weeks leading up to the tour - yet any racer will tell you the numbers hardly vary anything like that much, even after a winter break. The guys who are the best in July, should be among the best at anytime on terrain that suits them unless they have had serious time off, or are injured or sick. "Form" is not much more than some extra watts and a little less pain for the big efforts - not a ridiculous increase in power and performance that takes them from dropping off the back to zooming off the front.
His Sociopathic Majesty and Bruyneel started all this BS with his "peaking" fraud of course, and it now seems ironed into popular consciousness that a rider can have such a ridiculous peak in form when they plan it carefully.
Fwiw i haven't raced for 3 years, and last year rode my bike for a few hours about 10 times. This year I have had 2 rides, and yesterday on my old training route I came within 10% of my old training numbers when I was semi-pro, and that's just on running 3 x a week. Sure I am more tired afterwards, and after 2 hrs I was cooked - but guys like Schleck expect you to believe that despite riding 20hrs a week + every week their form can somehow improve way beyond what I lost after 3 years of hardly touching the bike.
It's a farce.