• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Primož Roglič

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

red_flanders said:
Ah, the legendary "big block of altitude training". Wonder how many times I've heard that one. Not saying they don't train at altitude.
You've heard it many times because many do it because it works.

Saying "Ah, the legendary "big block of altitude training". Wonder how many times I've heard that one" is about as meaningful as saying "Ah, the legendary "big block of training". Wonder how many times I've heard that one."
 
Many do it indeed. Everyone who was aiming for that Giro presumably did. However it made Roglic improve enough over his rivals to go from "two top30 results" to "2nd and 1st place" in the span of 2 months.

It's not like he was out of form in the early season, he climbed on par with Thomas and Pinot in that Algarve, but lost his time to them in the ITT.

It's an usual improvement, regardless of whether he raced in sand shoes at Adria Mobil.
 
Unusual improvement in 2019? In his first WT season, in the Giro in 2016 he lost the prologue by 1/100th of a second.....ie he had effectively the same time as the winner. He then won the next ITT.

He's no Froome.

Back in 2016, the accusations after his prologue win were that he had a motorised bike. Now its doping.
 
I don't think its so much his improvement that should be questioned, i agree that there are potentially legitimate explanations for that....but what does raise suspicion is just how much better he was than everybody else on the prologue, including some of the best TT specialists and climbers in the world.....all of the other contenders were within to be expected range of each other accounting for form etc

Roglic seemed to be playing a different game to the rest :surprised:
 
Roglic used to be an international level athlete in ski jumping, a sport where force is generated very, very quickly. Okay, he was not a top dog, but one would presume that to reach the level he did would require at least some favourable genetics (fast twitch predominance, excellent coordination etc). At face value, force generation in ski jumping is an instant burst, ie. almost exactly the opposite of that in endurance sports and especially time trialling requiring a relatively long, relatively constant effort. GTs too, of course.

I have seen some accounts that attribute his quick rise to his background, especially to his ability to generate pedal torque with the posterior chain (glutes, hams, lower back). Maybe he is very good at this, both in absolute and comparative terms (vis-a-vis competitors), thanks to the training he did as a ski jumper. The implication that he might have some kind of neuromuscular advantages relative to those who have ridden from a toddler sounds worth pondering to me. Research tends to favour the idea that heavy strength training is very beneficial to endurance athletes.

But obviously none of these possibilities, if even remotely accurate, address the question of enhancement via doping.

All said, I am genuinely surprised how smoothly he has switched over to predominantly aerobic, slow twitch sport. And not only switched over but become a serious GT threat. Again, a combination of 80ml/kg/min ish vo2max, high fractional utilisation at threshold (45min-ish efforts) and high efficiency are basically an entrance requirement to the level he is at, and this too amounts to a win in the genetic lottery.

So the guy won the lottery twice? Or did not actually win in qualitites required in ski jumping, and thus switched?
 
It's normal to question a guy like Roglic, who in the past 4 years has seemingly come out of nowhere. But plenty of riders born strapped to the pedals have also been shown to be dopers. I think -- let's see how he does in the rest of the Giro. It's not as if his start this year wasn't preceded by progression and a lot of "wait till this guy figures it out."

Regarding the "big block of altitude training," I know what Red means -- it's the old "let's go to Gran Canaria, or the mountains of Colombia, where no one can find us, not even the vampires." Out of sight, out of mind, at least in the bad old days.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
Ah, the legendary "big block of altitude training". Wonder how many times I've heard that one. Not saying they don't train at altitude.
You've heard it many times because many do it because it works.

Saying "Ah, the legendary "big block of altitude training". Wonder how many times I've heard that one" is about as meaningful as saying "Ah, the legendary "big block of training". Wonder how many times I've heard that one."
Nope. There is great dispute about the efficacy of altitude training in the scientific literature. It seems to offer minor improvements in some cases, but nothing dramatic. There is no question many have used it as a cover for doping and altered blood values. Therefore I am always skeptical when someone rolls this out as an explanation for a dramatic performance.

For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904371/

Conclusions: Despite the potential benefits arising from altitude training, its effectiveness in improving hematological variables is still debatable. Further research and better understanding of factors influencing the response to altitude, as well as factors affecting the suitable measurement and interpretation of study results, are needed.
There are many more, the reader can do research.

What seems clear is that the benefits offer nothing dramatic, and nothing comparable to what various oxygen vector doping approaches offer. I certainly wonder if this is more of the same kind of smokescreen, but I don't doubt that people do whatever they're doing while training at altitude.
 
Re:

Bolder said:
It's normal to question a guy like Roglic, who in the past 4 years has seemingly come out of nowhere. But plenty of riders born strapped to the pedals have also been shown to be dopers. I think -- let's see how he does in the rest of the Giro. It's not as if his start this year wasn't preceded by progression and a lot of "wait till this guy figures it out."

Regarding the "big block of altitude training," I know what Red means -- it's the old "let's go to Gran Canaria, or the mountains of Colombia, where no one can find us, not even the vampires." Out of sight, out of mind, at least in the bad old days.
Yes, I agree with you, and will be very interested to see how this develops. I would only question the "bad old days" comment. I don't really see the change at the same level many others seem to assume or believe. There has been rampant absurdity at all points in the sport's timeline, it just morphs into new methods and faces.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Bolder said:
It's normal to question a guy like Roglic, who in the past 4 years has seemingly come out of nowhere. But plenty of riders born strapped to the pedals have also been shown to be dopers. I think -- let's see how he does in the rest of the Giro. It's not as if his start this year wasn't preceded by progression and a lot of "wait till this guy figures it out."

Regarding the "big block of altitude training," I know what Red means -- it's the old "let's go to Gran Canaria, or the mountains of Colombia, where no one can find us, not even the vampires." Out of sight, out of mind, at least in the bad old days.
Yes, I agree with you, and will be very interested to see how this develops. I would only question the "bad old days" comment. I don't really see the change at the same level many others seem to assume or believe. There has been rampant absurdity at all points in the sport's timeline, it just morphs into new methods and faces.
No doubt the teams and riders strive just as hard as they ever have to bypass the controls and as a result become more sophisticated over time to avoid tripping an adverse finding. This is normal progression.

But the controls are still having a massive effect and climbing times are proof. None more so than Alpe D'Huez last year when the untouchable Sky train still only rode 41:30. That's over 4 1/2 minutes slower than Pantani's record ! In distance that's about 1 mile / 1.6km back down the mountain!
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
red_flanders said:
Bolder said:
It's normal to question a guy like Roglic, who in the past 4 years has seemingly come out of nowhere. But plenty of riders born strapped to the pedals have also been shown to be dopers. I think -- let's see how he does in the rest of the Giro. It's not as if his start this year wasn't preceded by progression and a lot of "wait till this guy figures it out."

Regarding the "big block of altitude training," I know what Red means -- it's the old "let's go to Gran Canaria, or the mountains of Colombia, where no one can find us, not even the vampires." Out of sight, out of mind, at least in the bad old days.
Yes, I agree with you, and will be very interested to see how this develops. I would only question the "bad old days" comment. I don't really see the change at the same level many others seem to assume or believe. There has been rampant absurdity at all points in the sport's timeline, it just morphs into new methods and faces.
No doubt the teams and riders strive just as hard as they ever have to bypass the controls and as a result become more sophisticated over time to avoid tripping an adverse finding. This is normal progression.

But the controls are still having a massive effect and climbing times are proof. None more so than Alpe D'Huez last year when the untouchable Sky train still only rode 41:30. That's over 4 1/2 minutes slower than Pantani's record ! In distance that's about 1 mile / 1.6km back down the mountain!
The times on the one climb that everyone seems to use as a reference appear to be so slow but on most other climbs appear to be very fast. Hmmm
 
Re: Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
Cookster15 said:
red_flanders said:
Bolder said:
It's normal to question a guy like Roglic, who in the past 4 years has seemingly come out of nowhere. But plenty of riders born strapped to the pedals have also been shown to be dopers. I think -- let's see how he does in the rest of the Giro. It's not as if his start this year wasn't preceded by progression and a lot of "wait till this guy figures it out."

Regarding the "big block of altitude training," I know what Red means -- it's the old "let's go to Gran Canaria, or the mountains of Colombia, where no one can find us, not even the vampires." Out of sight, out of mind, at least in the bad old days.
Yes, I agree with you, and will be very interested to see how this develops. I would only question the "bad old days" comment. I don't really see the change at the same level many others seem to assume or believe. There has been rampant absurdity at all points in the sport's timeline, it just morphs into new methods and faces.
No doubt the teams and riders strive just as hard as they ever have to bypass the controls and as a result become more sophisticated over time to avoid tripping an adverse finding. This is normal progression.

But the controls are still having a massive effect and climbing times are proof. None more so than Alpe D'Huez last year when the untouchable Sky train still only rode 41:30. That's over 4 1/2 minutes slower than Pantani's record ! In distance that's about 1 mile / 1.6km back down the mountain!
The times on the one climb that everyone seems to use as a reference appear to be so slow but on most other climbs appear to be very fast. Hmmm
"Appears". Such as? That is a subjective opinion only. I use the Alpe because it is always raced hard. You cannot refute the evidence of last year Sky set such a pace on the climb no other rider could mount any successful attack. If was effectively a team time trial. And still that only resulted in 41:30. Objective evidence. Hmmm.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
Eyeballs Out said:
Cookster15 said:
red_flanders said:
Bolder said:
It's normal to question a guy like Roglic, who in the past 4 years has seemingly come out of nowhere. But plenty of riders born strapped to the pedals have also been shown to be dopers. I think -- let's see how he does in the rest of the Giro. It's not as if his start this year wasn't preceded by progression and a lot of "wait till this guy figures it out."

Regarding the "big block of altitude training," I know what Red means -- it's the old "let's go to Gran Canaria, or the mountains of Colombia, where no one can find us, not even the vampires." Out of sight, out of mind, at least in the bad old days.
Yes, I agree with you, and will be very interested to see how this develops. I would only question the "bad old days" comment. I don't really see the change at the same level many others seem to assume or believe. There has been rampant absurdity at all points in the sport's timeline, it just morphs into new methods and faces.
No doubt the teams and riders strive just as hard as they ever have to bypass the controls and as a result become more sophisticated over time to avoid tripping an adverse finding. This is normal progression.

But the controls are still having a massive effect and climbing times are proof. None more so than Alpe D'Huez last year when the untouchable Sky train still only rode 41:30. That's over 4 1/2 minutes slower than Pantani's record ! In distance that's about 1 mile / 1.6km back down the mountain!
The times on the one climb that everyone seems to use as a reference appear to be so slow but on most other climbs appear to be very fast. Hmmm
"Appears". Such as? That is a subjective opinion only. I use the Alpe because it is always raced hard. You cannot refute the evidence of last year Sky set such a pace on the climb no other rider could mount any successful attack. If was effectively a team time trial. And still that only resulted in 41:30. Objective evidence. Hmmm.
If you're happy to consider only 10 miles every couple of years out of all the miles ridden in pro cycling then don't be surprised if you get a very misleading picture of what is going on. There's a stickied thread above if you want a bigger picture
 
Eyeballs out- I get that but it is also a deflection. As I stated there is no climb more prestigious than the Alpe. It is always raced hard so it is a very good sample that can reflect what is going on. It has never been raced harder than 2018 for the reason I stated - the Sky train. Thomas was delivered the win because Sky set an infernal tempo - the entire 13.8km. But still a snails pace of 41:30 relative to pre passport days. Your logic is typical for the clinic but I find it too presumptuous and it simply does not add up against the stop watch using a valid example. Controls are not stopping doping but they are having massive restriction on what was once possible.
If you can provide a quote from the thread above happy to change my mind.
 
Re:

Cookster15 said:
Eyeballs out- I get that but it is also a deflection. As I stated there is no climb more prestigious than the Alpe. It is always raced hard so it is a very good sample that can reflect what is going on. It has never been raced harder than 2018 for the reason I stated - the Sky train. Thomas was delivered the win because Sky set an infernal tempo - the entire 13.8km. But still a snails pace of 41:30 relative to pre passport days. Your logic is typical for the clinic but I find it too presumptuous and it simply does not add up against the stop watch using a valid example. Controls are not stopping doping but they are having massive restriction on what was once possible.
If you can provide a quote from the thread above happy to change my mind.
40′ 51″ Alexander Vinokourov 2003
41′ 18″ Lance Armstrong 2003
41′ 21″ Samuel Sánchez 2011
41′ 30″ Alberto Contador 2011
41′ 46″ Cadel Evans 2008

Anyone clean on that list? Nope. You can't look at one climb, too many tactics involved, to many variables such as wind and previous climbs, or how it was raced. It is not always raced full on. Sure doping has been curtailed to some extent, but it's still obviously happening.

I'll be curious to see what Roglič does over the course of this Giro. I'm skeptical as heck right now but I could be wrong. If he continues as he's going now, there isn't much doubt.
 
IzzyStradlin said:
Roglic is a totally obvious Ricco-level charger.
I agree, but I don't think it would behoove anyone within the sport to point it out. I could be completely wrong, but a positive test from Roglic would just bring the tent down. No one except high stakes bettors with a chip on their shoulders wants to see that happen.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Cookster15 said:
Eyeballs out- I get that but it is also a deflection. As I stated there is no climb more prestigious than the Alpe. It is always raced hard so it is a very good sample that can reflect what is going on. It has never been raced harder than 2018 for the reason I stated - the Sky train. Thomas was delivered the win because Sky set an infernal tempo - the entire 13.8km. But still a snails pace of 41:30 relative to pre passport days. Your logic is typical for the clinic but I find it too presumptuous and it simply does not add up against the stop watch using a valid example. Controls are not stopping doping but they are having massive restriction on what was once possible.
If you can provide a quote from the thread above happy to change my mind.
40′ 51″ Alexander Vinokourov 2003
41′ 18″ Lance Armstrong 2003
41′ 21″ Samuel Sánchez 2011
41′ 30″ Alberto Contador 2011
41′ 46″ Cadel Evans 2008

Anyone clean on that list? Nope. You can't look at one climb, too many tactics involved, to many variables such as wind and previous climbs, or how it was raced. It is not always raced full on. Sure doping has been curtailed to some extent, but it's still obviously happening.

I'll be curious to see what Roglič does over the course of this Giro. I'm skeptical as heck right now but I could be wrong. If he continues as he's going now, there isn't much doubt.
2018 was raced full on all the way - I explained why, Sky train.
2003 is pre passport.
41 minutes is borderline depending on the rider but not super suspicious IMO. What kind of watts is that?
Armstrong 2003 was his weakest Tour by far. 41 minutes is a snails pace compared to 38:30 (Floyd 2006).
Glad you agree on the bold bit this was my point. I was just tempering the usual clinic hype.
 
Cookster15 said:
IzzyStradlin said:
Roglic is a totally obvious Ricco-level charger.
It is not possible to be a Ricco level charger in the year 2019. Sorry. That is only possible if the UCI have him on some sort of ignore list which I find extremely far fetched.
But if you're a late-comer to the sport...and on the program from the very beginning. Your biological profile could have a very impressive baseline.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
2018 was raced full on all the way - I explained why, Sky train.
2003 is pre passport.
41 minutes is borderline depending on the rider but not super suspicious IMO. What kind of watts is that?
Armstrong 2003 was his weakest Tour by far. 41 minutes is a snails pace compared to 38:30 (Floyd 2006).
Glad you agree on the bold bit this was my point. I was just tempering the usual clinic hype.
The pre-passport is to me kind of the point. There have been dozens of incredibly suspicious and confirmed doping performances since the passport, the most high-profile of which the UCI has inexplicably decided not to prosecute.

A train means that the top riders are going slower than they can, waiting for the domestiques to burn off the pretenders. Not full on compared to a lone rider attacking, a la Pantani etc. Also note that many of the top times on the Alpe are TT times. That's full on, though obviously without the preceding mountains.

I get the sense that your view of how clean things are is quite different from mine, though this is entirely subjective. When I see a guy dominating multiple stage races all spring, like the dopers Froome and Wiggins did some years ago, and continue to dominate a GT after that, my radar goes up. If Roglič fades, then I'm less suspicious for sure. If he doesn't? Give me a break.
 
So he has to lose in order for you to think he's not a doper. And if he does win, he's only not a doper if he loses the minor stage races prior to the GT, which are of course normally a marker for GT success. Plus he's a doper because he's got a smile you dont like.

Brilliance.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Cookster15 said:
2018 was raced full on all the way - I explained why, Sky train.
2003 is pre passport.
41 minutes is borderline depending on the rider but not super suspicious IMO. What kind of watts is that?
Armstrong 2003 was his weakest Tour by far. 41 minutes is a snails pace compared to 38:30 (Floyd 2006).
Glad you agree on the bold bit this was my point. I was just tempering the usual clinic hype.
The pre-passport is to me kind of the point. There have been dozens of incredibly suspicious and confirmed doping performances since the passport, the most high-profile of which the UCI has inexplicably decided not to prosecute.

A train means that the top riders are going slower than they can, waiting for the domestiques to burn off the pretenders. Not full on compared to a lone rider attacking, a la Pantani etc. Also note that many of the top times on the Alpe are TT times. That's full on, though obviously without the preceding mountains.

I get the sense that your view of how clean things are is quite different from mine, though this is entirely subjective. When I see a guy dominating multiple stage races all spring, like the dopers Froome and Wiggins did some years ago, and continue to dominate a GT after that, my radar goes up. If Roglič fades, then I'm less suspicious for sure. If he doesn't? Give me a break.
Of course our views are subjective but I do attempt to bolster mine with some valid reference points - in this case times on the Alpe. I know this is one climb of many raced and all season but it is raced hard and I don't think it has ever been raced harder from bottom to top by a team than last year. I am not aware of any headwind.

I disagree with your logic on the Sky Train. Sky's domestiques can ride at well over their FTP threshold until they drop off - they are not riding slower than they can. In Sky's case one of those "domestiques" was Chris Froome. Another Egan Bernal and also Michael Kwiatkowski who can pull huge watts for 10km of climbing. This is a huge pace and is why no climber from rival teams could attack Sky. Yet despite that consistent pace driven all the way the time wasn't particularly quick in historical terms.

Just to be clear I am very suspicious of Sky / Inneos and I think most riders and teams still dope but I think we do need to acknowledge whatever is going on now isn't providing the boosts of circa 1991 to 2009. Even 2010 Tour there was an obvious to me lower level Contador and Schleck looked more human.

But I also doubt this situation will persist the end game is genetic doping which to me is scary in the extreme. I suppose every pro would need to have their pre professional DNA mapped and stored for future reference but that is another story for another day.

On Roglic, maybe you are right if he doesn't fade. Time will tell but he is still relatively new to the sport and would be on an upwards physiological trajectory. I can't see why the UCI would be looking the other way with him either.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS