In a little over two weeks, cycling’s main event for sponsors and media coverage, the 94th Tour de France, begins in London, and everyone has started making predictions on how it's going to go.

I feel strangely unexcited about the beginning of the Grand Boucle (the big ring or wheel) because in the past 10 to 15 years it has become so predictable that in my opinion it has lost some of its previous aura.

One of the reasons for this, as I have said, is its predictability. We already know the pattern the race will take: the first week will be spent watching the bunch chasing successfully the early breakaway when there are some five to 15 miles to go, and then the sprinters will take centre stage for the sprint finish.

'in the past 10 to 15 years the Grand Boucle has become so predictable that in my opinion it has lost some of its previous aura'


Then we’ll have some battles on the Alps, with long climbs and with only one arrivée set atop a mountain (oh, and it’s not the Alpe d’Huez, it’s quite an event). We’ll then have a couple of flat stages with 'breakaway' written all over them before finding the first long Individual Time Trial (almost 35 miles) and subsequently entering the Pyrenees. There we’ll have two mountain arrivées, both after long, but steady, climbs. After the Pyrenees we’ll have some more flat stages for other breakaways before the second 35-mile-long ITT and the finale on the Champs Elysées.

Predictability: The climbs on the mountain stages are extremely long but they are not so steep and, most importantly,  they don’t change their steepness much above or below their average. When they say a climb has an average 7.5%, it means that it rarely reaches even the 8%, and this is a problem because the more regular a climb is the easier is to climb it.

The long ITTs are another problem. A good time-trialist has a wonderful chance of taking the yellow jersey to Paris; the only not-so-good time-trialist to win the Tour since 1990 has been Marco Pantani back in 1998, and before him Claudio Chiappucci came close to winning it, finishing second in 1990 and third in 1991 (I didn’t consider Richard Vireque finishing third in 1996 and second in 1997, due to his doping record when he was with Festina).

You can be pretty sure that you won’t see a pure climber win this year’s Tour, not with over 70 miles of (flat) ITTs ahead of him. You can say that this is due to the geography of France, and that’s in part true. But the real issue is that the ASO (the organisers) have shown that they are not interested in doing what many cycling experts and fans have requested in the past 10 years: change the format of the stages in order to make it more exciting and difficult.

On the other hand, in recent years, Giro and Vuelta have been re-shaping themselves. Both have sensibly reduced the number of miles of ITTs - this year 36 miles for the Giro (one was a mountain ITT) and 46 miles for the Vuelta. Giro have discovered in the last 10 years many mountains in the south of Italy, and the organisers have taken advantage of the contours of the Italian peninsula to create beautiful stages where the words 'flat stage' are unknown.

Vuelta chose to shorten most of the stages in order to keep the riders ready to attack at every opportunity. The choice paid off and really hit a high point last year with the Kazakh duo of Alexandre Vinokourov and Andrey Kashechkin attacking home favourite Alejandro Valverde every time they saw the road go up towards a mountain.

I also find many 'minor' tours far more interesting than the Grand Boucle: the Tour de Suisse, where mountains are present almost every day; the Vuelta Catalunya, where if you’re not in the best shape you’d better withdraw; the Supervolta à Portugal, where 'plain' is only an abstract concept; even the Tour of Qinghai Lake in China, where the altitude never goes below 2,000 metres and the only flat stage is the last one, a city circuit.

The Tour de France has lost its aura. It’s not a sports event any more, it’s more a media showcase, not only for the history it has but also for the media coverage it has endured thanks to some champions in the past. Another advantage it has is that it takes place in July, when most of the other sports are 'out for the summer', while the Giro runs in May (the great finale of European football leagues) and the Vuelta in September (the great beginning of European football). So these two events are at risk of being overshadowed by football in particular and by other sports in general.

Is the Tour de France overrated as a cycling event? My answer is a strong “yes”. Are Giro, Vuelta and other tours underrated? “Yes” again - and stronger than the first one. These races deserve more praise and also better media coverage, in order to achieve the Tour-like worldwide support they should have.