Jonas Vingegaard: Something is Rotten

[Lequack]

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.

Did you calculate in the power or the yellow jersey?

 

[samhocking]

I'm not sure Pantani or Armstrong is really a benchmark of top climbing performance. They both found the extra 10% not with sports science but cheating & doping. I'm pretty sure if anything comes out on Jumbo it will be very similar to Sky and we'll see nothing technically against the rules, just maximally pushing to the line all the areas of the latest sports sports science in order to replace illegal doping. As we've already heard, Jumbo consider the WADA code to be prohibited, everything else is game, which if you want to maximise performance is clearly part of the game.

 

[Netserk]

I wonder how this trend will continue.

*** will get really hilarious when they actually start breaking Pantanis records.

And then people will still claim it's clean because they're naive morons who like being lied to and I may have to force myself to never watch cycling again.

As long as it is several riders going fast, it will be seen as normal. Or the new normal.

And casuals will quickly anchor on this new normal. What would previously be seen as outrageous will in a few years be stale. This is fine. This is water.

 

[Netserk]

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

The metric that would implicate FdJ is invalid, but the others cheat.

 

[Rackham]

The metric that would implicate FdJ is invalid, but the others cheat.

I felt it was worth sharing because it's a pretty candid interview where he says stuff which some people have already theorized (i.e. don't get blinded by bickering over w/kg when the gap & average speed versus the rest tells a story in & of itself).

But you're right, i.e. maybe FDJ are doping? Maybe Gaudu has his own pathetic little cocktail which he uses to finish a GT in a top 10. It's highly likely, all things considered, i.e. considering it's not just champions who dope & it's so ingrained in the sport (& Madiot has his own history in that regard).

But Vingegaard took it to a whole new level. I think that much is beyond doubt or argument. And this sort of conversation will always remain tainted if the standard for accepting opinions is twisted by trivialities like team & rider rivalries. Aka just because FDJ might not like Jumbo, it doesn't mean their head of performance is talking bullsh*t on this matter.

 

[Red Rick]

Likely that when everyone goes faster the underlying reasons are more likely to be actually in training/nutrition/recovery or just more "common" knowledge in doping that just makes people adhere to Omerta more strongly.

 

[ontheroad]

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.

Or maybe if the FDJ riders had reduced their beer intake they could have performed better themselves at the Tour! You would think a performance coach would have known that much.

 

[gregrowlerson]

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)

His performances weren't that abnormal either, not compared to 1990s and Armstrong, and now Pogacar and Vingegaard.

So yes you're correct that it's obvious with the huge time trial wins of Pogacar and Vingegaard and other performances which haven't been seen since 20 years ago that something is amiss. But this constant comparison with Sky and Froome, Thomas etc with their modest performances is just crazy, irrational and simply makes this whole forum the joke that many outsiders consider it is.

Irrational unscientific lunatics with nationalist agendas mostly, rather that sensible considered rational/scientfic arguments about the evidence before us.

I have to quote Pogacar here:

"I'm dead."

 

[Ilmaestro99]

I have to quote Pogacar here:

"I'm dead."

Whenever I watch froome on ventoux on 2013 or finestre 2018, modest is the second word that comes to mind. After 'cleans' of course.

 

[staubsauger]

Whenever I watch froome on ventoux on 2013 or finestre 2018, modest is the second word that comes to mind. After 'cleans' of course.

Leclercq would always call Froome's comeback on the Finestre miraculous.

Like he wouldn't even pretend that this performance after being mediocre for the whole race apart from Zoncolan was anything near normal even in a doping rotten sport.

 

[Nick2413]

So what would happen if they conducted an anonymous survey of all current pros and people employed in the sport? Would everyone still bite their tongue?

 

[SHAD0W93]

Whatever he is on now is probably what he was on last year. But before the 3rd week ITT he was already four minutes ahead (not ten seconds) so didn't need to go all in.

Sorry if this has been replied to similarly, like Pogacar I'm a bit behind.

Went all in enough to win the TT before almost crashing. Maybe he didn’t recon the course.

 

[Rico044]

Regarding what they might be doing......Here is an interesting article I just now saw. Sorry if it has already been posted.

Banned blood booster a challenge for anti-doping authorities, expert says

An anti-anaemia drug is making the fight against doping much harder, a top Swiss expert said on Thursday, although he added that there was currently no miracle product on the testers' radar.

www.reuters.com

 

[saganftw]

So what would happen if they conducted an anonymous survey of all current pros and people employed in the sport? Would everyone still bite their tongue?

why would they need to do anonymous survey, athletes are getting caught and punished for PEDs all the time, its just that its no longer a big deal because its bad for business

 

[zlev11]

I'm not sure Pantani or Armstrong is really a benchmark of top climbing performance. They both found the extra 10% not with sports science but cheating & doping. I'm pretty sure if anything comes out on Jumbo it will be very similar to Sky and we'll see nothing technically against the rules, just maximally pushing to the line all the areas of the latest sports sports science in order to replace illegal doping. As we've already heard, Jumbo consider the WADA code to be prohibited, everything else is game, which if you want to maximise performance is clearly part of the game.

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.

 

[Salvarani]

***. 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.

And what makes you go faster, for longer.

 

[topcat]

Of course Vingo’s performance was mutant.
However, there is no however.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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)

His performances weren't that abnormal either, not compared to 1990s and Armstrong, and now Pogacar and Vingegaard.

So yes you're correct that it's obvious with the huge time trial wins of Pogacar and Vingegaard and other performances which haven't been seen since 20 years ago that something is amiss. But this constant comparison with Sky and Froome, Thomas etc with their modest performances is just crazy, irrational and simply makes this whole forum the joke that many outsiders consider it is.

Irrational unscientific lunatics with nationalist agendas mostly, rather that sensible considered rational/scientfic arguments about the evidence before us.

I remember back in the good old days when Armstrong would set up troll accounts and defend himself in the clinic. I suspect that Froome might be doing the same. It is just as hilarious!

 

[ManicJack]

I remember back in the good old days when Armstrong would set up troll accounts and defend himself in the clinic. I suspect that Froome might be doing the same. It is just as hilarious!

You have proof of that?

 

[topcat]

Vingo is an apple living in a world full of oranges and if he doesn’t talk to either his ds or his wife, he’ll go bananas.

 

[46&twoWheels]

I'm not sure Pantani or Armstrong is really a benchmark of top climbing performance. They both found the extra 10% not with sports science but cheating & doping. I'm pretty sure if anything comes out on Jumbo it will be very similar to Sky and we'll see nothing technically against the rules, just maximally pushing to the line all the areas of the latest sports sports science in order to replace illegal doping. As we've already heard, Jumbo consider the WADA code to be prohibited, everything else is game, which if you want to maximise performance is clearly part of the game.

Comparing one of the most naturally talented climber ever (since his young days) to a muscular triathlete like Armstrong is dishonest and super inaccurate. I'm not going to defend Marco in the Clinic anyway (I'm not that dumb), but at least a bit of accuracy is needed in some considerations.

Also, it seems like british fans had always (and still have) a "holier than thou" attitude towards cycling in general.
"Our modern cycling is clean/Sky bots are only scientifically advanced" ...sure.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You have proof of that?

Simmer down Lance.

 

[ManicJack]

Simmer down Lance.

You're funny. 🤡

 

[Riek s]

Now I read they won time with their aero radio position 😂
If we add all things up, Vingo even had a bad day.

Just read it to as an explanation why vingegaard beat Pog because it saves 5% drag, while in the same article mentioning that wva also rode like that.... And they can type that with a straight face?

 

[zlev11]

I remember back in the good old days when Armstrong would set up troll accounts and defend himself in the clinic. I suspect that Froome might be doing the same. It is just as hilarious!

speaking of Armstrong and Froome, did anyone catch Froome's appearance on The Move? he commented about social media watts calculations and said sometimes the calculations were 100 watts too high. just completely full of sh*t. unless he had a motor, that is. if they were really 100 watts too high then there would've been 80 riders climbing with him on LPSM.