RAAM vs the Tours is actually an interesting debate I have been having recently because a member of one of the Club's I belong to is doing RAAM this year with the intention of winning and I really hope he achieves his goal. He already holds one endurance world record and is now aiming for this - he is sponsored by Red Bull and is seen as a serious contender.

I have questioned why he and some others - especially the organisers of RAAM - would consider it tougher than the Tour de France. Personally, I do not see it and think it more a RAAM organisation dream to have it favourably compared.

RAAM attracts a very small niche of cyclists. I absolutely believe that there are current Continental Pro's and World Tour Pro's who would comfortably beat the RAAM record if they put their minds to it - but the vast majority of elite cyclists don't see it as worth doing vs something else since they get paid to race more prestigious events. RAAM is a very personal time trial where the riders pace themselves according to their ability and minimum sleep needs. It is an interesting event and worthy of being called a very tough one to do - major kudos to all who do it, let alone win it. However, it literally pales compared to any of the Tours, let alone the Tour de France.

In the Tours they are racing every day. The average domestique goes through a lot each and every race day supporting their leader, sacrificing themselves and spending themselves to exhaustion. Every day. The Tours are also contended by the World's best cyclists. The proving grounds to qualify for RAAM are far, far easier to accomplish for you and I vs becoming an Elite Professional. The guy I know doing it this year would be hopelessly annihilated by any Continental Pro, let alone a World Tour one in any one day or stage race. He has never had a hope of being Pro level. But he can do what it takes to qualify for RAAM.

The guys and girls who do the Tour de France et al aren't just riding it as a feat of endurance in as short a time as possible. They are elite Pro's racing it. Racing at a pace that is so much faster than RAAM cyclists experience at greater, more demanding elevations - the mountain routes themselves take so much more out of you at racing pace than distance at steady but quick pace so the distance differences between them is a red herring as a guide to 'toughness'. Sure, they have greater support, a lot more rest each day etc but the demands of racing the way they do are higher. I remember watching Stephen Roche back in the 80's finish at the top of a mountain stage collapsing, needing oxygen, completely and utterly spent to keep Yellow. He was back on the bike racing the next day and the day's after that.

RAAM is tough. Mentally and physically. A great feat. But I can't help but think that if it was worth their time and effort and current, not past their prime, World Tour Pro's gave it a go they would take it to a whole new level - it simply doesn't attract the very, very best. It is a niche endurance event that many non-WT Pro's can realistically complete if they really want to, as tough as it is and it is certainly the toughest event of its kind; ie. ultra long time trial. The same athletes cannot get on to current top Pro Teams. Therefore, I cannot hold it in the same light as any of the big Tours.