Chris, You Gadfly! My comment was directed at MY inability to pick the winners of the Grand Tours...the points I presented cause ME to pause when I think of Armstrong winning Tour number cinq. With all the doubts I have about him winning, he just might win by a greater margin than last year...who knows?

But to get to your theory regarding age...Bjarne Riis was no spring chicken in '96 (and neither was Indurain) when he won his Tour. And other social security-eligible Tour winners come to mind: Zoetemelk and Van Impe are two from the modern era.

What has remained a critical need for a rider to win Tours is a great team (despite what I said about Lemond). And Armstrong has had that great team, from Frankie Andreu to Hamilton and Livingstone, and Ekimov, and the Spanish Armada (Herrera and Rubiera), and the Neo-Americans Hincapie and Landis...and more surprises wait in the wings. The question this year is will the Postal team be up to par to deliver Armstrong to the mountains in fresh condition?

That's been the key factor for Armstrong...his Tours are scripted to a TEE, the riders rehearse their parts, and the race is CONTROLLED to prevent any "surprises." One result is that the races are somewhat less than revealing about Armstrong's place among the Tour Greats...he's rarely been in trouble, where his ability to handle a big setback has been tested. He's always in the right place at the right time in the right condition. But as we know, luck has played a major role in some Tours and Armstrong's run of good fortune has been extaordinary. None of this is to say that he's not a great rider; but there has been no high drama, the kind that creates legends, either.

Your points about size bear watching...interesting hypothesis. Eddy Merckx's physiology is a great example to compare with the others.