Remco Evenepoel

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Evenepoel gained 29" on Mas in the TTT and 1'51" on Mas in the ITT, meaning over the mass start road stages Evenepoel was 15" behind Mas, however those times are affected by bonuses, of which Mas has 20" and Evenepoel 16", so the overall difference between them is 11". Given Roglič lost a bunch of time in week 1 on the mountains and lost far less to Evenepoel against the clock than Mas did, I think we can say that Mas was the strongest climber in this race, by an extremely narrow margin from Evenepoel; I think a case can be made that the best single performances in the mountains were either Vine in week 1 or Carapaz in week 3, but across the whole race it's Mas and Evenepoel.
Isn't that logic flawed since Evenepoel only had to defend the jersey while Mas had to play catchup? Sierra Nevada for example, Mas gained around 40 seconds. Not because he was the superior climber but because he started the day almost 3 minutes down and Evenepoel was only focused on Roglic that day.
 
If we can't believe in a kid like Remco, I really wonder what the point is? This isn't a dig at anyone, but we've got to the point now where any progression of a rider is used as evidence they're doping.
What point? Watching the sport and finding it entertaining? Finding it meaningful? Intriguing?

I simply reject that any of that should depend on suspension of disbelief.

And why should Evenepoel be the example of the most "trustworthy" possible rider? Would that not be a more ordinary rider instead?
 
Reactions: Red Rick
What point? Watching the sport and finding it entertaining? Finding it meaningful? Intriguing?

I simply reject that any of that should depend on suspension of disbelief.

And why should Evenepoel be the example of the most "trustworthy" possible rider? Would that not be a more ordinary rider instead?
what's the point in even discussing it here. We've got to the point where I think I've seen every possible progression towards the top of the peloton used as evidence that person is doping.

Someone has to win and unless you are implying every winner is a doper, which rider are you picking? If you are saying every winner is a doper, I'd say we've reached the nadir of the clinic.
 
Reactions: yaco
Someone has to win and unless you are implying every winner is a doper, which rider are you picking? If you are saying every winner is a doper, I'd say we've reached the nadir of the clinic.
I believe that all of the strongest riders are doping, yes, so no matter your path, you only reach superhuman strength with doping. I believe that most riders are doping. Why would that be the nadir? Is having the same assessment of the current state as that of the 00's terrible?

How widespread do you think doping was just before Operation Puerto? Do you think there were any clean winners then? Was the sport pointless to watch then compared to now?

Your argument strikes me as similar to that a Valverde fan would use to fend off critics then. If you couldn't believe Valverde in 2004, then it would be pointless to watch, you damn cynic!
 
Reactions: Nick2413
what's the point in even discussing it here. We've got to the point where I think I've seen every possible progression towards the top of the peloton used as evidence that person is doping.

Someone has to win and unless you are implying every winner is a doper, which rider are you picking? If you are saying every winner is a doper, I'd say we've reached the nadir of the clinic.
I think the difference is in the way we view doping morally. I think a lot of people like cycling, but think doping is morally bad, and therefor are inclined to give any rider the benefit of the doubt, and treating absence of evidence as a convenient reason to do so.

Meanwhile I think doping is more neutral, and when there is no reward for being clean, no reward for catching doping, and a very small chance of getting caught if you dope properly, I think it's basic human behavior that in a competitive environment like that athletes would dope super hard. Especially when some of the most ridiculous athletes never get popped.

It's basic human behavior to bend rules and cheat to get an advantage, especially when the chance of getting busted is so small. And the idea that cyclists are some magical exception seems rather ridiculous to me.

'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'
 
There’s a good homemade documentary on YT by an Olympic weightlifter called “Why I’m against anti-doping,” I highly recommend checking it out. I would say my attitude towards doping and the morals involved meshes very closely with it. I am not necessarily against anti-doping per se but there are a lot of issues involved that people disregard out of moral blindness.
 
Finally I think it's quite possible to be open to the idea of everyone using while still being interested to discuss the how/whys or performance of athletes in relation to doping.

Meanwhile I don't see the poitn of visiting the clinic if you think it's some redundant hellhole.
I take it by "using" you mean strictly adults who have a choice? Cause *** gets very sketchy when parents and/or coaches see it fit to dope their kids just because they might see some sort of future reward.

PS - what do you actually do as a mod these days? (Thought I'd sneak that in, seeing as you're apparently not hearing about all the spam in various forums.)
 
Last edited:
I think the difference is in the way we view doping morally. I think a lot of people like cycling, but think doping is morally bad, and therefor are inclined to give any rider the benefit of the doubt, and treating absence of evidence as a convenient reason to do so.

Meanwhile I think doping is more neutral, and when there is no reward for being clean, no reward for catching doping, and a very small chance of getting caught if you dope properly, I think it's basic human behavior that in a competitive environment like that athletes would dope super hard. Especially when some of the most ridiculous athletes never get popped.

It's basic human behavior to bend rules and cheat to get an advantage, especially when the chance of getting busted is so small. And the idea that cyclists are some magical exception seems rather ridiculous to me.

'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'
There's a lot of strawmen in that.
 
Reactions: noob
Oh, and you're implying I meant watch, even though I clarified I meant discussion of doping in the post you quoted.
I don't think it was pointless to discuss doping at any point in time, so I don't see how that follows. Why would it be pointless to discuss and talk about how riders dope and how it changes if one believes that it is common to dope? Changes that are caused by doping (for the rider and the peloton as a whole) play a big part in the sport, so doping has great explanatory power that you would want to understand if you want to understand the sport.

And I still don't get why Evenepoel should be the threshold for everyone doping. For him to be clean, the peloton at large would have to be far cleaner than what I think it is. Even if only half the peloton dopes, Evenepoel would still be a likely doper, so deeming him a doper doesn't imply that everyone dopes.
 
Last edited:
In general I think it's morally wrong to not be against doping in sport.

But as a Cycling fan with no connections to cycling as an athlete myself I can partly distance myself from the moral question and the obvious "it's so unfair for the clean riders"-problem. As a spectator sitting in my couch the main thing for me is what looks and feel right. It's probably very much double moral involved, but for me as an spectator thinking about the entertainment value first (and not what is right or wrong) the eye test goes like this:
Does the rider look, act and feel like a Champion?

Remco look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Pogacar look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Van der Poel look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Bernal, Carapaz, Mas, Ayoso, Carlos Rodriguez etc looks like Champions. They acts (kind of questionmark regarding Mas here tho :) ) like Champions. It feels like they are exactly how a Champion should be.

It was the same when I was younger.
Boonen looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.
Contador looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.
Valverde looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.

With riders like these I feel like these are the riders that would be among the absolute best also in dream world where doping didn't exist. It's probably just pure gut feeling and there is no proof to back statements like this up. It's probably just a defense mechanism to justify to myself why I spend so much time looking at and thinking about elite sport.

What I do struggle with is riders that doesn't survive the eye-test. Best example Froome. It's probably a bit unfair, but it's just I feel that it's an insult that I am supposed to believe he is the real deal. Because his whole story and how he look on a bike just feels so wrong.
 
In general I think it's morally wrong to not be against doping in sport.

But as a Cycling fan with no connections to cycling as an athlete myself I can partly distance myself from the moral question and the obvious "it's so unfair for the clean riders"-problem. As a spectator sitting in my couch the main thing for me is what looks and feel right. It's probably very much double moral involved, but for me as an spectator thinking about the entertainment value first (and not what is right or wrong) the eye test goes like this:
Does the rider look, act and feel like a Champion?

Remco look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Pogacar look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Van der Poel look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Bernal, Carapaz, Mas, Ayoso, Carlos Rodriguez etc looks like Champions. They acts (kind of questionmark regarding Mas here tho :) ) like Champions. It feels like they are exactly how a Champion should be.

It was the same when I was younger.
Boonen looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.
Contador looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.
Valverde looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.

With riders like these I feel like these are the riders that would be among the absolute best also in dream world where doping didn't exist. It's probably just pure gut feeling and there is no proof to back statements like this up. It's probably just a defense mechanism to justify to myself why I spend so much time looking at and thinking about elite sport.

What I do struggle with is riders that doesn't survive the eye-test. Best example Froome. It's probably a bit unfair, but it's just I feel that it's an insult that I am supposed to believe he is the real deal. Because his whole story and how he look on a bike just feels so wrong.
It is definitely a defense mechanism. History has shown that riders who look, feel, and act like champions are even more likely to dope than anyone else, given their track record. That doesn’t mean Froome type riders aren’t just as suspicious though.
 
It is definitely a defense mechanism. History has shown that riders who look, feel, and act like champions are even more likely to dope than anyone else, given their track record. That doesn’t mean Froome type riders aren’t just as suspicious though.
Yeah, I mean it's not like I assume they are clean - I'm just not really bothered about them probably being doped.
It's a long time since I had naive illusions about top athletes in money driven sports are clean. But 12-15 year old me did believe the "Wonderboy" story :tearsofjoy:
 
In general I think it's morally wrong to not be against doping in sport.

But as a Cycling fan with no connections to cycling as an athlete myself I can partly distance myself from the moral question and the obvious "it's so unfair for the clean riders"-problem. As a spectator sitting in my couch the main thing for me is what looks and feel right. It's probably very much double moral involved, but for me as an spectator thinking about the entertainment value first (and not what is right or wrong) the eye test goes like this:
Does the rider look, act and feel like a Champion?

Remco look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Pogacar look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Van der Poel look like a Champion. He acts like a Champion. It feels like he is exactly how a Champion should be.
Bernal, Carapaz, Mas, Ayoso, Carlos Rodriguez etc looks like Champions. They acts (kind of questionmark regarding Mas here tho :) ) like Champions. It feels like they are exactly how a Champion should be.

It was the same when I was younger.
Boonen looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.
Contador looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.
Valverde looked like a Champion. He acted like a Champion. It felt like he was exactly how a Champion should be.

With riders like these I feel like these are the riders that would be among the absolute best also in dream world where doping didn't exist. It's probably just pure gut feeling and there is no proof to back statements like this up. It's probably just a defense mechanism to justify to myself why I spend so much time looking at and thinking about elite sport.

What I do struggle with is riders that doesn't survive the eye-test. Best example Froome. It's probably a bit unfair, but it's just I feel that it's an insult that I am supposed to believe he is the real deal. Because his whole story and how he look on a bike just feels so wrong.
"They are all in the mix" like froome and vingegaard.
Let's talk about remco. Remco is so suspicious like froome or vingegaard. A guy that quits football at 15/16 years old and a couple years is flying in cycling, is less suspicious than vingegaard and froome? Oh c'mon....and the physiology of remco doesn't explain that, because vingegaard and froome also have a mutant physiology.

Some riders appear later, some guys appear sooner, but everybody "is in the mix".
There's no secrets inside the peloton.
 
"They are all in the mix" like froome and vingegaard.
Let's talk about remco. Remco is so suspicious like froome or vingegaard. A guy that quits football at 15/16 years old and a couple years is flying in cycling, is less suspicious than vingegaard and froome? Oh c'mon....and the physiology of remco doesn't explain that, because vingegaard and froome also have a mutant physiology.

Some riders appear later, some guys appear sooner, but everybody "is in the mix".
There's no secrets inside the peloton.
I dont think you understood my view and what i meant, fair enough…

The big difference between Froome and Remco is that Remco never was “not brilliant”. He was outstanding from his first year as a junior, even if he came straight from football. Remco showed sign of “mutant physiology” already when he was 17-18. Froome suddenly showed mutant physiology when he was like 25. That makes a massive difference in the way they look imo.

Everyone knows Valverde has been dirty, it doesn’t change the fact that he won everything he participated in as a young kid and that he always seemed to be made for greatness. Remco is close to Valverde in that regard, even if he started a bit later.
 
I don't think it was pointless to discuss doping at any point in time, so I don't see how that follows. Why would it be pointless to discuss and talk about how riders dope and how it changes if one believes that it is common to dope? Changes that are caused by doping (for the rider and the peloton as a whole) play a big part in the sport, so doping has great explanatory power that you would want to understand if you want to understand the sport.

And I still don't get why Evenepoel should be the threshold for everyone doping. For him to be clean, the peloton at large would have to be far cleaner than what I think it is. Even if only half the peloton dopes, Evenepoel would still be a likely doper, so deeming him a doper doesn't imply that everyone dopes.
I obviously don't have an issue with talking about how riders dope, but in this case we have literally nothing to go on so we're essentially speculating with nothing to back it up. It makes any discussion very hard, because any sensible theory holds a similar weight, even if they are very different. But that's really a different discussion.

I guess this probably hits on the point then, because I probably do think the peloton is cleaner than you do and I don't think every winner dopes. This thread was started when Remco was 18. I don't think there has been anything to even suggest he's connected to dopers apart from riding for a pro team? His progression from an extremely talented young athlete (ran a 1h 15min half when he was 16?) to an extremely talented, but arguably not yet reached the potential some expected, cyclist is about as expected as it might be for any recent winner. You'll note I've not posted this in the Pidcock thread due to his ties to BC and Skineos. It feels like we've now got to a point where, if a rider wins, a clinic thread is started, the same generic speculation is thrown out based on however they have progressed and its used as evidence they're doping, without any actual evidence.

Get good coming from another sport? Doping.
Be good as a kid and stay good? Doping.
Develop later in your career? Doping.
Win all year? Doping.
Win only one race? Doping.
Win all your career? Doping.
Win for one year then fall off? Doping.


Yes, it's possible anyone who does one of these is doping, but it's also very possible they're not. It just feels like we're now at the point where speculation based on race results is all that happens.
 
There’s a good homemade documentary on YT by an Olympic weightlifter called “Why I’m against anti-doping,” I highly recommend checking it out. I would say my attitude towards doping and the morals involved meshes very closely with it. I am not necessarily against anti-doping per se but there are a lot of issues involved that people disregard out of moral blindness.
Have you got a link? I’d like to see what the moral arguments are against anti-doping.
 
I obviously don't have an issue with talking about how riders dope, but in this case we have literally nothing to go on so we're essentially speculating with nothing to back it up. It makes any discussion very hard, because any sensible theory holds a similar weight, even if they are very different. But that's really a different discussion.

I guess this probably hits on the point then, because I probably do think the peloton is cleaner than you do and I don't think every winner dopes. This thread was started when Remco was 18. I don't think there has been anything to even suggest he's connected to dopers apart from riding for a pro team? His progression from an extremely talented young athlete (ran a 1h 15min half when he was 16?) to an extremely talented, but arguably not yet reached the potential some expected, cyclist is about as expected as it might be for any recent winner. You'll note I've not posted this in the Pidcock thread due to his ties to BC and Skineos. It feels like we've now got to a point where, if a rider wins, a clinic thread is started, the same generic speculation is thrown out based on however they have progressed and its used as evidence they're doping, without any actual evidence.

Get good coming from another sport? Doping.
Be good as a kid and stay good? Doping.
Develop later in your career? Doping.
Win all year? Doping.
Win only one race? Doping.
Win all your career? Doping.
Win for one year then fall off? Doping.


Yes, it's possible anyone who does one of these is doping, but it's also very possible they're not. It just feels like we're now at the point where speculation based on race results is all that happens.
It's not about winning, as it's trivial that there will always be a winner. It's about performances. Given that human nature doesn't change all that rapidly, the level of performances is informative.

When the background of the peloton strength changes, the implication from managing to win by strength also changes. Winning by strength in 1990 didn't imply use of EPO to the same extend winning by strength did in 1995.

When I created Vingegaard's thread and discussion in that took off, it was because of his performances. I didn't suddenly become convinced that he was doping, but taking it to the next level warranted discussion because it moved the benchmark for top performances and was thus likely stemming from the arms race of doping. When many commented in the thread that it was indeed outrageous, it also helped establishing and calibrating common knowledge and common beliefs.

EDIT: And I didn't write that all winners dope. I wrote that I believe all the strongest riders do.

We obviously don't know much about the current peloton, but we do know a lot about the peloton before Operation Puerto. Do you think it was common to win by strength as a clean rider then?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: SHAD0W93

ASK THE COMMUNITY