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

Primož Roglič

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Don't see much strange here. He didn't have good legs in the Alps for instance and was distanced there. He was slightly better in the pyrenees and only took advantage in a downhill in the end.

Fair play.
Agreed. His TT performance today was human -- a good effort after stage 19, but not superhuman, and not as strong as we might expect of a fresh Roglic. Now Froome on the other hand . . . :rolleyes:
Yes Rogliic showed he was human today. Other than Luke Rowe, the lowest Sky finisher was Bernal (25h), ahead of him were Poels (49th @ 1:49), Castroviejo (14th @ 1:31) then Froome thru Kwiat finishing 2nd thru 4th. This after riding in support of Thomas for three weeks. Marginal gains apparently. Not human.
 
Re:

Baldinger said:
If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. Simple as that. The story about Roglic is just too far out to make any sense.
Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. The idea is attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
Generally speaking, "Really REALLY wanted to make it as a pro and was prepared to make any necessary sacrifices" aren't exactly arguments against the possibility that someone dopes.
Brilliant.

Exactly; Home Team Advantage.

i.e. access & experience.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
Giro prologue result seems fairly ridiculous. Just not buying this guy at all. I'll confess, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, maybe the smirk.
I find myself to be in an interesting position. I actually like Roglič, and I like Jumbo Visma as a team. There's a lot to add up why Roglič would simply be set up to be a good rider (beyond the genetics). He's got a great TT position, super compact, interesting background, etc.

However, it's definitely gotten to ridiculous territory. He can climb long and short, TT, and sprint, and apparently be competitive in all. I read WvA saying his TT wattage is "approaching" Roglič's, but he weighs something like 15 kg more. What got me was not TT 'ability', which would also be due to aerodynamics, it was wattage - pure power, with better aero, and in a lightweight frame.

Today's performance was nuts. I'll hold on my final opinion as he could crack spectacularly. But if he just keeps on destroying everyone, then it's just way over the top.
 
Re:

topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Because if you put today's performances on a scatter plot, he would be a massive outlier. And it keeps getting more dramatic. Everyone improves from age 21, that doesn't strike me as an explanation.

I think Ripper's take is spot on.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
Giro prologue result seems fairly ridiculous. Just not buying this guy at all. I'll confess, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, maybe the smirk.
That's quite a skill you have there. Able to spot doping from a person's facial expression.
 
Re:

topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Yep, there is a clear development with Roglic as he's learning his craft and building the multi-year base needed for elite cycle racing. Development has been pretty steady and consisent; with last year the breakthrough one in terms of GTs.

Imo, he's less suspicious than the guys who have been racing in the professional system since their teens, with all top training and coaching, but who suddenly turn into a top GT rider out of nowhere in their mid 20s.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Yep, there is a clear development with Roglic as he's learning his craft and building the multi-year base needed for elite cycle racing. Development has been pretty steady and consisent; with last year the breakthrough one in terms of GTs.

Imo, he's less suspicious than the guys who have been racing in the professional system since their teens, with all top training and coaching, but who suddenly turn into a top GT rider out of nowhere in their mid 20s.
You don't find his 2016 in-season ITT improvement suspicious? From being about 4 s/km slower than the best to nearly winning the Giro prologue in the space of about 2 months?
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
Giro prologue result seems fairly ridiculous. Just not buying this guy at all. I'll confess, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, maybe the smirk.
That's quite a skill you have there. Able to spot doping from a person's facial expression.
Maybe read for comprehension instead of looking for an argument. My comment meant I may be biased to some degree, as I come from a place of not really liking him. It's called self awareness. Rather the opposite of self satisfied sarcasm.
 
How strange. Not liking somebody's face leads you to be more likely to impugn their reputation with accusations of doping. I guess we should view all your input on here in the light of this.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
How strange. Not liking somebody's face leads you to be more likely to impugn their reputation with accusations of doping. I guess we should view all your input on here in the light of this.
Regard it however you like. Roglic is wildly suspicious no matter what my view of him. At least I'm honest about my potential biases.
 
May 20, 2017
148
17
1,860
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Because if you put today's performances on a scatter plot, he would be a massive outlier. And it keeps getting more dramatic. Everyone improves from age 21, that doesn't strike me as an explanation.

I think Ripper's take is spot on.
its kind of different if you get your first bike at 21, its much easier to explain than people like Froome.
If you followed his season that was not a massive outlier, we all knew he would win.
 
May 20, 2017
148
17
1,860
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
Giro prologue result seems fairly ridiculous. Just not buying this guy at all. I'll confess, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, maybe the smirk.
That's quite a skill you have there. Able to spot doping from a person's facial expression.
Maybe read for comprehension instead of looking for an argument. My comment meant I may be biased to some degree, as I come from a place of not really liking him. It's called self awareness. Rather the opposite of self satisfied sarcasm.
or is it called a butthurt fan of some other rider
 
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
DFA123 said:
topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Yep, there is a clear development with Roglic as he's learning his craft and building the multi-year base needed for elite cycle racing. Development has been pretty steady and consisent; with last year the breakthrough one in terms of GTs.

Imo, he's less suspicious than the guys who have been racing in the professional system since their teens, with all top training and coaching, but who suddenly turn into a top GT rider out of nowhere in their mid 20s.
You don't find his 2016 in-season ITT improvement suspicious? From being about 4 s/km slower than the best to nearly winning the Giro prologue in the space of about 2 months?
Yes, I find it suspicious; as I would find any rider suspicious who is putting in performances that Roglic has been doing. But his career progression, improvements and results are all kind of logical in a way; far more so than some of his GC rivals - who imo are way more suspicious clinic wise.

Regarding the jump in TT ability, for example. It was his first season on a WT team with access to top level coaches, equipment, expertise etc... I think it's reasonable to see a decent improvement if a rider begins to focus on it in those circumstances.
 
May 20, 2017
148
17
1,860
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
DFA123 said:
topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Yep, there is a clear development with Roglic as he's learning his craft and building the multi-year base needed for elite cycle racing. Development has been pretty steady and consisent; with last year the breakthrough one in terms of GTs.

Imo, he's less suspicious than the guys who have been racing in the professional system since their teens, with all top training and coaching, but who suddenly turn into a top GT rider out of nowhere in their mid 20s.
You don't find his 2016 in-season ITT improvement suspicious? From being about 4 s/km slower than the best to nearly winning the Giro prologue in the space of about 2 months?
So he started doping after he became pro, what about the next year and year after that; what ? he started doping some more every year; I am not getting this. The guys that are suspicious become winners and reach their top from nothing ( Froome), they dont improve every year
 
Re: Re:

topt said:
red_flanders said:
topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Because if you put today's performances on a scatter plot, he would be a massive outlier. And it keeps getting more dramatic. Everyone improves from age 21, that doesn't strike me as an explanation.

I think Ripper's take is spot on.
its kind of different if you get your first bike at 21, its much easier to explain than people like Froome.
If you followed his season that was not a massive outlier, we all knew he would win.
His whole season is looking fairly absurd.
 
Re: Re:

topt said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
Giro prologue result seems fairly ridiculous. Just not buying this guy at all. I'll confess, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, maybe the smirk.
That's quite a skill you have there. Able to spot doping from a person's facial expression.
Maybe read for comprehension instead of looking for an argument. My comment meant I may be biased to some degree, as I come from a place of not really liking him. It's called self awareness. Rather the opposite of self satisfied sarcasm.
or is it called a butthurt fan of some other rider
Jesus what a bunch of whining.
 
Re: Re:

topt said:
roundabout said:
DFA123 said:
topt said:
just wondering why is that over the top ?
The guy has been improving every year since he started cycling at 21.
Yep, there is a clear development with Roglic as he's learning his craft and building the multi-year base needed for elite cycle racing. Development has been pretty steady and consisent; with last year the breakthrough one in terms of GTs.

Imo, he's less suspicious than the guys who have been racing in the professional system since their teens, with all top training and coaching, but who suddenly turn into a top GT rider out of nowhere in their mid 20s.
You don't find his 2016 in-season ITT improvement suspicious? From being about 4 s/km slower than the best to nearly winning the Giro prologue in the space of about 2 months?
So he started doping after he became pro, what about the next year and year after that; what ? he started doping some more every year; I am not getting this. The guys that are suspicious become winners and reach their top from nothing ( Froome), they dont improve every year
Doping does not replace hard work and does not erase progression. It can improve capacities, tolerances, and recovery, which would actually enable better year to year progression. Of course there are folks who make sudden jumps in ability, but don't get fooled into thinking that only the patently insane jump from nobody to rock star are the only dopers.

As an example, I don't doubt that some of the bigger dopers out there also have a crazy good work ethic. I believe Tyler H. had noted a major thing doping did for him was allow him to 'put in the miles' to improve more. (I may this last part wrong and it may have been someone writing about Hamilton, that, I forget)
 
About his TT improvements in 2016:

In 2015 when he was riding at Adria Mobil, I remember very well, in an interview before Tour of Slovenia he said about his TT abilities: "I believe I can be a good time trialist, but how can I show it when I don't even have a TT bike. I'll get a TT bike just a couple of hours before my ride. I have no special TT training. How can I compete with the WT riders? I just can't. It is what it is. We as a continental team just can't compete with WT teams as far as TT goes."

He goes then to take 16th place in that flat ITT and later wins the overall GC.

Next year already with LottoNL, he immediately shows good things in two completely flat ITTs in Algarve and T-A with two top30 results and both times among the best between the climbers/GC riders. Then he went on a big block of altitude training for the first time in his life. He also did special TT training for the first time in his life around that time. Next race in line was the Giro where he shocked the World of cycling with his 2nd and 1st place in two time trials. It was a big surprise, yes, but he has shown signs in the past that time-trialing could be a discipline where he excels if given the time to work on it. And he did just that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts