Dumoulin.

[May0maniac]

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

 

[webvan]

The earlier he goes down the better!

 

[therealthing]

Re:

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

Correct- really it wasn't until the 2015 Tour de Suisse when people started noticing his potential. Then the stage win in the Vuelta that sparked the creation of this thread showed he had gone nuclear.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

In a way though, he hasn't really 'climbed' yet in the proper sense this Giro. He's basically held his own on three flat stages finishing with high mountains by time trialling his way up them. And each mountain stage has been preceded by easy stages, so he's been fresh for all of them. It was the same in the Vuelta. And on the only multi-mountain stage after it became apparent he was a genuine overall GC threat, it was game over.

The real test will come on the multi mountain stages, where you have to follow other guys for the first two or three climbs of the day; TTing up them at your own pace isn't going to work if you end up getting dropped and having to chase in the valleys all day.

These performances are really suspicious because of the w/kg he's putting out. But, imo, they are no more suspicious than what he's been doing in hilly TTs for three years. The climbs have basically just been TTs for him. If he starts doing the same on multi-mountain stages, matching the pace of other climbers on the early mountains, and then TTing like this up the last one - then that is next level Froome-esque stuff.

 

[SlickMongoose]

What did the stage look like in 1999? Was it a similar short flat stage up to the climb, or was it more difficult?

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

In a way though, he hasn't really 'climbed' yet in the proper sense this Giro. He's basically held his own on three flat stages finishing with high mountains by time trialling his way up them. And each mountain stage has been preceded by easy stages, so he's been fresh for all of them. It was the same in the Vuelta. And on the only multi-mountain stage after it became apparent he was a genuine overall GC threat, it was game over.

The real test will come on the multi mountain stages, where you have to follow other guys for the first two or three climbs of the day; TTing up them at your own pace isn't going to work if you end up getting dropped and having to chase in the valleys all day.

These performances are really suspicious because of the w/kg he's putting out. But, imo, they are no more suspicious than what he's been doing in hilly TTs for three years. The climbs have basically just been TTs for him. If he starts doing the same on multi-mountain stages, matching the pace of other climbers on the early mountains, and then TTing like this up the last one - then that is next level Froome-esque stuff.

That's an interesting point of view and I have to agree on the fact that we still haven't seen him in a real war of attrition in the high mountains, but at the same time his w/kg are really high and Blockhaus was an over 40min long ascent on a really hard climb.

 

[May0maniac]

Re:

What did the stage look like in 1999? Was it a similar short flat stage up to the climb, or was it more difficult?

It was also a rather short and easy stage.

the penultimate climb was also rather easy, nothing special.

 

[ppanther92]

Re: Re:

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

Correct- really it wasn't until the 2015 Tour de Suisse when people started noticing his potential. Then the stage win in the Vuelta that sparked the creation of this thread showed he had gone nuclear.

Sorry, but i don't think this is accurate at all. He was one of the most promising youth prospects early on. Climbing wise he was more or less on the same level as Laengen back in his junior days. And this was a "near-to-the-top level". He already performed exceptionally well in TTs in his amateur days and did also really good at hilly one day races. Also his first season with Argos Shimano (at the age of 21) can be considered as absolutely promising (finishing 6th in Vuelta Andalucia, 17th in Strade Bianchi, 5th in Rund um Köln, 5th in Tour de Luxembourg and 10thin Vuelta a Burgos - all races with at least hilly terrain). 2013 (at the age of 22) he finished 6th at a Tour mountain stage from a break of 27 outclimbing the likes of Navarro, De Gendt, Roche, Voeckler, Velits, Trofimov, ... and 18th in Lombardia. From then on he pretty much progressed every year. Saying Dumoulin came out of nowhere, is like saying every winner of a bike race today is coming out of nowhere. I can really only think of a handful riders winning and therefore showing potential substantially more in their youth days (=U23) in recent years (Sagan and Sicard and maybe the Yates brothers, maybe Quintana, maybe Lopez, maybe Pinot, maybe Formolo). However, this is always kind of hard to compare.

What i want to say is - Dumoulin is not coming out of nowhere at all. Reminds a bit of the Giro Doping Thread where one guy asked yesterday - "where is this Gaviria guy coming from?"

I am of course convinced Dumoulin does what it takes to win.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

In a way though, he hasn't really 'climbed' yet in the proper sense this Giro. He's basically held his own on three flat stages finishing with high mountains by time trialling his way up them. And each mountain stage has been preceded by easy stages, so he's been fresh for all of them. It was the same in the Vuelta. And on the only multi-mountain stage after it became apparent he was a genuine overall GC threat, it was game over.

The real test will come on the multi mountain stages, where you have to follow other guys for the first two or three climbs of the day; TTing up them at your own pace isn't going to work if you end up getting dropped and having to chase in the valleys all day.

These performances are really suspicious because of the w/kg he's putting out. But, imo, they are no more suspicious than what he's been doing in hilly TTs for three years. The climbs have basically just been TTs for him. If he starts doing the same on multi-mountain stages, matching the pace of other climbers on the early mountains, and then TTing like this up the last one - then that is next level Froome-esque stuff.

That's an interesting point of view and I have to agree on the fact that we still haven't seen him in a real war of attrition in the high mountains, but at the same time his w/kg are really high and Blockhaus was an over 40min long ascent on a really hard climb.

Yeah, Blockhaus was definitely the most impressive because of the gradients. But I guess even there it was still essentially a 40 minute effort at, or just above his threshold, while fresh. And he did still lose a bit of time to Quintana who was riding a lot less of a steady paced effort.

It's been a bit of a strange Giro to have had no multi-mountain stages for two weeks, and then to have five in a row in the last week. If Dumoulin time trials his way through that last week to the MR, then comparisons with Indurain would be hard to overlook. Or maybe he'll go full 2013 Froome and just destroy everyone himself on Stelvio.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

People like to mention thee fact that he was always talented, but you also have to remember that he never was a great climber in the U23 ranks, other guys with big engines like Laengen and Matthews were pretty good climbers back then, Tom on the other hand never performed on that level as climber before turning pro.

Correct- really it wasn't until the 2015 Tour de Suisse when people started noticing his potential. Then the stage win in the Vuelta that sparked the creation of this thread showed he had gone nuclear.

Sorry, but i don't think this is accurate at all. He was one of the most promising youth prospects early on. Climbing wise he was more or less on the same level as Laengen back in his junior days. And this was a "near-to-the-top level". He already performed exceptionally well in TTs in his amateur days and did also really good at hilly one day races. Also his first season with Argos Shimano (at the age of 21) can be considered as absolutely promising (finishing 6th in Vuelta Andalucia, 17th in Strade Bianchi, 5th in Rund um Köln, 5th in Tour de Luxembourg and 10thin Vuelta a Burgos - all races with at least hilly terrain). 2013 (at the age of 22) he finished 6th at a Tour mountain stage from a break of 27 outclimbing the likes of Navarro, De Gendt, Roche, Voeckler, Velits, Trofimov, ... and 18th in Lombardia. From then on he pretty much progressed every year. Saying Dumoulin came out of nowhere, is like saying every winner of a bike race today is coming out of nowhere. I can really only think of a handful riders winning and therefore showing potential substentially more in ther youth days (=U23) in recent years (Sagan and Sicard and maybe the Yates brothers, maybe Quintana, maybe Lopez, maybe Pinot, maybe Formolo). However, this is always kind of hard to compare.

What i want to say is - Dumoulin is not coming out of nowhere at all. Reminds a bit of the Giro Doping Thread where one guy asked yesterday - "where is this Gaviria guy coming from?"

I am of course convinced Dumoulin does what it takes to win.

I agree with this^^^.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

Well, now we know.

Yup. Fresh as a daisy in interviews as well. Ugh.

That's funny you say that. I remember watching in the 80's (pre-EPO, etc.) and the riders (winner included) would be exhausted after a mountaintop finish like this. Even 15-20 minutes post-race, they could barely give a coherent interview or at least they showed they gave an all-out effort. Sure lots of those guys were juiced, but the guys today just seem like they were on a nice, easy jaunt around the neighborhood. Doesn't seem possible or normal.

You do understand this was a flat race with one not so difficult climb at the end ? This isnt any different than back then in the 80s. These guys are more well trained as well.

This is looking for things that arent there.



Though, just a few seconds slower than Marco's record time is remarkable. That was Pantani at his peak in '99.

 

[classicomano]

I don't believe TD is clean but I also cant imagine that when riding the same climb in exactly the same circumstances these guys would even come close to a Pantani in '99 form. Or Ugrumov in '93 riding around with a 70% hematocrit and dropping Indurain.

 

[May0maniac]

Back in 1999 the stage came right after the hard Fauniera stage, so it's not easy to compare it to a short unipublic stage that came right after 2 easy stages for the sprinters.

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

Back in 1999 the stage came right after the hard Fauniera stage, so it's not easy to campe it to a short unipublic stage that came right after 2 easy stages for the sprinters.

***! He was 30sec shy to full doped Marco Pantani, and faster than Ugrumov. Also faster then Piepoli (also full doped) in TT! Alarm bells should be on.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Well, now we know.

Yup. Fresh as a daisy in interviews as well. Ugh.

That's funny you say that. I remember watching in the 80's (pre-EPO, etc.) and the riders (winner included) would be exhausted after a mountaintop finish like this. Even 15-20 minutes post-race, they could barely give a coherent interview or at least they showed they gave an all-out effort. Sure lots of those guys were juiced, but the guys today just seem like they were on a nice, easy jaunt around the neighborhood. Doesn't seem possible or normal.

You do understand this was a flat race with one not so difficult climb at the end ? This isnt any different than back then in the 80s. These guys are more well trained as well.

This is looking for things that arent there.

Though, just a few seconds slower than Marco's record time is remarkable. That was Pantani at his peak in '99.[/quote]

Only because a lot of the doping happens during training.

Before EPO riders doped during races or just before races. Now after EPO it is a season long program.

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

Back in 1999 the stage came right after the hard Fauniera stage, so it's not easy to compare it to a short unipublic stage that came right after 2 easy stages for the sprinters.

******! He was 30sec shy to full doped Marco Pantani, and faster than Ugrumov. Also faster then Piepoli (also full doped) in TT! Alarm bells should be on.

Of course they should be on, the w/kg and the ascent time are crazy.
That doesn't change the fact that in 1999 the hard a hard mountain stage right before it. Same with 1993, when it was the final gc relevant stage in the 3rd week, right after the 55km long Pinerolo -Sestriere ITT.

 

[zlev11]

the 1993 stage should not be used to compare, it was at the end of the third week of a super hard typical '90's Giro

the '99 stage is similar enough, even if the days before that stage were harder, the peloton was still on EPO with no test other than the 50% rule, clean riders shouldn't be anywhere near those times even if it was a TT on the first day.

 

[Cookster15]

Re:

the 1993 stage should not be used to compare, it was at the end of the third week of a super hard typical '90's Giro

the '99 stage is similar enough, even if the days before that stage were harder, the peloton was still on EPO with no test other than the 50% rule, clean riders shouldn't be anywhere near those times even if it was a TT on the first day.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting TD is clean. The question for me is does he have an unfair advantage over Quintana or the other GC contenders? I don't think so. The interesting part is with the modern doping controls, blood passport, EPO tests etc , that times can still be close to 1999. Does anyone have Watts / Kg numbers for today?

 

[Bavarianrider]

Re: Re:

the 1993 stage should not be used to compare, it was at the end of the third week of a super hard typical '90's Giro

the '99 stage is similar enough, even if the days before that stage were harder, the peloton was still on EPO with no test other than the 50% rule, clean riders shouldn't be anywhere near those times even if it was a TT on the first day.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting TD is clean. The question for me is does he have an unfair advantage over Quintana or the other GC contenders? I don't think so. The interesting part is with the modern doping controls, blood passport, EPO tests etc , that times can still be close to 1999. Does anyone have Watts / Kg numbers for today?

6.7 Watt/Kilo for these 17:37 minutes.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

Well, now we know.

Yup. Fresh as a daisy in interviews as well. Ugh.

That's funny you say that. I remember watching in the 80's (pre-EPO, etc.) and the riders (winner included) would be exhausted after a mountaintop finish like this. Even 15-20 minutes post-race, they could barely give a coherent interview or at least they showed they gave an all-out effort. Sure lots of those guys were juiced, but the guys today just seem like they were on a nice, easy jaunt around the neighborhood. Doesn't seem possible or normal.

You do understand this was a flat race with one not so difficult climb at the end ? This isnt any different than back then in the 80s. These guys are more well trained as well.

This is looking for things that arent there.

Though, just a few seconds slower than Marco's record time is remarkable. That was Pantani at his peak in '99.

Only because a lot of the doping happens during training.

Before EPO riders doped during races or just before races. Now after EPO it is a season long program.[/quote]Oh please, not you again.

The days that Colombians or whoever were close to collapsing after the finish line are gone for a long time already. Nothing to do with full dope programs only. This is just crappy conspiracy of you think science has no influence on today's performances.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

the 1993 stage should not be used to compare, it was at the end of the third week of a super hard typical '90's Giro

the '99 stage is similar enough, even if the days before that stage were harder, the peloton was still on EPO with no test other than the 50% rule, clean riders shouldn't be anywhere near those times even if it was a TT on the first day.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting TD is clean. The question for me is does he have an unfair advantage over Quintana or the other GC contenders? I don't think so. The interesting part is with the modern doping controls, blood passport, EPO tests etc , that times can still be close to 1999. Does anyone have Watts / Kg numbers for today?

2 programs being similar, the big guys has an advantage over the small guys. We could be seeing that with TD and with Froome.

There was an interest read about why the big riders benefit more over the small riders with the Oxygen vectors. If I see it I'll put it here.

 

[red_flanders]

I find it amazing that anyone could imagine that the difference in how riders look after races comes from better training. If there is such a difference that's it's visible, that riders are notably less drained, it is a massive difference.

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

I tend to suspect people have no idea how hard riders used to train. Recency bias seems strong.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

I find it amazing that anyone could imagine that the difference in how riders look after races comes from better training. If there is such a difference that's it's visible, that riders are notably less drained, it is a massive difference.

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

I tend to suspect people have no idea how hard riders used to train. Recency bias seems strong.

You forgot the power bars!

 

["Jeff"]

Re:

I find it amazing that anyone could imagine that the difference in how riders look after races comes from better training. If there is such a difference that's it's visible, that riders are notably less drained, it is a massive difference.

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

I tend to suspect people have no idea how hard riders used to train. Recency bias seems strong.

Hyperbole at its finest. Like there is no grey area between drinking beer & eating pizza's and today's training. I tend to suspect you dont understand the difference between hard training and hard training + science.

I find it amazing that this is even a discussion.

 

[zlev11]

Re:

I find it amazing that anyone could imagine that the difference in how riders look after races comes from better training. If there is such a difference that's it's visible, that riders are notably less drained, it is a massive difference.

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

I tend to suspect people have no idea how hard riders used to train. Recency bias seems strong.

but they have better pillows now.