Remco Evenepoel

[Netserk]

We haven't seen any recent revelations of the new gears and cogs of the doping machinery, so it's difficult to have substantive discussions on that level other than trying to (re)interpret old or more indirect evidence. But we can observe that something has changed, as the peloton strength has changed quite visibly.

 

[Nick2413]

Have you got a link? I’d like to see what the moral arguments are against anti-doping.

View: https://youtu.be/HQLweuRSD9M


I largely agree with the principles of what he’s saying although I don’t necessarily think abandoning it altogether is smart either.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

LOL

 

[Akuryo]

LOL

What was so otherworldly today? He rode away from the likes of Schmid, Lutsenko, etc. The 2 minute headstart by most favorites was more of a tactical fckup than him destroying the opposition. Not saying he's clean but today is a bad example. It's more like everyone decided collectively to hand him the rainbow stripes and not him taking them by force.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

What was so otherworldly today? He rode away from the likes of Schmid, Lutsenko, etc. The 2 minute headstart by most favorites was more of a tactical fckup than him destroying the opposition. Not saying he's clean but today is a bad example. It's more like everyone decided collectively to hand him the rainbow stripes and not him taking them by force.

Okay.

Would you accept a mere chuckle (on behalf of the peloton) then?

 

[Bolder]

What was so otherworldly today? He rode away from the likes of Schmid, Lutsenko, etc. The 2 minute headstart by most favorites was more of a tactical fckup than him destroying the opposition. Not saying he's clean but today is a bad example. It's more like everyone decided collectively to hand him the rainbow stripes and not him taking them by force.

i don’t know how you let a guy whose forte is long range attacks go up the road in a group of mostly domestiques.

 

[proffate]

We haven't seen any recent revelations of the new gears and cogs of the doping machinery, so it's difficult to have substantive discussions on that level other than trying to (re)interpret old or more indirect evidence. But we can observe that something has changed, as the peloton strength has changed quite visibly.

Today, one man rode away from the rest of the world so it wasn't really a great example of "peloton strength" being noticeably different from past years.

In a clean sport, should there be more or fewer outliers? I would have thought more, in which case the standouts of the last several years should be a welcome sign that the sport is cleaner now. (Let's just ignore for a second that climbing times are no slower than before.)

Remco is the youngest wc since Armstrong but also the first rider to win GT+WC since Lemond. If you accept one of those riders as relatively clean and one as doped to the gills then I guess comparing to the past doesn't really tell us as much as you might think.

 

[Red Rick]

Today, one man rode away from the rest of the world so it wasn't really a great example of "peloton strength" being noticeably different from past years.

In a clean sport, should there be more or fewer outliers? I would have thought more, in which case the standouts of the last several years should be a welcome sign that the sport is cleaner now. (Let's just ignore for a second that climbing times are no slower than before.)

Remco is the youngest wc since Armstrong but also the first rider to win GT+WC since Lemond. If you accept one of those riders as relatively clean and one as doped to the gills then I guess comparing to the past doesn't really tell us as much as you might think.

In a clean sport there should be fewer outliers because there can be no discrepancy in doping. If there's doping there's gonna be large discrepancies in doping itself.

 

[roundabout]

Today, one man rode away from the rest of the world so it wasn't really a great example of "peloton strength" being noticeably different from past years.

In a clean sport, should there be more or fewer outliers? I would have thought more, in which case the standouts of the last several years should be a welcome sign that the sport is cleaner now. (Let's just ignore for a second that climbing times are no slower than before.)

Remco is the youngest wc since Armstrong but also the first rider to win GT+WC since Lemond. If you accept one of those riders as relatively clean and one as doped to the gills then I guess comparing to the past doesn't really tell us as much as you might think.

The middle paragraph reads like circular reasoning to me.

 

[Nick2413]

Today, one man rode away from the rest of the world so it wasn't really a great example of "peloton strength" being noticeably different from past years.

In a clean sport, should there be more or fewer outliers? I would have thought more, in which case the standouts of the last several years should be a welcome sign that the sport is cleaner now. (Let's just ignore for a second that climbing times are no slower than before.)

Remco is the youngest wc since Armstrong but also the first rider to win GT+WC since Lemond. If you accept one of those riders as relatively clean and one as doped to the gills then I guess comparing to the past doesn't really tell us as much as you might think.

Clean sport effectively acts as a restrictor plate compared to doping. When everyone is clean there’s only variation in natural talent, which should be pretty small at the top level. When there’s also doping, there should be far more variability.

 

[Cookster15]

Clean sport effectively acts as a restrictor plate compared to doping. When everyone is clean there’s only variation in natural talent, which should be pretty small at the top level. When there’s also doping, there should be far more variability.

Not sure about that. If you are less aerobically talented there is greater scope to dope and not trigger an adverse finding. I am thinking of oxygen vector doping where rider parameters are closely monitored by doctors.

Even pre EPO test. someone with a naturally low hematocrit level has greater capacity to dope than someone with a low hematocrit who can then dope more before they reach the old 50% limit. Perhaps someone else knows more who could clarify if this applies under current controls?

 

[QueenStagiaire]

Not sure about that. If you are less aerobically talented there is greater scope to dope and not trigger an adverse finding. I am thinking of oxygen vector doping where rider parameters are closely monitored by doctors.

Even pre EPO test. someone with a naturally low hematocrit level has greater capacity to dope than someone with a low hematocrit who can then dope more before they reach the old 50% limit. Perhaps someone else knows more who could clarify if this applies under current controls?

Yes, but remember that only people with good natural preconditions even make it to a level where doping and response to it becomes a factor. Except of course if you believe that riders dope even before getting on a sophisticated program. But I don’t believe that because it would make anti-doping agencies even less effective than I ever believed them to be.

 

[proffate]

In a clean sport there should be fewer outliers because there can be no discrepancy in doping. If there's doping there's gonna be large discrepancies in doping itself.

Not if there are team sponsored doping programs, right? The more "professional" the sport gets, the more uniformly optimal the doping would be.

There are limits to what a human body can do. Doping can get anyone closer to those limits. For example a higher hematocrit helps but no one can have >60% without dying. Doping up to 50% or w/e levels the playing field relative to natural abilities.

 

[proffate]

The middle paragraph reads like circular reasoning to me.

It's not circular reasoning. It's me guessing at a correlation between something that's observable and something that's not observable. Beyond intuition I don't have much to back up the guess. But if that correlation is positive, then the unobservable thing might be implied by the observed thing.

 

[Netserk]

Not if there are team sponsored doping programs, right? The more "professional" the sport gets, the more uniformly optimal the doping would be.

There are limits to what a human body can do. Doping can get anyone closer to those limits. For example a higher hematocrit helps but no one can have >60% without dying. Doping up to 50% or w/e levels the playing field relative to natural abilities.

US Postal had a team program. I don't think everyone got the same treatment.

 

[Red Rick]

US Postal had a team program. I don't think everyone got the same treatment.

It doesn't even make sense to give everyone the same treatment. You'd spend a lot of money or risk a lot of getting busted on the lower end of your roster and schedule.

I also feel like TGH winning the Giro is an example of this. Thomas crashed out and suddenly TGH and Dennis were monster climbers.

 

[proffate]

US Postal had a team program. I don't think everyone got the same treatment.

Everyone was supposed to win the tour? They did collectively throttle the race. And in his book, Hamilton told tales of training and doping together. But yes, only Armstrong had Ferrari giving him personal attention. Not sure what the point of this line of reasoning even is tbh

What you need to compare is the GC man for two equally professional teams

 

[Netserk]

Everyone was supposed to win the tour? They did collectively throttle the race. And in his book, Hamilton told tales of training and doping together. But yes, only Armstrong had Ferrari giving him personal attention. Not sure what the point of this line of reasoning even is tbh

What you need to compare is the GC man for two equally professional teams

That resources are scarce and unevenly distributed (otherwise, everyone on the team would receive A+ treatment). Richest teams and richest riders will benefit more from doping than poor teams and poor riders. So differences widen.

Those at the frontier of what's possible to get away with will continue to improve, it's no given that those left behind will ever catch up.

 

[Andy schleck]

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.

Don't "believe" in remco, pogacar or vingegaard. There is no secrets. They are all doped.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Don't "believe" in remco, pogacar or vingegaard. There is no secrets. They are all doped.

Poor choice for comparison? https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/re...victory-as-lance-armstrong-says-quickstep-ds/

 

[Cookster15]

Don't "believe" in remco, pogacar or vingegaard. There is no secrets. They are all doped.

Dope isn't why Remco stands out.

 

[Andy schleck]

Dope isn't why Remco stands out.

Just like the others.

 

[Cookster15]

Just like the others.

Huh? I don't understand your point I agree they all dope. But Remco is obviously better than all but two or three riders. That isn't because he is a better doper.

 

[Andy schleck]

Huh? I don't understand your point I agree they all dope. But Remco is obviously better than all but two or three riders. That isn't because he is a better doper.

Just like doping isn't the reason why pogi or vingegaard stand out.

 

[Netserk]

Taking the temperature on this thread.

Does anyone on the forum think it's the least bit likely that Evenepoel is clean, that he has never used blood doping? If he is indeed clean, how much better could he be if he started doping? Would he be able to climb faster than peak Pantani if he was on a good post-passport program?

If he is doped on the other hand, is there any reason to think that he uses less than he could, or is it most likely that he has maxed out on dope? For how long is it likely that he has doped?

Personally, I think it's more likely than not that he was doping before his first San Sebastian victory in 2019 and I expect him to use as much as he can get away with.