Yes, apologies!
Great link to George Bennett’s comments. I’m a big fan of his (being a kiwi), and he’s like most kiwis’, brutally honest and with no bu!!$hit.
There is that alright…
Just a thought on this though, if the young riders are at the front because the old riders can’t dope anymore, then how do we explain the young riders bettering the times set 20 years ago by known dopers?
We all start in cycling at some point. Usually we start out and ride while only taking in some water. And at the beginning we don’t even drink the water we took with us on the ride.
Then, we realize at least ( some ) water is important and start to drink more consistently.
Then, we start to fatigue, get light headed, recover badly and we realize we also need food. We need food to go a little harder for longer.
We take the food and find out it helps.
Then our gains seem to plateau again, and we turn to, Sport legs, Lactate Love juice, or any other supplement or vitamin we see advertised in a mag.
Before you know it, you’re knocking on 5.5 watts per kilo’s back door and you’ve come so far to get there.
You knock on that door… someone answers. And they hand you this.
How much has tech/ training etc come on in the last 10 years, never mind 20?
Alex Dowsett posted this earlier in the week:
Thinking back to when I started watching cycling over 10 years ago, skin suits were for TT’s only and an aero bike was nowhere to be seen under a sprinter, never mind a GC contender.
So serious question, if I wanted to start a thread about Pog aerobic engine and leave doping and genetics out of it (since they have clearly got that covered here), what would I title it? I’m happy to play thread police and direct doping comments to the current thread.
I’m genuinely interested in discussing San Millan, lactate, intensity distribution, volume, build up to the Tour, hell, even data…you know, the things that might have also contributed to the title of this thread.
Suggestions?
How much has tech/ training etc come on in the last 10 years, never mind 20?
Alex Dowsett posted this earlier in the week:
There was a climb earlier in this years tour when I thought Pog bet Pantani’s 20 year old record for the climb. I would argue that Pantani had a 6.8kg bike too, and the only thing different is pog ran a bigger cassette and smaller ring. Pantani would have been allowed to remove his helmet back then on the climb, and had a pharmacy of drugs inside him.
I agree, that in a TT (the first half where aero mattered), a new bike is faster than a 20 year old Bianchi. In the second half of the TT, the main suspicion comes from how Pog took 1 min from Tom Dom.
So you think Pog is doping but the rest of the peloton isnt?
Aero starts taking effect over 10mph. Compare Pantani’s bike with box section wheels and a standard 2020 TDF bike with 40/45mm carbon tubs.
Compare tyres, speed suits, handlebars, helmets (or bandana’s haha) and start adding up all the little )and big) gains here and there.
Chris Froome frequently puts his power data on strava now, and after team sky released his physiological data and power data I actually feel that has helped people see that what he was achieving was exceptional but not mutant physiologically.
I am in the camp that believes riders releasing powerdata for each race should be obligatory.
You’re right. The thread title is completely appropriate for that discussion. I should have said the thread was about pog and that’s why we are only discussing him here. My apologies.
With the current status quo, we will never be able to have these discussions separately though. That’s why i push for full data release. So we can move past it.
Dumoulin has been nowhere close to Pog this whole Tour. I find it perfectly plausible that Pog beats him on that climb.
" 1m
So you think Pog is doping but the rest of the peloton isnt?"
No, if Pog doped, then I think most other riders did too. I cannot fathom that it would be just one 21 year old rider from a smaller team. If he’d doped, and passed the testing, then he’d need some help to not go too far and fail tests. He’d need either some older pro’s or doctors or something.
I do not believe the current testing (including bio passport), are sufficient to catch 1) outright cheating, or 2) grey area cheating with TUE’s etc. I have yet to see evidence of this. I see riders being tested many times, and very few failing. If a rider passes say 30 tests, and then fails one, are we to believe that they just started doping before test 30? Or is it that they’d been doping the whole time, but got careless (got tested when they were still glowing, or flew too close to the haematocrit line) and finally crossed the threshold?
I’d really like the UCI or WADA etc to do a study, take 1000 riders, and have half them dope (do all the things that you can and shoulder fail a test), and the other half just train as we’re told the clean pros do. Prove that the testing does catch cheats.
That question implies a few things…
- All doping is equal
- All cheaters dope equally
- All dopers respond the same to doping
In reality, none of those three things are true.
Blockquote mdlyons1980
lomsey
Chris Froome frequently puts his power data on strava now, and after team sky released his physiological data and power data I actually feel that has helped people see that what he was achieving was exceptional but not mutant physiologically.
_____________-
Froome did that lab test a couple years ago to show his power has been consistent for years. What was missing for me, was that the data started once he’d joined sky. We really need to see a riders power data from well before they could reasonably have been doping. I know, we can’t go back and get Valverde’s data from when he was 12, but I hope in a decade or so, we’ll have data from the TdF winner that shows 6 weekly FTP results from when they were 14 until they won the TdF at 24.
I still don’t understand how all of this would prove doping. Even if someone did show some great improvement they could just all chalk it up to finally finding the perfect training for them, while improving their diet and sleep, having an amazing team environment, altitude, etc. Unless they are putting out like 8+W/kg it’s basically all circumstantial evidence that proves nothing and would just fuel every armchair GC contender to accuse people of something suspicious.
Blockquote mwglow15
I still don’t understand how all of this would prove doping. Even if someone did show some great improvement they could just all chalk it up to finally finding the perfect training for them, while improving their diet and sleep, having an amazing team environment, altitude, etc. Unless they are putting out like 8+W/kg it’s basically all circumstantial evidence that proves nothing and would just fuel every armchair GC contender to accuse people of something suspicious.
Blockquote
Yeah, complete proof will only come when you catch someone administering the drugs.
A step change in their FTP though, would be pretty hard to explain though.
It is curious as to how Pog (assuming completely clean here) developed at such a young age to perform like he did. He’s reported to have only started using power recently. I’ve love to know about who his coaches have been the last few years and what techniques they use.
These proper gains would become “normalized” with enough data. We would see that a 50w increase is capable without the juice. We have no idea about what the capabilities are. I’m not saying year 1 of posting data the problem will be solved. But every year of additional data would get us closer.
It’s interesting that everyone is so high on TR’s ability with AI and ML with their huge dataset, but they are against the exact same thing with the pro’s data.
And i think this would actually clear more people from doping accusations too.
I wouldn’t say I’m high on AI or ML but the implications of using power data to identify doping and getting it wrong is far greater than to tweak your training. Worst case for TR using is is that you get a bit too fatigued or maybe don’t hit 100% of your potential. But the worst case for WADA using it is that you destroy someone’s career with a false allegation.
These gains are also so individual. Rider A might see huge gains from introducing VO2 efforts after the base period while another might not. Rider A might then be at risk of being popped because their FTP goes up 30W in 6 weeks. Maybe they had some family stress going on that got alleviated so now they get an extra boost from that. There are just so many compounding variables that in the end it still wouldn’t prove anything.
The rider would still need to be drug tested to prove any doping and if they are already doing so well that there is suspicion of them doping then they are probably already being tested regularly.
" The power passport
Lack of investment stalling progress isn’t the preserve of Pitsiladis. At June’s World Cycling Science Conference in Caen, France, sports scientists Louis Passfield and James Hopker presented their ideas for a power passport.
‘The idea is that we monitor riders’ power data over time,’ says Passfield from Calgary, Canada, where he’s on a year’s education sabbatical from his job at the University of Kent.
‘The concept is that we monitor patterns and, if we observe a disproportionate return from training, it could be a sign of doping.’
Passfield concedes data differences between power meters – even variations between identical power meters – is an issue to resolve, but highlights that the power passport will complement the biological version, not usurp it.
‘James and I showed the idea to WADA earlier in the year. One of the professors in attendance was Martial Saugy, who co-created the biological passport.
He thought the idea sounded fantastic as he’d never intended the passport to be solely blood-based.’"