Are We in the We Don't Know Era?

[The Hegelian]

Very good OP. I went unsure, but I think the true answer for me is more like "Probably, but don't care".

There's a lot about this generation (outside of cycling) that I don't really get.

Within cycling, the level is pretty crazy, in terms of watts, climbing times, recovery, time in peak etc. If you know cycling history it is very hard to explain all that without recourse to doping. It really doesn't make sense: this clean generation dominates past generations where doping was obviously happening.

So that's the "probably"

What about the "don't care"

I think if it is there, do omerta all the way down and don't crap on about how moral, pure and clean you are. What drove me to the clinic in the Sky era was that horrible gap between discourse and reality. What was egregious about Armstrong was his Maoist politics more than his doping actions.

If the top riders are juiced to the gills now, I'm okay with it so long as they keep playing this Indurain style rather than Brailsford style. Just be nice and fly under the radar.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Very good OP. I went unsure, but I think the true answer for me is more like "Probably, but don't care".

There's a lot about this generation (outside of cycling) that I don't really get.

Within cycling, the level is pretty crazy, in terms of watts, climbing times, recovery, time in peak etc. If you know cycling history it is very hard to explain all that without recourse to doping. It really doesn't make sense: this clean generation dominates past generations where doping was obviously happening.

So that's the "probably"

What about the "don't care"

I think if it is there, do omerta all the way down and don't crap on about how moral, pure and clean you are. What drove me to the clinic in the Sky era was that horrible gap between discourse and reality. What was egregious about Armstrong was his Maoist politics more than his doping actions.

If the top riders are juiced to the gills now, I'm okay with it so long as they keep playing this Indurain style rather than Brailsford style. Just be nice and fly under the radar.

I think the issue isn't just omerta all the way down (and up and around), but competitive sports in general. On top of that there's the negative list, which is an incentive to use everything that's not on it anyways. It's just not a good system.
Then there's the information side of it all: when you think you know you're opponent is doping, you have an incentive to do so as well to stay competitive, if you know your opponent is doping you have an even stronger one, as the system does not work to make the problem go away for you. Also there's the never ending incentive for professional sports teams to try to find ways to get a legal advantage, also if it might not last. So there's gonna be money and time invested into figuring out how to achieve that. Legal or otherwise.
When the stress get's higher and you still gotta perform to stay in the game, doping will be the result. If in pro sports or in legal teams, running on synthetic drugs for example. The history of cycling is a testimony to that.

To have "clean, natural" performance is a romantic idea that's never been realistic imo. The most stupid argument being that doping is unhealthy, like as if pro sports were good for the body in the long term.

 

[Andon]

I feel like the game has changed fundamentally. In the long history of a doped- up sport, there's still been some boundaries. There are reasons why nobody has won all the grand tours in the same calendar year. But based on everything we've seen this year, if Pog wants to win Vuelta then he will win Vuelta.

But I have to ask those who have followed the sport longer, has it always been like this, that winning all three is out of the question because of "human physiology" or whatever has been the accepted as truth, or is it in part because it would break the Omerta.

What I found is this quote from peak Merckx (1973 when winning Giro + Vuelta): "Merckx thought it was impossible to start in three grand tours in one year, so he stayed away from the Tour".
Someone like peak Armstrong couldn't have done it, there are boundaries to how much you can achieve with the old- school cocktail and it's not like he was the only one doing it.

It just feels that what we see right now is unprecedented in the history of the sport. It's more than just "this guy has the best doctors".

 

[Extinction]

In cycling, it's evident that EPO had a huge impact, but that the peloton slowed after Festina (and the EPO test). It gained ground again until Puerto, but didn't reach the EPO speeds. Then it was at its slowest from the passport to the pandemic. We have good measures of the peloton's speed, and we can point to what managed to slow it down.

Is this really true thought? Well Pantani's wings were clipped in 99 (after Festina), but bar this I don't think he'd have slowed down. Armstrong rode some blistering ascents after Festina (Hautacam, Alpe d'Huez), then you had Basso in 2006 Giro (and he may have gone on to win that Tour). During Puerto you had Landis' resurrection, afterwards Contador (until clengate) seemed like the new Pantani who could TT like Armstrong. And then, the greatest of all cycling metamorphoses, Froome Dawg, whose washing machine peddling pulverized Contador et all on Mount Ventoux. And were not new record speeds for the Tour set during the Sky reign? I don't think this suggests the peloton slowed down in any meaningful way.

 

[Extinction]

I feel like the game has changed fundamentally. In the long history of a doped- up sport, there's still been some boundaries. There are reasons why nobody has won all the grand tours in the same calendar year. But based on everything we've seen this year, if Pog wants to win Vuelta then he will win Vuelta.

But I have to ask those who have followed the sport longer, has it always been like this, that winning all three is out of the question because of "human physiology" or whatever has been the accepted as truth, or is it in part because it would break the Omerta.

What I found is this quote from peak Merckx (1973 when winning Giro + Vuelta): "Merckx thought it was impossible to start in three grand tours in one year, so he stayed away from the Tour".
Someone like peak Armstrong couldn't have done it, there are boundaries to how much you can achieve with the old- school cocktail and it's not like he was the only one doing it.

It just feels that what we see right now is unprecedented in the history of the sport. It's more than just "this guy has the best doctors".

Until they moved the Vuelta to Aug/Sept in 1995 it was impossible, because the Tour would have been the third GT to win. There's been talk of going for the tripple crown since Contador's time, but nobody yet has been able to attempt it, because nobody since Pantani in 1998 has succeeded in the Giro-Tour double the first requisite. I believe the only reason Pogi doesn't go for the Vuelta now is to not make it look all too obvious what the Gianetti-Matxin program is really all about.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Is this really true thought? Well Pantani's wings were clipped in 99 (after Festina), but bar this I don't think he'd have slowed down. Armstrong rode some blistering ascents after Festina (Hautacam, Alpe d'Huez), then you had Basso in 2006 Giro (and he may have gone on to win that Tour). During Puerto you had Landis' resurrection, afterwards Contador (until clengate) seemed like the new Pantani who could TT like Armstrong. And then, the greatest of all cycling metamorphoses, Froome Dawg, whose washing machine peddling pulverized Contador et all on Mount Ventoux. And were not new record speeds for the Tour set during the Sky reign? I don't think this suggests the peloton slowed down in any meaningful way.

The biggest peleton slow-down was between Contador's clengate and COVID (so roughly the whole 2010s). At that time top guys needed a few more minutes to climb Alpe d'Huez than Teddy needed to climb 12% larger Plateau de Beille recently!

 

[Extinction]

What?

Climbing times and W/kg estimates slowed down tremendously between the mid-late 1990s and the late '00s. Any increase in 'average' speed over the whole Tours can easily be attributed to faster flat stages, easier mountain stages, better aerodynamics, etc

So you're saying from 2010-2020 they were going significantly slower than from 1992-2009? That there was a drop in performance between these periods? Really...

 

[Extinction]

The biggest peleton slow-down was between Contador's clengate and COVID (so roughly the whole 2010s). At that time top guys needed a few more minutes to climb Alpe d'Huez than Teddy needed to climb 12% larger Plateau de Beille recently!

I'd say the biggest slow-down was pre and post-sambuterol Froomey. But like Contador, the plug was pulled from the laboratory, the crash just being a convenient diversion.

 

[Eclipse]

The biggest peleton slow-down was between Contador's clengate and COVID (so roughly the whole 2010s). At that time top guys needed a few more minutes to climb Alpe d'Huez than Teddy needed to climb 12% larger Plateau de Beille recently!

The easiest measuring stick is genuinely how competitive the French are.

 

[Andon]

Until they moved the Vuelta to Aug/Sept in 1995 it was impossible, because the Tour would have been the third GT to win. There's been talk of going for the tripple crown since Contador's time, but nobody yet has been able to attempt it, because nobody since Pantani in 1998 has succeeded in the Giro-Tour double the first requisite.

Right, thanks. Looking at those GT dates from Merckx era and Indurain era, they are too close to each other for any meaningful hypothesis of winning all three, especially with Tour being third.

 

[Netserk]

So you're saying from 2010-2020 they were going significantly slower than from 1992-2009? That there was a drop in performance between these periods? Really...

1994-2007 was faster on climbs than 2008-2019.

 

[Extinction]

1994-2007 was faster on climbs than 2008-2019.

Several circumstances could explain this, principal among them being guys like Il Cobra and Contador were stopped and imagine the climbing speeds of the 2014 Tour had Froome and Contador not crashed out.

 

[Penninepeddler]

I don't think this is a very accurate assessment of how football has developed over the past fifteen years, especially over the past five. The best teams in the world press a lot less now than they did in the back end of the 2010s, and the game has slowed considerably (Manchester City a key eg). To add to that, while pressing has become more intense since 2010, the game is much more compact, especially in England. End to end football is extremely rare nowadays, it tends to be teams camped in one end then the other depending the momentum in that moment. You don't get basketball style matches (the Euros, especially, was very very controlled). So I don't really buy the "footballers are much fitter" story – compared to the 90s, sure, but premier league players were actual drunks. Compared to early 2010s it's not been a major shift, even if the form of that fitness has differed. Leeds and Atalanta were probably the most obviously doping teams, the entire Liverpool team had masses of TUEs, too.



Also unconvinced by this. Cycling over the past decades has led the way on every new PED development there is. Plus, footballers aren't performing at totally abnormal levels of physical function in the way Pogacar is here. Someone like McTominay, one of the fittest players in the Premier League, ran a 16 minute interval 5k, which is not that out there (probably translates to an 18 minute non-interval 5k, and I have friends/family who run that). Pogacar/Vingegaard's performances are so far beyond what footballers do. I can't speak for other sports, I know them less, but I don't see much evidence in terms of athletic performance that cycling is catching up to a sport like football, given that most footballers are well within the realm of low-level doping rather than 60% HC doping.

Yeh... I mean, go to any decent city's park-run and guys will be under 18 minutes...

Pro footballers are good athletes.

But actual cardio-vascular fitness wise?

Most of them are running a 5km in ~18:30-21 minutes... that is really nothing special at all. Walk down the street and you will find tonnes of people who can do that...

heck, I went to school with 2x Premier League football players. One who has played for England a few times... they were both "good" athletes but they were not close to the best in the school... they were, however, incredible with a ball!

But it is no surprise, because 90% of performance in "skill" sports is the actual skill.

There is not really much impetus to actually increase V02 Max, hemocrit levels past the "very good but quite possible with just some decent training" point in a sport like football tbh.

Cycling, triathlon, mid-long distance running and longer distance swimming are really the sporting events that are at a "decent" level compensation wise where performance enhancing drugs give the biggest reward... alongside ofc strength based events.

Haile Gebrselassie could have shown up at Man United in his prime and would be laughed off the pitch no matter how long he could run for ahaha.

But if Haile Gebrselassie would have got on a bicycle... hmmm...

doping is present in all sports. It is asinine to think otherwise. BUT what is unavoidable is that cycling, athletics and longer distance swimming are really the sports where there is the most reward vs the risk...

a V02 max of 60 vs 95 makes very little difference in a skill sport tbh. 60 is still great and good enough to play pretty much any "skill" team sport. But a V02 max of 60 in a pro peloton, well, you wont be in the pro peloton.

 

[Mr. 64%]

I think the most relevant comparison with regards to performance is the jump from 2018-2019 to now, where all the fairytale explanations fall flat to the ground. Funny how the media experts and ex-pros only focus on the 90's records and how much things have improved since then. I mean, my Ridley Noah is much faster than my old Pinarello steel bike from the mid 90's. And a skintight jersey is much faster than the flappy parachutes they wore in the 90s. It's pointless to discuss whether this is true or not - it's just an explanation,that we've heard time and time again - and one, that doesn't exaclty have the best track record in terms of actually being true in the past.

I'll take this opportunity to bring the attention to my favorite hillarious comparison: 2024 Niels Politt vs the 2018-2019 TDF podiums. And just how close these performances are with one another - of course forgetting all about the fact that Niels Politt was doing a Faboo-esque grinding down of the peloton with no mind on his own race as such...

 

[meat puppet]

The eras, per Zwift Tailor, are:

Prehistoric era -90

Epo era 91-98

Ferrari era 99-05

Interregnum era (ebbs and flows ) 06-11

CleanZ (especially 12-18) era 12-19

Post-covid era 20-23

Hahahaha era 24-

Feel free to revise and resubmit.

Also, sidestepping the "why", I think climb data will suggest that 2006-2019 (or 2008-, however you want to periodise it) was relatively slow. It has again been surpassed after Covid. Clinic posters used to joke that next they'll beat Lance and/or Riis and Pantani if they got wild. But the joke is on us.

 

[noob]

Rodchenkov doped everyone but figure skaters as he saw no benefit to doping them. But everyone else. To me that says a lot.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

I think the most relevant comparison with regards to performance is the jump from 2018-2019 to now, where all the fairytale explanations fall flat to the ground. Funny how the media experts and ex-pros only focus on the 90's records and how much things have improved since then. I mean, my Ridley Noah is much faster than my old Pinarello steel bike from the mid 90's. And a skintight jersey is much faster than the flappy parachutes they wore in the 90s. It's pointless to discuss whether this is true or not - it's just an explanation,that we've heard time and time again - and one, that doesn't exaclty have the best track record in terms of actually being true in the past.

I'll take this opportunity to bring the attention to my favorite hillarious comparison: 2024 Niels Politt vs the 2018-2019 TDF podiums. And just how close these performances are with one another - of course forgetting all about the fact that Niels Politt was doing a Faboo-esque grinding down of the peloton with no mind on his own race as such...

Have you made that comparision in numbers if so, please share.

I fully agree on the relevant era to compare is the one we were basically ripped out of. People would just need to compare Froome, the last dominant Tour champion, to what is going on right now. Or riders that actually were successful before and after 2020, and then ask themselves where all this improvement comes from all of a sudden. Pogacar, besides speaking of porridge basically said: we are much better because back in the day I thought we were professionals, but we really were not.
The basic tale now is that they only learned how to eat in the 20ies. And part of that story may well be right. But Julich on the Move e.g., when he talked about regeneration, used ice bath as his first example. I mean, how old are ice bath now as a method?

 

[Blobs]

Have you made that comparision in numbers if so, please share.

I fully agree on the relevant era to compare is the one we were basically ripped out of. People would just need to compare Froome, the last dominant Tour champion, to what is going on right now. Or riders that actually were successful before and after 2020, and then ask themselves where all this improvement comes from all of a sudden. Pogacar, besides speaking of porridge basically said: we are much better because back in the day I thought we were professionals, but we really were not.
The basic tale now is that they only learned how to eat in the 20ies. And part of that story may well be right. But Julich on the Move e.g., when he talked about regeneration, used ice bath as his first example. I mean, how old are ice bath now as a method?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1815636032164876516

View: https://twitter.com/CyclingGraphs/status/1815636032164876516

 

[Extinction]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1815636032164876516

View: https://twitter.com/CyclingGraphs/status/1815636032164876516

Next time he will be flying a space ship.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Porridge era 24-

Fixed it for you.

 

[Ruklaw]

heck, I went to school with 2x Premier League football players. One who has played for England a few times... they were both "good" athletes but they were not close to the best in the school... they were, however, incredible with a ball!

But it is no surprise, because 90% of performance in "skill" sports is the actual skill.

There is not really much impetus to actually increase V02 Max, hemocrit levels past the "very good but quite possible with just some decent training" point in a sport like football tbh.

doping is present in all sports. It is asinine to think otherwise. BUT what is unavoidable is that cycling, athletics and longer distance swimming are really the sports where there is the most reward vs the risk...

a V02 max of 60 vs 95 makes very little difference in a skill sport tbh. 60 is still great and good enough to play pretty much any "skill" team sport. But a V02 max of 60 in a pro peloton, well, you wont be in the pro peloton

The flaw in the argument you are making is that it's a lot easier to blood dope and otherwise prepare someone with a 60 vo2 max up to 95 than it is to take someone with a huge cardiovascular engine and make them really skilful with a football.

Of course the best footballers are good at football. The key thing is, are they still good at after 60 minutes when they're getting a bit tired?

Can they keep up with the speed of the players on the opposition (who are also, as you'd expect, pretty good at football)?

Djokovic is a tennis player that always stuck out to me as in 2011 he transformed from one of the also ran players that couldn't get near to the big two into the 'GOAT' now likely to eclipse their achievements.

If you buy the story, giving up gluten and dairy was what it took to transform an always skilful player into one with boundless energy and capacity to grind out five setters as required - but this is the clinic, so lets be real, it probably came down to a new PED regime.

Skill is obviously really important in skill games, but we aren't talking darts or bowling here - you need to be able to run, and do it a lot.

My personal theory about England looking so tired and leggy at the Euros despite their roster of star players is simply that the preparation that was available to them was nothing like what they were used to at their hugely rich club teams.

Spain were clearly taking such preparation seriously, and were running rings around most of the other teams - I don't think it's a complete coincidence that their relatively unfancied women's team (ranked 7th in the world going in) won the world cup last year either.

 

[Penninepeddler]

The flaw in the argument you are making is that it's a lot easier to blood dope and otherwise prepare someone with a 60 vo2 max up to 95 than it is to take someone with a huge cardiovascular engine and make them really skilful with a football.

Of course the best footballers are good at football. The key thing is, are they still good at after 60 minutes when they're getting a bit tired?

Can they keep up with the speed of the players on the opposition (who are also, as you'd expect, pretty good at football)?

Djokovic is a tennis player that always stuck out to me as in 2011 he transformed from one of the also ran players that couldn't get near to the big two into the 'GOAT' now likely to eclipse their achievements.

If you buy the story, giving up gluten and dairy was what it took to transform an always skilful player into one with boundless energy and capacity to grind out five setters as required - but this is the clinic, so lets be real, it probably came down to a new PED regime.

Skill is obviously really important in skill games, but we aren't talking darts or bowling here - you need to be able to run, and do it a lot.

My personal theory about England looking so tired and leggy at the Euros despite their roster of star players is simply that the preparation that was available to them was nothing like what they were used to at their hugely rich club teams.

Spain were clearly taking such preparation seriously, and were running rings around most of the other teams - I don't think it's a complete coincidence that their relatively unfancied women's team (ranked 7th in the world going in) won the world cup last year either.

But ~10-11km over 90 minutes, even factoring in for speed bursts (about 10-20% of running in a game is faster than slow jogging pace depending on position)... is really not "that" much from an endurance perspective. Hence why a V02 Max of 60 vs 95 will probably make very little distance tbh for most players. Albeit probably no pro players have over 80 anyway...

Plus, well, even EPO is not going to take someone with a 60 V02 Max to 95... heck, it would be hard to get someone from 75 to 95 even with perfect Drs and regimen and an incredible responder.

England looked "leggy" mainly due to tactics in my eyes. I dont think they were actually too "tired". They simply played with virtually no pressing on purpose and very defensively. And England have basically the most money on earth of any NT set-up...

Someone like Håkan Mild should have probably decided to become a cylist tbh ahaha. Get him down to 65kg from his 75kg in his prime, dump him in the EPO era and jeez... Sweden would have had a star!

 

[Psycat]

I'd say the biggest slow-down was pre and post-sambuterol Froomey. But like Contador, the plug was pulled from the laboratory, the crash just being a convenient diversion.

I always thought Froome(Sky) were sandbagging in his tour wins, never do more than absolutely necessary to win. Maybe to keep others happy(letting break win etc) or to not draw attention and give the illusion race was close, or perhaps just to conserve energy.

Not saying he would approach T+V levels of crazy if unleashed but I am confident he could have put up a number of more shocking performances than he did if given reason.

 

[Extinction]

I always thought Froome(Sky) were sandbagging in his tour wins, never do more than absolutely necessary to win. Maybe to keep others happy(letting break win etc) or to not draw attention and give the illusion race was close, or perhaps just to conserve energy.

Not saying he would approach T+V levels of crazy if unleashed but I am confident he could have put up a number of more shocking performances than he did if given reason.

And only crickets, like all is normal in the Land of Oz.

View: https://youtu.be/CQFEY9RIRJA?si=TKc0UDQedAI67ygs

 

[Cookster15]

Yeh... I mean, go to any decent city's park-run and guys will be under 18 minutes...

Pro footballers are good athletes.

But actual cardio-vascular fitness wise?

Most of them are running a 5km in ~18:30-21 minutes... that is really nothing special at all. Walk down the street and you will find tonnes of people who can do that...

heck, I went to school with 2x Premier League football players. One who has played for England a few times... they were both "good" athletes but they were not close to the best in the school... they were, however, incredible with a ball!

But it is no surprise, because 90% of performance in "skill" sports is the actual skill.

There is not really much impetus to actually increase V02 Max, hemocrit levels past the "very good but quite possible with just some decent training" point in a sport like football tbh.

Cycling, triathlon, mid-long distance running and longer distance swimming are really the sporting events that are at a "decent" level compensation wise where performance enhancing drugs give the biggest reward... alongside ofc strength based events.

Haile Gebrselassie could have shown up at Man United in his prime and would be laughed off the pitch no matter how long he could run for ahaha.

But if Haile Gebrselassie would have got on a bicycle... hmmm...

doping is present in all sports. It is asinine to think otherwise. BUT what is unavoidable is that cycling, athletics and longer distance swimming are really the sports where there is the most reward vs the risk...

a V02 max of 60 vs 95 makes very little difference in a skill sport tbh. 60 is still great and good enough to play pretty much any "skill" team sport. But a V02 max of 60 in a pro peloton, well, you wont be in the pro peloton.

The possible flaw in your argument is that football (soccer) is arguably the world's richest sport and it can afford to fund and cover up the risk. As of 2024, 6 of the world's top 10 highest paid sports stars are soccer players (Forbes).

A possible connection between systematic blood doping and soccer was uncovered in Operación Puerto in 2006. That bust centered around the exposure of cyclists. But cyclists were connected to a minority of the Dr Fuentes blood bags - whose blood was in all the others? It was never expressly stated but there was plenty of innuendo the unidentified bags belonged to professional football players and it was all swept under the carpet.

In professional soccer most goals are scored late in the match when fatigue sets in. Fatigue blunts skill levels (see below). So anything that can boost endurance late into a football match is worth spending big $ and resources on.

Inplay Football stats: Get Better Live Inplay Predictions

Football Stats & Inplay Betting Alerts

playthepercentage.com

According to studies, the most common time for goals to be scored in football is during the match's second half. Most goals scored are between the 76th and 90th-minute intervals, including injury time.

the difference in players' fitness levels can also affect the timing of goals