Does the number of athletics records that are twenty years old or more have any thing to tell us about doping in cycling?
It would appear that many of those records we can now say with a good deal of confidence were dope fuelled. So this suggests doping isn't as powerful as it was or isn't as widespread or combination of both.
When we look at cycling track records are still falling and average speeds in GC,s and single day events went up substantially when EPO became common place in the 90,s onwards.
A lot of this is put down to technical developments with the bikes ,faster tracks and improved training methods.
There is no doubt a certain amount of truth with all three of these assertions.
However I suspect there's also a degree of kidology going on. Athletics surely hasn't stood still in training method improvements and understanding( ?) yet progress in breaking world records is very slow to non existent in many events . Moscow track , the fastest indoor tack in the world when built hasn't become "slow". Bike technology does not, in my view, account for the % increase in speed either. Anyone remember Romingers hour record bike?
Some 80% of the resistance a rider faces is air, the technical changes to the bikes are only a very small % improvement in cutting through that and most were achieved by the early 90,s.
I saw some research on the part that bikes had played ( cant find it at mo, maybe someone else here can?) in to higher road speeds in road races and its conclusion was that it could not account for the increase in speed.
I'm left unable to conclude anything else other than doping in cycling is as widespread as its ever been.