Cycling 2024

[RobinLFC]

Maybe cycling just isn't for you if the first thing that comes to your mind after such an epic stage is to come to this thread and post unsupported doping allegations, fecking hell.

The equipment, the training at altitude, the nutrition, the recovery, the added knowledge, ... Cycling is a completely different sport these days than it was in the 90s, can't even be compared to each other. Those guys were riding on probably 50g of carbs per hour and thought they were getting enough fuel into their body, nowadays the entire peloton is above 100g per hour. There are plenty of new studies which show that the window of opportunity for muscle recovery isn't as big as we thought back in the days but the right ratio of carbsroteins should be taken in the first 30-45mins after a big effort. These guys are 100x more knowledgeable and dedicated than the 90s epo riders, and, in Pogacar's case, also more talented with a perfectly natural growth curve throughout his career.

But no no, he's doping because he beat some 90s record set by Pantani without adding any context whatsoever.

 

[RobinLFC]

My biggest example of this in the past 10 years is Michal Kwiatkowski. Kwiato could have had one of the greatest palmares ever, close to Peter Sagan levels, but Ineos/Sky turned him into a domestique machine pulling a train for km's in the mountains for Froome, Thomas and later Bernal/Carapaz. Kwiato could have challenged Sagan for the Green jersey, could have won multiple KOM jerseys, and won far more one days classics/monuments were he allowed to prioritize them over peaking for Skytrain. Think about how many Giro/Vuelta stages the man could have won.

Laughable, and selling Sagan short who was one of the greatest riders of that generation. He won bunch sprints against the pure sprinters and went into the breakaways in mountain stages, one of the best all-rounders we've seen in the last few decades. Kwiatkowski's sprint is decent after a tough race but he's not nearly good enough to win bunch sprints, or compete for the green jersey. Likewise for the KOM jersey, not nearly, and I mean, not even remotely good enough in the big mountain stages to compete for the polka dot jersey if as much as one other decent climber would put his mind to it.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Laughable, and selling Sagan short who was one of the greatest riders of that generation. He won bunch sprints against the pure sprinters and went into the breakaways in mountain stages, one of the best all-rounders we've seen in the last few decades. Kwiatkowski's sprint is decent after a tough race but he's not nearly good enough to win bunch sprints, or compete for the green jersey. Likewise for the KOM jersey, not nearly, and I mean, not even remotely good enough in the big mountain stages to compete for the polka dot jersey if as much as one other decent climber would put his mind to it.

Sagan was incredible, but Kwiatkowski consistently beat him when he was at Quickstep.

Green jersey is a stretch to be honest, but Kwiato's sprinting at Quickstep was exponentially better than he was at sky. Sagan won green jerseys not through winning loads and loads of bunch sprints but being a much better climber/puncheur than all the other sprinters.

Also, regarding KOM, you are very wrong.

Kwiatkwoski, post covid has won multiple big mountain stages.

2014 KOM was won by Rafa Majka, 2017 was won by Warren Barguil, 2018 was won by Alaphilippe, then you have winners like Sammy Sanchez and Voeckler.

When did you start watching cycling btw? Because this post coupled with the doping post makes me think you've been watching since the "relatively clean" era.

I watched through the Indurain years, The Ulle/Pantani/Gewiss Ballan years, experienced Festina as a teenager, the Armstrong and USPS years, the mental Astana years, the pre sky years and the sky years.

Every fecking time we see great performances, they *always* turned out to be tainted. Sorry you think we're being negative or "it's not for us" but I've been burnt time and time again.

The earliest tour winner to not fail a drugs test or have serious and severe incidents related to doping was Egan Bernal. That was only in 2019.

Thomas had UCI investigations due to his time at Gianetti's team (now UAE), Froome failed multiple drugs tests + sky dodginess, Cadel Evans rode for the infamous Lotto team that had Ibarguren as their doctor, Schleck and Contador have admitted/been caught doping, Then you have the era with the likes of Sastre, Landis/his mate, then armstrong, then before that ulle, Pantani, Bjarne riis, Big Mig, etc etc.

Do you understand why that for the past 40 years of Cycling, the oldest winner we have that wasn't a proven doper was in 2019, is why we have our reservations?

 

[RobinLFC]

Sagan was incredible, but Kwiatkowski consistently beat him when he was at Quickstep.

Green jersey is a stretch to be honest, but Kwiato's sprinting at Quickstep was exponentially better than he was at sky. Sagan won green jerseys not through winning loads and loads of bunch sprints but being a much better climber/puncheur than all the other sprinters.

Also, regarding KOM, you are very wrong.

Kwiatkwoski, post covid has won multiple big mountain stages.

2014 KOM was won by Rafa Majka, 2017 was won by Warren Barguil, 2018 was won by Alaphilippe, then you have winners like Sammy Sanchez and Voeckler.

When did you start watching cycling btw? Because this post coupled with the doping post makes me think you've been watching since the "relatively clean" era.

I watched through the Indurain years, The Ulle/Pantani/Gewiss Ballan years, experienced Festina as a teenager, the Armstrong and USPS years, the mental Astana years, the pre sky years and the sky years.

Every fecking time we see great performances, they *always* turned out to be tainted. Sorry you think we're being negative or "it's not for us" but I've been burnt time and time again.

The earliest tour winner to not fail a drugs test or have serious and severe incidents related to doping was Egan Bernal. That was only in 2019.

Thomas had UCI investigations due to his time at Gianetti's team (now UAE), Froome failed multiple drugs tests + sky dodginess, Cadel Evans rode for the infamous Lotto team that had Ibarguren as their doctor, Schleck and Contador have admitted/been caught doping, Then you have the era with the likes of Sastre, Landis/his mate, then armstrong, then before that ulle, Pantani, Bjarne riis, Big Mig, etc etc.

Do you understand why that for the past 40 years of Cycling, the oldest winner we have that wasn't a proven doper was in 2019, is why we have our reservations?

Majka and Barguil were by far better climbers than Kwiatkowski. Alaphilippe didn't have competition and literally went all out for it (Barguil and Majka again as closest "competitors"), Samuel Sanchez was a better climber, Voeckler went on a mental run the year he won it. I'm not saying Kwiatkowski couldn't win it at all but it'd have to be a year in which no one else was kinda interested in it. And with the added benefit that the rules were different back in the days compared to how it is now. So "multiple KOM jerseys" is a very big stretch imo. He's a great rider but was far more valuable in the Tour as a super domestique than anything else he could've done for Sky (because let's be fair, who cares about the KOM jersey if you can win the yellow one with your team).

Also, I just refuse to be so dismissive or skeptical about results and performances, just not how I am wired. This new generation of Van Aert, VDP, Evenepoel, Pogacar, ... have all grown up with the Armstrong/Ullrich/Rasmussen/Contador/Schleck/... years and I believe them when they (quite explicitly) state that they do not want to be a part of that and want to be the face of a clean cycling sport.

I am not naive, they are certainly taking everything they (legally) can to be at their very best, that's the competitive side of it, and I can admit that it's likely a grey area for which no rules have been laid down yet. Fair game if you ask me. But I simply do not believe that they are flat out doping like they used to in the good old blood transfusion, Fuentes, epo, Festina, ... days.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Majka and Barguil were by far better climbers than Kwiatkowski. Alaphilippe didn't have competition and literally went all out for it (Barguil and Majka again as closest "competitors"), Samuel Sanchez was a better climber, Voeckler went on a mental run the year he won it. I'm not saying Kwiatkowski couldn't win it at all but it'd have to be a year in which no one else was kinda interested in it. And with the added benefit that the rules were different back in the days compared to how it is now. So "multiple KOM jerseys" is a very big stretch imo. He's a great rider but was far more valuable in the Tour as a super domestique than anything else he could've done for Sky (because let's be fair, who cares about the KOM jersey if you can win the yellow one with your team).

Also, I just refuse to be so dismissive or skeptical about results and performances, just not how I am wired. This new generation of Van Aert, VDP, Evenepoel, Pogacar, ... have all grown up with the Armstrong/Ullrich/Rasmussen/Contador/Schleck/... years and I believe them when they (quite explicitly) state that they do not want to be a part of that and want to be the face of a clean cycling sport.

I am not naive, they are certainly taking everything they (legally) can to be at their very best, that's the competitive side of it, and I can admit that it's likely a grey area for which no rules have been laid down yet. Fair game if you ask me. But I simply do not believe that they are flat out doping like they used to in the good old blood transfusion, Fuentes, epo, Festina, ... days.

You say that:

and yet Geert Leinders was Jumbo's doctor, Gianetti and Ibarguren ran Saunier Duval's doping ring which led to 30 suspensions (30!!!!). Matxin was his DS who worked directly with all the doped riders and Ibarguren who setup all the schedules for the riders.

Gianetti and Matxin now lead UAE.
Cryut still works for Quickstep.
Vanmol still works for Quickstep.
Ibarguren now works for Movistar.
Many of Jumbo's DS's and coaches are still from the RabboBank days.
Piepoli is now a coach.
Ricardo Ricco was spotted with riders in off-season.
MVDP's coach De Kegel was accused of doping u18 riders.
Roglic's coach ran the doping ring at Roglic's team Adria-mobil.
In fact, the Slovenians have been busted recently with a massive doping investigation during Operation Aderlass.
Every Slovenian cyclist at UAE at the time was found to be doping...apart from Pogacar due to Aderlass's investigations.



I could continue this list on and on and on.

You say these riders have changed, and that they don't want to be associated with it. Yet it's the same staff, the same DS's, the same dope doctors and the same leadership for most of the WT teams as it was in the late 90's and 00's.

Nothing has changed in the structure of cycling.
Same people, different colour suit.

 

[RobinLFC]

You say that:

and yet Geert Leinders was Jumbo's doctor, Gianetti and Ibarguren ran Saunier Duval's doping ring which led to 30 suspensions (30!!!!). Matxin was his DS who worked directly with all the doped riders and Ibarguren who setup all the schedules for the riders.

Gianetti and Matxin now lead UAE.
Cryut still works for Quickstep.
Vanmol still works for Quickstep.
Ibarguren now works for Movistar.
Many of Jumbo's DS's and coaches are still from the RabboBank days.
Piepoli is now a coach.
Ricardo Ricco was spotted with riders in off-season.

I could continue this list on and on and on.

You say these riders have changed, and that they don't want to be associated with it. Yet it's the same staff, the same DS's, the same dope doctors and the same leadership for most of the WT teams as it was in the late 90's and 00's.

Nothing has changed in the structure of cycling.
Same people, different colour suit.

Fair enough if you want to think like that, makes me wonder whether you get any enjoyment at all out of performances of the currently great riders though.

 

[SirAF]

And no one is even bothering asking questions anymore, because the top of riders are gents and not assholes like Armstrong. Did Kimmage and Walsh retire? what happened?

Kimmage is very much still obsessed with Lance if you look at his Twitter.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Fair enough if you want to think like that, makes me wonder whether you get any enjoyment at all out of performances of the currently great riders though.

I watch it because I can't let go.

I've watched Pro cycling since before I was a teenager, I was racing crits since the age of 14 and racing road since 16, it's been my life and decades later I just cannot let that go.

I also edited the above post to add some context about the Slovenians.

EDIT - even the guys who are vehmently anti-doping (Vaughters) sign dodgy riders with absolutely insane justifications. For example, his signing of Mark Padun and the consequent mental gymnastics to justify it was mind boggling.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Maybe cycling just isn't for you if the first thing that comes to your mind after such an epic stage is to come to this thread and post unsupported doping allegations, fecking hell.

The equipment, the training at altitude, the nutrition, the recovery, the added knowledge, ... Cycling is a completely different sport these days than it was in the 90s, can't even be compared to each other. Those guys were riding on probably 50g of carbs per hour and thought they were getting enough fuel into their body, nowadays the entire peloton is above 100g per hour. There are plenty of new studies which show that the window of opportunity for muscle recovery isn't as big as we thought back in the days but the right ratio of carbsroteins should be taken in the first 30-45mins after a big effort. These guys are 100x more knowledgeable and dedicated than the 90s epo riders, and, in Pogacar's case, also more talented with a perfectly natural growth curve throughout his career.

But no no, he's doping because he beat some 90s record set by Pantani without adding any context whatsoever.

Pogacar and Vingegaard aren't just crushing the EPO monsters, they're crushing everyone else.

You're right, sport science has come a long way in the last 30 years. It has not come a particularly long way in the last 5. They're making doped up greats like Froome and Contador look like amateurs.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

What compounds it is that people have just resigned and accepted it.

Remember how angry everyone was when Froome did 5.9w/kg for 45 minutes up Ventoux in 2013?

Well, Pogacar just did 7w/kg for 40 and everyone is defending him.

He's a whole w/kg faster than peak Froome

 

[Ainu]

Christ, this thread has turned into a mess these last few pages. Thank god the rest day is over.

 

[RobinLFC]

Pogacar and Vingegaard aren't just crushing the EPO monsters, they're crushing everyone else.

You're right, sport science has come a long way in the last 30 years. It has not come a particularly long way in the last 5. They're making doped up greats like Froome and Contador look like amateurs.

A lot of beliefs have changed in the last 5 years. For training, recovery and nutrition.

 

[giorno]

And I don't see what the problem is. Everyone is doping in the peloton. Everyone. We know it, we've known since the late 90s early 00s, and looking back it's likely the sport hasn't been clean since at least the 80s probably. So what? The best are still the best, and knowing Vingegaard and Pogacar are doping doesn't take away from the excitement of what they did on Sunday for me. If the sport was cleam we'd get the same results, only it likely wouldn't be quite as spectacular to watch. Or maybe it would, who knows. Irrelevant though because the sport is never getting clean again, there's no incentive in that

 

[B20]

And I don't see what the problem is. Everyone is doping in the peloton. Everyone. We know it, we've known since the late 90s early 00s, and looking back it's likely the sport hasn't been clean since at least the 80s probably. So what? The best are still the best, and knowing Vingegaard and Pogacar are doping doesn't take away from the excitement of what they did on Sunday for me. If the sport was cleam we'd get the same results, only it likely wouldn't be quite as spectacular to watch. Or maybe it would, who knows. Irrelevant though because the sport is never getting clean again, there's no incentive in that

Not necessarily. Armstrong would never have won a tour in a clean era. Nor would Indurain. Epo transformed them into being able to climb.

I don't know what the current generation are doing, so maybe the effect is different, but doping is cheating in more ways than one.

Reckon Pantani would have won more than one tour in a clean era though. His climbing skills didn't come from epo.

true though that the sport is never getting clean again. I think I prefer the micro dosing of the late 00s and early 10s, to the return of the supermen, where it's clear someone is benefiting vastly more from doping than others.

 

[RobinLFC]

Not necessarily. Armstrong would never have won a tour in a clean era. Nor would Indurain. Epo transformed them into being able to climb.

I don't know what the current generation are doing, so maybe the effect is different, but doping is cheating in more ways than one.

Reckon Pantani would have won more than one tour in a clean era though. His climbing skills didn't come from epo.

true though that the sport is never getting clean again. I think I prefer the micro dosing of the late 00s and early 10s, to the return of the supermen, where it's clear someone is benefiting vastly more from doping than others.

Again, based on nothing. The unfounded accusations from some in this thread are quite something.

 

[Kasper]

And I don't see what the problem is. Everyone is doping in the peloton. Everyone. We know it, we've known since the late 90s early 00s, and looking back it's likely the sport hasn't been clean since at least the 80s probably. So what? The best are still the best, and knowing Vingegaard and Pogacar are doping doesn't take away from the excitement of what they did on Sunday for me. If the sport was cleam we'd get the same results, only it likely wouldn't be quite as spectacular to watch. Or maybe it would, who knows. Irrelevant though because the sport is never getting clean again, there's no incentive in that

Nah, plenty of clean guys in the Peleton these days, the sport definitely has changed for the better. I would even go as far as saying there have been a few (very few) clean WT stage race winners in the past 15 years.

@RobinLFC The problem isn't the Pantani time (comparing these past times is always a bit tricky) but the differences between the top riders themselves. In the ITT last year Vingegaard beat everyone not named Pogacar by 10% in a 30 minutes effort. That's just unthinkable in any endurance sport and in no way explainable just by bike mechanics and taking risks in a few corners. On sunday 5th place was down 5 minutes on Pogacar. Sure, KJ expenditure matters but the "the race was so hard, therefore big gaps" explanation is getting a bit too common.
Then you have literally the worst of the worst still in charge of teams, I mean fecking Gianetti is as bad as it gets and @AfonsoAlves has mentioned quite a few others.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Again, based on nothing. The unfounded accusations from some in this thread are quite something.

Based on the fact that his climbing ability was akin to someone like Thomas De Gendt before meeting Ferrari?

 

[RobinLFC]

Based on the fact that his climbing ability was akin to someone like Thomas De Gendt before meeting Ferrari?

Must’ve missed De Gendt becoming world champion in 1993, three years before meeting Ferrari, in front of world renowned climbers like Indurain, Riis, Jalabert and Virenque.

Anyway I’m not gonna go down the rabbit hole of defending Lance Armstrong here. But the main thing is you have nothing against Pogacar and his fellow riders apart from “look at the people they are working with” at the moment, unless I have missed some undeniable evidence. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and will enjoy the rest of the Tour without thinking “oh they must surely be on the juice”, cheers.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Must’ve missed De Gendt becoming world champion in 1993, three years before meeting Ferrari, in front of world renowned climbers like Indurain, Riis, Jalabert and Virenque.

Anyway I’m not gonna go down the rabbit hole of defending Lance Armstrong here. But the main thing is you have nothing against Pogacar and his fellow riders apart from “look at the people they are working with” at the moment, unless I have missed some undeniable evidence. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and will enjoy the rest of the Tour without thinking “oh they must surely be on the juice”, cheers.

Did you actually watch that race?

1) It wasn't even a mountain world championships, it was a spring classics style parcours with one repeated punchy climb that peaked out at....133m. Ekerberg is 1.7km at 4.5%. It isn't even as hard as the Poggio.

2) Biggest example of G2 syndrome I have ever seen.

 

[B20]

Again, based on nothing. The unfounded accusations from some in this thread are quite something.

Not based on nothing. I actually did my research on this a few years back and this is what EPO does. It disproportionately favours the less naturally talented. Lemond would have struggled to win the tour in the EPO era even if he was himself on EPO.

If you actually care I can try and find the articles discussing this.

 

[SirAF]

Not necessarily. Armstrong would never have won a tour in a clean era. Nor would Indurain. Epo transformed them into being able to climb.

Nah, Lance would still have killed it if everyone had been clean. Maybe not 7, that's impossible to say, but he would still be a beast. He got smoked when he came to Europe as a youngster and competed "clean" (we don't count "low octane" doping in this case) and came up against Europeans on the good stuff. When he and his fellow US riders got on the EPO train he started punching more. The playing field was levelled.

We're talking about a guy here who competed against grown men in tri when he was 15.

 

[RobinLFC]

Not based on nothing. I actually did my research on this a few years back and this is what EPO does. It disproportionately favours the less naturally talented. Lemond would have struggled to win the tour in the EPO era even if he was himself on EPO.

If you actually care I can try and find the articles discussing this.

There's something wrong with your conclusion drawing skills if you take that to "Armstrong would've never won the Tour in a clean era because he was not a climber otherwise".

There's zero evidence you can bring up to prove that he would not have won a Tour if he wasn't doping. You simply can't, so I don't know why anyone would state such things as a matter of fact. And besides that, not exactly like he was competing against clean riders either.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

There's something wrong with your conclusion drawing skills if you take that to "Armstrong would've never won the Tour in a clean era because he was not a climber otherwise".

Nah, Lance would still have killed it if everyone had been clean. Maybe not 7, that's impossible to say, but he would still be a beast. He got smoked when he came to Europe as a youngster and competed "clean" (we don't count "low octane" doping in this case) and came up against Europeans on the good stuff. When he and his fellow US riders got on the EPO train he started punching more. The playing field was levelled.

We're talking about a guy here who competed against grown men in tri when he was 15.

Show me one good climbing performance of Armstrong pre-him meeting Ferrari via introduction by Bruyneel who was his mate in the Peloton in pre season 1998.

His best performance prior to that was finishing in the GC group in a stage at the Tour de Suisse. He was a roleur/pucheur combination, and he wasn't incredibly elite at either prior to Ferrari. Most of the races he won were 2.2/2.1 or CT races too.

Armstrong's transformation is like if Benoit Cosnefroy or Tiesj Benoot suddenly became Vingegaard.

Also what do you mean by "He started punching more", he was way punchier as a younger rider than when he was a GC rider. Also, I'm amazed at the "Clean americans got on the EPO train" narrative. Lance rode for Motorola pre cancer, one of the most doped up teams in cycling history.

Here is the list of all the doped riders that Motorola had, all their scandals and all the testimonies of their doping program linked here, all while Armstrong was there.

https://www.dopeology.org/teams/Motorola/

 

[SirAF]

Show me one good climbing performance of Armstrong pre-him meeting Ferrari via introduction by Bruyneel who was his mate in the Peloton in pre season 1998.

His best performance prior to that was finishing in the GC group in a stage at the Tour de Suisse. He was a roleur/pucheur combination, and he wasn't incredibly elite at either prior to Ferrari. Most of the races he won were 2.2/2.1 or CT races too.

Armstrong's transformation is like if Benoit Cosnefroy or Tiesj Benoot suddenly became Vingegaard.

This doesn't refute anything. Like I said, Lance at 15 was a beast when he did triathlons. He was a huge talent in terms of competing in endurance sports.

Many people probably don’t realize just how good a triathlete Lance Armstrong was. At 15, in the bold, brash Texan way that he would dominate seven Tour de France races, he burst onto the triathlon scene. A sixth-place finish at the President’s Triathlon in Texas earned him grudging respect from one of the greatest in the sport, Mark Allen.

“He was just this you guy, and I was shocked when people told me his age,” Allen is quoted in John Wilcockson’s book, Lance: The Making of the World’s Greatest Champion. “I wasn’t ancient, probably 25, but a ten-year difference at that age … I thought back to what I was doing at age 15. I was a swimmer, and nowhere near world class. Athletically, development-wise, I just thought, man, here’s this kid who’s 15 and keeping up with the best guys in the world … just this kid who’s doing really well, who told people he was gonna do well.”

Also, remember he was only 24 when he got cancer, he would and could have kept developing if he never got sick and if everyone were clean. But this whole thing is just highly hypothetical as no one were clean and he competed against people who were on the exact same stuff. EPO improves you around 10% right? So if Lance sucked as hard as you're saying compared to the others then they should still be ahead of him when they boosted themselves with the same potion?

 

[AfonsoAlves]

This doesn't refute anything. Like I said, Lance at 15 was a beast when he did triathlons. He was a huge talent in terms of competing in endurance sports.



Also, remember he was only 24 when he got cancer, he would and could have kept developing if he never got sick and if everyone were clean. But this whole thing is just highly hypothetical as no one were clean and he competed against people who were on the exact same stuff. EPO improves you around 10% right? So if Lance sucked as hard as you're saying compared to the others then they should still be ahead of him when they boosted themselves with the same potion?

The Triathalon stuff means nothing. Do you cycle/do endurance sports personally? The "15 year old destroys field" is very normal.

I used to race Cat1's at BC Crits when I was younger. We all had FTP's of atleast 300w, some of the top Cat 1's had FTP's of up to 400w. I used to be based out of Dulwich Paragorn CC HHV in South London, the same base that VC Londres (the prestigious youth academy) is based.

One crit had some of the most promising talents at VC Londres compete with the Cat 1's.

Two teenage kids aged 14 took part in that race. They attacked to form a break on the very first lap and the two of them worked together to ride the entire group off the race. By the end of the race the two of them had lapped the field.

Their names? Ethan Hayter and Fred Wright. Those 2 who are mid pack riders completely decimated a cat 1 field with utter ease at the age of 14. Leo Hayter competed later on when I was no longer around, but apparently he was even more dominant.

EPO does not improve you by 10%. EPO can improve you however much you want based on 1) How much you're willing to risk (based both on health and on how much you want to risk getting caught) and 2) How good your dope doctor is. Lance had Ferrari, the best. The guy literally wrote papers on how to dope people.

 

[SirAF]

EPO does not improve you by 10%. EPO can improve you however much you want based on 1) How much you're willing to risk (based both on health and on how much you want to risk getting caught) and 2) How good your dope doctor is. Lance had Ferrari, the best. The guy literally wrote papers on how to dope people.

As this is not my field I cannot verify what you are saying, but I don't think I'll take it at face value. I see that there are various studies, but would need to take a closer look at those. However, to the best of my knowledge, 10% (ish) seem to be a common acknowledged number.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

As this is not my field I cannot verify what you are saying, but I don't think I'll take it at face value. I see that there are various studies, but would need to take a closer look at those. However, to the best of my knowledge, 10% (ish) seem to be a common acknowledged number.

I can dig out the hematocrit levels of the Gewiss Ballan team if that helps? I have a pdf somewhere that Ferrari published showing the pre and post hematocrit blood efficacy.

From the top of my head in one season, Ferrari got Ugrumovs hematocrit levels from 32% to 55%, which transformed him from a C tiers flats domestique who grupettoed every tour mountain stage to being a Tour GC podium in the space of like 9 months.

 

[RobinLFC]

Show me one good climbing performance of Armstrong pre-him meeting Ferrari via introduction by Bruyneel who was his mate in the Peloton in pre season 1998.

His best performance prior to that was finishing in the GC group in a stage at the Tour de Suisse. He was a roleur/pucheur combination, and he wasn't incredibly elite at either prior to Ferrari. Most of the races he won were 2.2/2.1 or CT races too.

Armstrong's transformation is like if Benoit Cosnefroy or Tiesj Benoot suddenly became Vingegaard.

Also what do you mean by "He started punching more", he was way punchier as a younger rider than when he was a GC rider. Also, I'm amazed at the "Clean americans got on the EPO train" narrative. Lance rode for Motorola pre cancer, one of the most doped up teams in cycling history.

Here is the list of all the doped riders that Motorola had, all their scandals and all the testimonies of their doping program linked here, all while Armstrong was there.

https://www.dopeology.org/teams/Motorola/

No, Armstrong's transformation is like Vingegaard sudenly becoming Vingegaard. You act as if riders can't improve on things - Wiggins won his Tour at 32, Froome his first at 28. Armstrong got his cancer at 25, and won his first Tour when he was 27 years old.

Of course he was doping, I'm just disagreeing that it's a certainty he wouldn't have won the Tour in a clean era. He inherently had the talent imo (and, more importantly, the perseverence compared to the likes of Ullrich).

 

[AfonsoAlves]

As this is not my field I cannot verify what you are saying, but I don't think I'll take it at face value. I see that there are various studies, but would need to take a closer look at those. However, to the best of my knowledge, 10% (ish) seem to be a common acknowledged number.

Here is its.

http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualite/1999-03-13-lesoir.htm

He got Urgrumov's blood density by 27.2% (!!!!!!)

There's also the fact that everyone responds differently to high levels of Hmt levels. Some people with higher than 50% can die if they go too much. Riders like Ugrumov could get to 60% at the body still functions properly.

Bjarne Riis had to wake up every 2-3 hours in the middle of the night to do rides on the trainer because his blood was too thick that his heart couldn't pump strong enough for bloodflow to be efficient at resting heart rate. If he didn't do that he would die.

Bjarne Riis finished 100+ in the 1992 giro, one year later he would podium the tour.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Here is its.

http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualite/1999-03-13-lesoir.htm

He got Urgrumov's blood density by 27.2% (!!!!!!)

There's also the fact that everyone responds differently to high levels of Hmt levels. Some people with higher than 50% can die if they go too much. Riders like Ugrumov could get to 60% at the body still functions properly.

Bjarne Riis had to wake up every 2-3 hours in the middle of the night to do rides on the trainer because his blood was too thick that his heart couldn't pump strong enough for bloodflow to be efficient at resting heart rate. If he didn't do that he would die.

Bjarne Riis finished 100+ in the 1992 giro, one year later he would podium the tour.

Bjarne Riis, best doper ever. Mr. 60 !

 

[AfonsoAlves]

No, Armstrong's transformation is like Vingegaard sudenly becoming Vingegaard. You act as if riders can't improve on things - Wiggins won his Tour at 32, Froome his first at 28. Armstrong got his cancer at 25, and won his first Tour when he was 27 years old.

Of course he was doping, I'm just disagreeing that it's a certainty he wouldn't have won the Tour in a clean era. He inherently had the talent imo (and, more importantly, the perseverence compared to the likes of Ullrich).

I'm not acting like people can't improve.

But every rider that did so to that degree was convicted of doping, and I'm sure Vingegaard would too.

Armstrong changed the rider he was completely, like he reinvited himself. There is no indication that he would suddenly do so.

Wiggins was always a potential GC rider, he almost podiumed 3 years before his win in the Astana madness tour.

Froome is an outrageous example because he went from Grupetto trash that Brailsford wanted to get rid of but nobody wanted to buy, to being a GC contender with Cobo (who also got busted for doping) at the 2011 Vuelta.

Fun fact: At the Vuelta 2011, Brailsford was in such shock at Froome's performance he personally asked to see Froome's blood test results because he thought Froome was doping from external sources.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Do you guys remember the absolute state of Chris Horner

Everyone accused him of doping, so he said to prove he wasn't doping he released his blood hematocrit levels...only to show pretty conclusive evidence of doping because his hematocrit suddenly jumped by like 15% on the 3rd week rest day

 

[NotThatSoph]

A lot of beliefs have changed in the last 5 years. For training, recovery and nutrition.

Those beliefs don't let you suddenly do 7 W/kg for 40 minutes, numbers that are almost unheard of even among the most extreme dopers. Again, Froome would have looked like a junior out there. Vingegaard did 6.85, which is already insane, and was crushed. We're talking Armstrong/Pantani/Indurain here.

And I don't see what the problem is. Everyone is doping in the peloton. Everyone. We know it, we've known since the late 90s early 00s, and looking back it's likely the sport hasn't been clean since at least the 80s probably. So what? The best are still the best, and knowing Vingegaard and Pogacar are doping doesn't take away from the excitement of what they did on Sunday for me. If the sport was cleam we'd get the same results, only it likely wouldn't be quite as spectacular to watch. Or maybe it would, who knows. Irrelevant though because the sport is never getting clean again, there's no incentive in that

Who would have been the best in a clean sport is unknown, but it's extremely unlikely that the result would be the same. There are many reasons for this:

- While we can say that everyone is doping, it's not actually true. A portion of the field, unknown how big, is actually clean. This is especially true when we take into account talents who would have made it, but don't because they choose not to cheat.
- It's not as simple as doping=doping. We know this across eras, because amphetamine isn't EPO isn't microdosing for recovery isn't whatever happening now. But, it's also true within eras. We know that lots of forms of doping carries with it health risk, so even among the cheaters some will dope more than others.
- Similar point to above, another form of risk is getting caught. The more you cheat, the easier it is to detect, and therefore it takes more money and more expertise to hide. Not all teams are equal here, very far from it, and cheating rewards the riders on the teams that are better than this.
- Still on individual differences, even if we take into account the different ways to dope and the amount of risk taken, it's not the same. Just like different people's bodies respond differently to training, so they do to doping. Two athletes who would have been similarly skilled in a clean sport might see very different results when doping, because one responds very well to it while the other doesn't.

Of course it's still true that the top dopers are exceptional athletes, and would very likely be that in a clean field as well.

 

[Zen]

You could comfortably just think this thread has time warped back to 2004 if you changed the names a bit.... the arguments are essentially 100% the same

 

[SirAF]

Armstrong changed the rider he was completely, like he reinvited himself. There is no indication that he would suddenly do so.

Lance met and started working with Ferrari in 95/96 though. His biggest transformation came post-cancer. By then he had already used EPO for years.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Here's an estimate of stage 15. Vingegaard has confirmed that they're accurate for him (which shouldn't be a surprise, estimates uphill aren't that hard).



In "the greatest ITT the world has ever seen", Vingegaard amazed everyone. It was literally unbelievable for a lot of people. On stage 15, after almost 200 km of riding and a really strong pull from Jorgenson up the first part of the mountain, Vingegaard's attack equaled that monster performance from last year. Then, after following with ease, Pogacar did what he did.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Do you guys remember the absolute state of Chris Horner

Everyone accused him of doping, so he said to prove he wasn't doping he released his blood hematocrit levels...only to show pretty conclusive evidence of doping because his hematocrit suddenly jumped by like 15% on the 3rd week rest day

He just ate a lot of burgers man

Chris Horner, the last American to win La Vuelta: I ate 12 burgers before the mountain stages

 

[B20]

He just ate a lot of burgers man

Chris Horner, the last American to win La Vuelta: I ate 12 burgers before the mountain stages

Since then, sports science has been discovered, and now we know not to eat a dozen burgers, hence vingo and Pogacar

 

[Mike Smalling]

Since then, sports science has been discovered, and now we know not to eat a dozen burgers, hence vingo and Pogacar

I'd say the belief has changed. Now it is considered best practice to eat 24 hamburgers before the mountain stages.

 

[Rams]

You say that:

and yet Geert Leinders was Jumbo's doctor, Gianetti and Ibarguren ran Saunier Duval's doping ring which led to 30 suspensions (30!!!!). Matxin was his DS who worked directly with all the doped riders and Ibarguren who setup all the schedules for the riders.

Gianetti and Matxin now lead UAE.
Cryut still works for Quickstep.
Vanmol still works for Quickstep.
Ibarguren now works for Movistar.
Many of Jumbo's DS's and coaches are still from the RabboBank days.
Piepoli is now a coach.
Ricardo Ricco was spotted with riders in off-season.
MVDP's coach De Kegel was accused of doping u18 riders.
Roglic's coach ran the doping ring at Roglic's team Adria-mobil.
In fact, the Slovenians have been busted recently with a massive doping investigation during Operation Aderlass.
Every Slovenian cyclist at UAE at the time was found to be doping...apart from Pogacar due to Aderlass's investigations.



I could continue this list on and on and on.

You say these riders have changed, and that they don't want to be associated with it. Yet it's the same staff, the same DS's, the same dope doctors and the same leadership for most of the WT teams as it was in the late 90's and 00's.

Nothing has changed in the structure of cycling.
Same people, different colour suit.

This is just one perspective though. I’ve been caught with my pants down over the years defending cycling so I’m certainly not going put my hand in the fire for the innocence of any cyclist, but the counter argument is that the testing is light years ahead of what it used to be, they can now pick up the slightest dosis of synthetic drugs with things like carbon isotope tests, and the biological passport will also accurately pick things up. So it’s very unlikely that even if they dope, they’re doping like they did 20 years ago.
On the other hand, cycling has made very significant improvements in the nutrition & recovery of the athletes, that will for a large part explain the increases in performance. Each athlete now has the exact amount of food intake and rest to best suit each particular athlete. We know it works and now other sports are copying these nes sciences. Cycling has become to sports science what F1 is to the automotive industry.
So even though there are athletes doping or at least bending the rules, and there are also still weaknesses in the out of competition testing, general consensus is that it’s become far more difficult to dope in cycling without getting caught.