It is a comparison from the previous time over which Valverde put the new record. What I mean is that, following the logic, and knowing that the record had been established in 2011, and believing that this year there were variables that caused a more rapid rise, it is perfectly normal and nothing suspicious he annihilated all the other times. It is logical that in 2011, these same variables have provided a more rapid rise in relation to the previously established record.The Hitch said:Its not a direct comparison between one ascent and another. Sure there are plenty of variables that could result in 2011 being ridden slower than 2014 that have nothing to do with doping.
But what Valverde did was set the record. That means he didn't just beat 2011. He beat every year. A much bigger sample. And the bigger the sample the more the variables even themselves out.
Beating the entire sample, by 3 seconds, means that even if you have certain advantages that particular year, its still suspicious.
Following your logic, whenever a new record is established, this should be considered suspect because it effectively outperformed all previous. For example, the 50th record is suspect because it broke all previous. 2011 was suspect. So was 2010. And so was Rebellin's 2007.