• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Jonas Vingegaard Rasmussen, the new alpha mutant

Page 89 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Froome never doped like the other guys, and his anomalous salbutamol finding was shown to be very flawed by an actual scientific study (I guess this forum has its fair share of anti-science conspiracy theorists though)

who's anti-science? very, very basic science showed he would have had to inject salbutamol to test positive for a reading as high as he did.
 
who's anti-science? very, very basic science showed he would have had to inject salbutamol to test positive for a reading as high as he did.
well maybe publish a proper refutation of the arguments in the scientific paper.

But to be honest, you're probably correct that you aren't anti-science, I mean you need to understand what science is to be anti-science.
 
The way they are going right now they are bound to break Pantanis records. What happens at that point will be interesting. But bar a successful criminal investigation I don't think this will stop any time soon. They are going to push each other to the limit of whatever they are applying.
It will also be interesting to who's gonna rise to the top all of a sudden, like Gall. Maybe the next Pantani isn't even Vingegaard. And looking at WvA performances I wonder if the heavy GT rider is gonna make a return to the scene.

I still think Remco has the potential to take his GT game to another level and challenge Vingegaard, even by next year's Tour. And then there is Ayuso.

I hope they actually put a reasonable amount of ITT in the 2024 Tour, despite what happened this year.
 
Armstrong and US Postal were the most scientific team of their time. it cant be said enough that this new line of "better training and nutrition" that everyone spouts is straight up BS. you know what lets you train better? drugs.
Just looking at Motorola's dinner table in Le Tour shows you you're wrong lol! Even Armstrong & Bruyneel say all teams are now lightyears ahead of where they were back then, Armstrong, like LeMond only needed to apply a little more science than ripping the middles out of baguettes to be more 'scientific' than everyone else. My point is, you don't spend sponsors money on things like million dollar catering trucks and 100+ staff when you can save the million dollars, dope and only need 20 staff to achieve the same results.
 
Last edited:
Just looking at Motorola's dinner table in Le Tour shows you you're wrong lol! Even Armstrong & Bruyneel say all teams are now lightyears ahead of where they were back then, Armstrong, like LeMond only needed to apply a little more science than ripping the middles out of baguettes to be more 'scientific' than everyone else. My point is, you don't spend sponsors money on things like million dollar catering trucks and 100+ staff when you can save the million dollars, dope and only need 20 staff to achieve the same results.
Can you post the menu for us please?
 
There's an article in Eurosport in which Frédéric Grappe (head of performance at FDJ) says watts per kilo cannot be used as evidence of doping (because of variables & improved equipment since the 1990's) but the delta (actual seconds per km gains & average speed versus the rest) is a problem, i.e. according to him, if one of his riders did what Vingegaard did in the ITT, he'd be "ill at ease" & would ask serious questions: https://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/t...-de-dopage-en-question_sto9715289/story.shtml

He says the margin of victory goes beyond the margin of error of power calculations. There's also this:



He has a lot of respect for Mathieu Heijboer but Jumbo need to do their own analysis of Vingegaard's performance (& whether he beat his own record by 10%) because it's just not possible to gain 10% in a Grand Tour.
That is the article where you can read :
Sans compter l'évolution du matériel. "Au temps d'Armstrong, les vélos n'étaient même pas en carbone", rappelle-t-il.
(Not to mention the evolution of the material. "In Armstrong's time, bikes weren't even carbon," he recalls.)

You can measure how much of a joke is that Frédéric Grappe ! He claims any lies that fits his goal.
Everybody on this forum knows that carbon frames date back to the 80's and were well perfected within a few years.

Remember this is the same Frédéric Grappe who claimed in L'Equipe in 2003 that the dominance of Armstrong in the Tour de France
was the result of the better efficiency of his pedalling style with higher rpm than his opponents, dismissing any doping but omitting to say that he was on L.A.'s payroll at the time.

NOW MY OPINION (Grappe's goal) :
Frédéric Grappe is very much annoyed by the fact that Vayer's claims of extra normal performances have been gaining acceptance during this 2023 Tour de France.
Vayer himself does not do the cycling power calculations, he has Portoleau to do them for him and there are other serious people who obtain the same results like Mihai Simion (climbing-records.com) or Ammattipyoraily.
Everybody agrees that Vayer has an abrasive personality and may tend to oversell his viewpoint, but he says lots of truths and I recommend his latest article in "cyclisme-dopage.com".
It's in French but any translation website should do a good job on it.
 
That is the article where you can read :
Sans compter l'évolution du matériel. "Au temps d'Armstrong, les vélos n'étaient même pas en carbone", rappelle-t-il.
(Not to mention the evolution of the material. "In Armstrong's time, bikes weren't even carbon," he recalls.)

You can measure how much of a joke is that Frédéric Grappe ! He claims any lies that fits his goal.
Everybody on this forum knows that carbon frames date back to the 80's and were well perfected within a few years.

Remember this is the same Frédéric Grappe who claimed in L'Equipe in 2003 that the dominance of Armstrong in the Tour de France
was the result of the better efficiency of his pedalling style with higher rpm than his opponents, dismissing any doping but omitting to say that he was on L.A.'s payroll at the time.

NOW MY OPINION (Grappe's goal) :
Frédéric Grappe is very much annoyed by the fact that Vayer's claims of extra normal performances have been gaining acceptance during this 2023 Tour de France.
Vayer himself does not do the cycling power calculations, he has Portoleau to do them for him and there are other serious people who obtain the same results like Mihai Simion (climbing-records.com) or Ammattipyoraily.
Everybody agrees that Vayer has an abrasive personality and may tend to oversell his viewpoint, but he says lots of truths and I recommend his latest article in "cyclisme-dopage.com".
It's in French but any translation website should do a good job on it.

I can speak French so I'm fine. But thanks.

If we ignore Vayer's trollish inclinations & other controversies for a second, one of the main issues he has faced in terms of legitimacy is he's very insistent in portraying Gaudu, Pinot & the French riders as clean, yet their estimated power numbers over the past couple of years (Gaudu in particular) have occasionally veered into the suspect category of Vayer's own doping gauge where he calculates the spectrum between tolerable versus "suspect, miraculous & mutant".

That's an issue FDJ face as well as watts per kilo estimates in the peloton go higher & higher. Hence why I can understand a certain vested interest exists for men like Frédéric Grappe to downplay the power element (because his own riders fall into the higher categories) & refocus the debate on the seconds per km gains in the ITT & overall time gaps. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about Vingegaard. Beyond the usual stuff about 'technology', no one has actually really explained the how & why Lance Armstrong said a rider couldn't compete for the Tour clean 20 years ago whilst current 'clean' riders are (at best) equalling Armstrong's times & (at worst) often smashing them.

It's incongruous & the onus falls on the actors of the sport to convince us of their honesty, i.e. because benefit of the doubt should no longer exist in this sport. In my mind when a performance looks ridiculous & is too good to be true (with insane time gaps as well), it most likely is.
 
Since you read French, I invite you to read the latest article I mentioned in cyclisme-dopage.

I guess Grappe prefers to consider the seconds per km metric because it allows him to reach the same conclusion as Vayer regarding the obviously supernatural TT performance of Vingegaard without being drawn on the watt/kg terrain where he is lacking in knowledge.

If you go back to the average W/kg figures published by Vayer you will see that before Covid we had a period of about 10 years where performances were more reasonable.
In fact there are some TdF which might have been won w/o pharmacy or motors : I'm thinking of Evans (2011) and Bernal (2019).

In 2020-21-22 teams could experiment with new doping techniques we see the results and the recent explosion of W/kg.

That Vayer would have a positive bias/attitude regarding Gaudu is probably because he knows his lab tests results ( VO2 Max = 92 ml/mn.kg like LeMond, Hinault or Péraud, well above Pinot in fact) and has seen his regular progress since a very early age.
On the other hand, if you read Vayer you will see that he is extremely critical of Alaphilippe for example (rightly so in my opinion).

Of course French cyclists are submitted to fairly strict set of tests (suivi longitudinal) which makes it more difficult to consider cheating than say in Slovenia or maybe in Riisland.
 
Last edited:
That's complete BS. Well perfected? What was the first "well perfected" carbon frame set you ever had?

And what was the first year Lance & co races on carbon TT bikes?
Lance road bike was the lightest bike before they put the minimum of 6.8kg in place. (in 2003 his bike is reported to have weight 6.6kg which no bike in the current peleton will ever reach). TT bikes back than were up to 9kg, similar to today.
No idea how much carbon those bikes were, don't think it matters since its all about the weight.
Now they use the carbon for more Aero bikes while keeping the weight low, because of the weight limit. Otherwise we would see a lot lighter bikes in favor of aero on those multi mountain stages.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Le breton
Lance road bike was the lightest bike before they put the minimum of 6.8kg in place. (in 2003 his bike is reported to have weight 6.6kg which no bike in the current peleton will ever reach). TT bikes back than were up to 9kg, similar to today.
No idea how much carbon those bikes were, don't think it matters since its all about the weight.
Now they use the carbon for more Aero bikes while keeping the weight low, because of the weight limit. Otherwise we would see a lot lighter bikes in favor of aero on those multi mountain stages.
Thanks for the deflection on a question that wasn't asked of you.
 
I didn't ask Le breton the question in search of a history lesson of which the answers I am well aware of.
Maybe next time be clearer, since for the love of god that is not something one can understand out of your questions....

That's complete BS. Well perfected? What was the first "well perfected" carbon frame set you ever had?

And what was the first year Lance & co races on carbon TT bikes?

Both are history questions. one is irrelevant since it just tells something about the budget and resources of the le breton, the other is a plain history question which is answered by the link i gave you.
 

TRENDING THREADS