Somewhere i posted above that “abnormal data” would start the discussion, not end it. The exact discussion we are having on pog now. Abnormal data would not be an automatic doper verdict.
In today’s world, basically every winner get labeled as a suspicious doper. There’s large groups of people that are sure that many of them are doping.
In a future time of releasing data, the majority of “suspicious performances” would be cleared up by the evidence of data. In this world pog would win, post his data, and we would see that he had one hell of a ride and move on.
But no, we have to be stuck in the stone age always wondering and in these endless discussions of potential dopers. I actually believe peoples reputations are actually hurt by not having the data.
I agree with the above. The reason I would like more data to be shared is not to necessarily look for doping, but to demonstrate that the sport is much cleaner than it was. I think it is beyond doubt that it has been far cleaner the last 10 years, but yet you still get people throwing piss at Chris Froome, shouting names at him and generally abusing him. Much of that abuse came from the suspicion around some of his tour de france performances where people were speculating about how much power he was putting out when he won on some climbs, with crazy estimate over 7w/kg etc. In reality, whenever he has shared his data and from studies, it is much lower than that and not unreasonable at all compared to peers.
The same goes for the current conversations on Pog. To be fair to him, he has put a ton of power data out there on strava (albeit from a single sided power meter I think), but if we had data from the final TT on the tour, I am convinced the data would show that it was a great performance, but not outside the realms of human capability and would somewhat stop people throwing completely baseless accusations just based on the history of the sport, which to be fair in spite of its track records has done far more than other sports such as Soccer / NFL when it comes to doping. I think someone used a calculation above of around 6.3w/kg for pogs climb which would not be outlandish numbers. Do people really think if Pog was on some outrageous doping scheme he would be putting all his power numbers on strava voluntarily? especially ones that may be over reading due to the type of powermeter?
Obviously for power data to have any real use, there would have to be some level of control over power meters, but personally, the benefits outweigh the negatives. In fact… I see no negatives.
I’m not sure power data would be useful. One can miscalibrate the power meter to show erroneous data. It doesn’t matter what you ask for, they will be one step ahead.
The majority of the Teams at the Tour ride (bc sponsored) Shimano power meters. So I guess the miscalibration is an already build in feature
Besides that: If individuals / teams go to an incredible extend to get illegal substances in their blood, faking a few numbers / miscalibrating a power meter would be not be the thing that stops them. And we talk just about a few % - that’s probably within the normal range of deviation of a power meter anyways. Not that I really know how doping works, but isn’t it less about power and more about how quick you recover?
I would also like to know what his training has looked like as he grew up. Start racing when you’re 9, with the genetic capacity to have a world class engine.
Probably sprinting for traffic lights and rides fueled by McDonalds.
His aerobic engine was probably streets ahead of everyone else with less training effort required than others, a natural talent.
An even bigger jump is what Evenepoel has done, having only picked up cycling at around 17 years old, and just winning everything since he started. Other than the Grand Tours he hasn’t done yet, his Palmares is arguably better than Pogacars.
Tom Pidcock also has a ridiculous engine, and his bike handling is likely to be world class too
Marc Hirschi is also a monster talent.
So agree. Less than a week afterwards, and the 'ive trained TR and i can’t fathom how they do it when I can’t" seems a little apparent, but pretty funny nevertheless.
Regarding all of the talent, looks so exciting. Imagine pidcock, vdp, evenepoel, wout, hirschi, bernal, sivakov, pog, simmons, hayter, sosa… all at each other in the future. Mental.
I agree, a new generation of talent bodes well for an exciting professional cycling future. New rivalries, etc. It’s so much fun to watch these races and stage races unfold. This is all great entertainment. The way I look at it all is this.
We are seeing the top-tier talent. Some, perhaps with slightly more natural talent than others, some with better training, better lifelong development. It’s great fun to watch. I don’t let the doping aspect of this sport, and other sports, bother me. It’s a part of the performance game, and will always be. Some riders/teams work it within the framework of the rules as much as possible, and others, no doubt, go beyond.
If one rider/team is employing a new approach or substance that is evading detection, the approach will spread and eventually level the field back out. Perhaps it will come to be known by the testing agencies and thwarted down the road. Maybe some old samples will be retained and shame will be dispensed years down the road if the authorities or organizers wish to do so. Or maybe it will all be hush-hush.
Meh, regardless of how things play out, when Le Tour rolls around next year, we’ll all tune in. There will be animated discussion about who the favorites are, is so-and-so going to have a break out year, will someone else finally avoid bad luck and put a complete Tour together. We forget and move on. And then when we see who dominates, we’ll have this discussion all over again.
.
