State of Peloton 2023

[Netserk]

I think it’s a pretty dumb and loaded question. You can only give poor answers, and at least he didn’t pick the worst. Ask a journo publicly if he has touched an intern inappropriately, and he too will only be able to give poor answers.

 

[meat puppet]

Kids these days... dude gets a public invitation to call journos bone idle wnakers and does not take it.

 

[zlev11]

i dunno, i thought that was one of the better answers to that question. so much better than some BS about how you cant compare climbing times from different eras.

 

[ontheroad]

Vingegaard explains the high speed racing -
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jo...scepticism-about-tour-de-france-performances/
“In that way, I fully understand all the questions we get about it. The only thing I can say is I’m not taking anything. But yeah, to be honest, I’m happy there’s a bit of scepticism about it because we are going faster, we are going quicker than back then, maybe. I think it’s a good thing. And also, the food, the material, the training, everything is different."

Everything is different ... but I'm not taking anything! Pane e acqua ... or porridge in Pogacar's case. At least we did n't get, "never tested positive!"

Not this stuff again!

Maybe there has been loads of scepticism and questioning in the French media but I’ve read and heard very little. Even this forum has nowhere near the same level of questioning of times gone by. Some of it is just ambivalence from casual fans but a lot of it is down to a complicit media who see themselves as sales reps for the sport.

Jumbo and UAE are in an arms race and it’s fun just to watch and see how far they are prepared to push the boundaries. There is a lot less of the pretence and PR nonsense of the Sky years though. The TT will be fun!

 

[Scarponi]

When I watch old Pantani videos, he just goes to the front and sets a pace non stop for the final whatever kms of the climb he has left even with other riders in his wheel and he is standing up and smashing the pedals as hard as he can. You watch todays cycling and they don’t visually seem to be going as hard as he was non stop the whole climb. How are they matching the times, is it the train and the big explosive attacks, lower cadence ?

 

[the delgados]

there, i fixed it


His explanation is just a rehersal of what Lance said, what wiggens said, what froome said, what .... said. (ofcourse what else can he say. Before 2021 they rode slower so i couldn't win, but now that we ride faster everywhere it is easy to win?)

This reminds me of what NFL Hall of Fame running back Adrian Peterson said back in the day when he returned from injury and continued to dominate. When a reporter suggested that maybe he was using PED's, the guy said he took it as a compliment.
That's as far as the conversation went.
UCI have finally understood the plot and seem to be taking cues from from organizations with way more experience. Don't ask, don't tell. Let the guy come across as a superhuman and the vast majority will lap it up.
What took you guys so long?
And why are the riders not capitalizing on this glorious opportunity? Are they getting paid by Netflix, or not?

 

[Rob5091]

i dunno, i thought that was one of the better answers to that question. so much better than some BS about how you cant compare climbing times from different eras.

I was hoping for a Charlie Sheen type answer - "we're banging 7g rocks, we've tiger blood, we're winning!" Maybe throw in some ice tub and constant tailwinds explaination too.

 

[houtdffan]

So we get more and more riders who start to drop hints, talk about the double velocity, ... This is the beginning of the 90ies all over again.



Sure. But they would still have 20s plus buffer. So they could slow down 10s/km? (not completely clear on which point they stopped riding). If they kept riding it would have been very close to the record (before or behind it).

It's more entertaining than the abomination from the previous decade.

That youtube cycling era should be forgotten. This is the sport we all love.

Just don't fundamentally alter it. No Quintana taking pain out of the sport. That's where I draw the line. That, motors, and blatant hanging on to cars like Nibali did at the Vuelta several years ago

 

[Rob5091]

"hanging on to cars" ? That's a tradition that goes back to ... when cars were invented! Before then it was having to hop on a steam train.

 

[Riek s]

When I watch old Pantani videos, he just goes to the front and sets a pace non stop for the final whatever kms of the climb he has left even with other riders in his wheel and he is standing up and smashing the pedals as hard as he can. You watch todays cycling and they don’t visually seem to be going as hard as he was non stop the whole climb. How are they matching the times, is it the train and the big explosive attacks, lower cadence ?

It has to do with Pantani changing the outline of his bike to ride in the drops because it looked cool. Which gives the impression he is always sprinting. (That and pantani was rediculous fast as well ).
With the compact disks they have now it is easier to have a slightly higher rythm which makes it look easier. (so cadence is slightly higher now). Seated always looks slower than someone who is running on the pedals.

 

[pastronef]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1680925189729648640

View: https://twitter.com/faustonef/status/1680925189729648640

 

[Tim Cahill]

No I actually thought his answer to that question was rather good, either he or someone at the JV press department seems to have their head screwed on. Not that I really believe him, but non-combative is the best approach, no angry journos or French police circling to take down the radioactive Miguel Indurain are they.

 

[Mr. 64%]

To be honest, i'd like to ask a question of the lads / ladettes in here slamming the modern training, nutrition etc: Have you ever tried these things out yourself? I'd never put my head on the block for pro cycling being clean, but having tried the difference from, let's say riding in my loose fit '97 Mapei kit to a modern skinsuit - it's a noticeable difference, just from the kit alone. Eating about 3 times as many carbs pr hour (from 40g to 120 g) made the difference between hardly being able to go for hard rides two days in a row, to being able to push through a four-day training block. And i'm just a lazy, pizza-eating, weed-smoking amateur who likes to race my bike from time to time... Obviously, i don't know if this is true - but it sounds like there's loads of ppl in here who's seemingly never ridden a bike fast enough for long enough to know that what you put in your body (and when) makes a difference... Just like your position on the bike, the kit - not to mention the bike itself. (Obree, anyone?)
I do, however, believe there's a lot of "legal" doping" going on. I'd be surprised if there still isn't the occational, fishy TUE for some cortisone here and there. Lots of painkillers, that's what i've heard from riders at least. If BBs are being used today, the transfusions ,i belive, has to be quite small. I guess the bio passport made huge transfusions sort-of-detectable, but we also don't see the top GC riders dipping their form as they build up for the Tour - as we did in the 90's and 00's as riders would get blood withdrawn several times throughout the spring. I'd be slightly suprised if it's possible to use EPO for anything but microdosing these days - howeverm tgere's also been quite a lot of differing evidence with regards to the efficiency of microdosing with EPO (or other stuff, for thay matter.)

This ended up being a bit two-headed, but i guess that also sums up where i stand on the issue, in general. From what i've been able to test out myself, i have no doubts that many of the modern approaches to training, nutrition, tech etc. is making a big difference. At the same time, i don't know if it's making *all* the difference - and given the history of the sport... Well, yeah.

...and then there's the discussion about the more cutting edge dark arts of gene doping. It seems hard to get any solid info on the perspectives of using gene therapy as doping - and if such techniques would be detectable. There's been a few articles here and there over the last few years, but to my knowledge we've yet to see the first case of anyone getting anywhere near caught for this stuff. Please do correct me if i'm wrong here.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Teddy & Skeletor got info that they were riding like Pantani so they decided to rest a bit at the end of Joux Plane. Ah, these fast modern bikes.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

David Walsh wrote a piece on Rasmussen, who's "encouraged by what he sees".

Full article (paywall): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bitterness-of-a-doper-ill-take-to-my-grave-that-i-was-so-close-to-tour-win

Extract:

When he turned up at 2015’s Tour with a press badge, I thought he had some neck. There was no wish to acknowledge in any way his presence.

The years passed, the cast of journalists changed, but Rasmussen, 49, became an ever present. Seeing someone so often offers clues to what they’re like and the former rider seemed both enthusiastic about the race and understated in his new role. Two weeks ago, I broke the ice. We’ve spoken most days since. At Saint-Gervais on Sunday we spoke for 40 minutes.

What he did to Richards had been a shocking abuse of friendship. “That single event is the one thing I regret,” he said. “More than anything. That’s something I am so ashamed of and that’s pretty much it. That was definitely wrong. I should not have done that at all. I have apologised multiple times. I haven’t apologised for anything else and I’m not going to.

“Missing tests was the name of the game at the time. I was not the only one preparing myself in the best possible way for the Tour. That was the game.”

Rasmussen has since admitted to doping during his 12-year career, though he says his doping programme was lighter than that of many of his rivals. He has never been able to let go of the disdain he feels for the hypocrisy of his Rabobank team.

“They were the people that I trusted the most,” he said. “The team was in on everything. They were the ones transporting the blood bags and hiding EPO on the bus, issuing false certificates for cortisone. Then they were the ones firing me. And that was really, really hard, because I never lied to the team. Why would I? We were all in it together.”

Geert Leinders, the Rabobank team doctor between 1996 and 2009, was banned from the sport for life in 2015 after a US Anti-Doping Agency investigation found him guilty of various offences, including possessing, trafficking and administering performance-enhancing substances, and writing false medical certificates for cortisone between 2004 and 2007.

“Theo de Rooij didn’t say, ‘Were you in Mexico?’ because he knew I wasn’t,” Rasmussen says. “He said, ‘Did Cassani see you in Italy? Because if he did, I’m going to fire you.’ If they had supported me, I’d have gone to Paris in yellow and on Monday the team would initiate an internal investigation. Rabobank was the biggest investor in cycling and we know with the UCI [cycling’s world governing body] at that time, everything would have been OK.”

I ask whether he thinks today’s Tour is clean. This is on the same day that his compatriot, Jonas Vingegaard, answered a question about the scepticism that some feel about the speed of this year’s race. “I fully understand the scepticism,” Vingegaard said. “I think we have to be sceptical because of what happened in the past because otherwise it will just happen again. The only thing I can say is I’m not taking anything.

“But yeah, to be honest, I’m happy there’s a bit of scepticism about it because we are going faster, we are going quicker than back then, maybe. I think it’s a good thing. And also, the food, the material, the training, everything is different. But again, it’s always good to be sceptical about it, or to think about it, at least.”

Rasmussen is encouraged by what he sees. “I believe things are a lot better than they were. The mentality has changed, because they know the consequences of being caught are a lot greater now. We saw what happened to Nairo Quintana: he was caught using tramadol last year, a painkiller that will not be banned by Wada until January 2025, and he can’t find a team. Miguel Ángel López is another one: seen talking to the wrong doctor and he too can’t get a place on a World Tour team.”

When athletes dope they deny themselves the opportunity to find out how good they could have been. “It would have been wonderful to have raced without doping,” Rasmussen said. “I know I was good.” What he doesn’t know is just how good.

 

[meat puppet]

To be honest, i'd like to ask a question of the lads / ladettes in here slamming the modern training, nutrition etc: Have you ever tried these things out yourself? I'd never put my head on the block for pro cycling being clean, but having tried the difference from, let's say riding in my loose fit '97 Mapei kit to a modern skinsuit - it's a noticeable difference, just from the kit alone. Eating about 3 times as many carbs pr hour (from 40g to 120 g) made the difference between hardly being able to go for hard rides two days in a row, to being able to push through a four-day training block. And i'm just a lazy, pizza-eating, weed-smoking amateur who likes to race my bike from time to time... Obviously, i don't know if this is true - but it sounds like there's loads of ppl in here who's seemingly never ridden a bike fast enough for long enough to know that what you put in your body (and when) makes a difference... Just like your position on the bike, the kit - not to mention the bike itself. (Obree, anyone?)
I do, however, believe there's a lot of "legal" doping" going on. I'd be surprised if there still isn't the occational, fishy TUE for some cortisone here and there. Lots of painkillers, that's what i've heard from riders at least. If BBs are being used today, the transfusions ,i belive, has to be quite small. I guess the bio passport made huge transfusions sort-of-detectable, but we also don't see the top GC riders dipping their form as they build up for the Tour - as we did in the 90's and 00's as riders would get blood withdrawn several times throughout the spring. I'd be slightly suprised if it's possible to use EPO for anything but microdosing these days - howeverm tgere's also been quite a lot of differing evidence with regards to the efficiency of microdosing with EPO (or other stuff, for thay matter.)

This ended up being a bit two-headed, but i guess that also sums up where i stand on the issue, in general. From what i've been able to test out myself, i have no doubts that many of the modern approaches to training, nutrition, tech etc. is making a big difference. At the same time, i don't know if it's making *all* the difference - and given the history of the sport... Well, yeah.

...and then there's the discussion about the more cutting edge dark arts of gene doping. It seems hard to get any solid info on the perspectives of using gene therapy as doping - and if such techniques would be detectable. There's been a few articles here and there over the last few years, but to my knowledge we've yet to see the first case of anyone getting anywhere near caught for this stuff. Please do correct me if i'm wrong here.

I am quite like you. Amateur, trained and ridden competitively for 15yrs. Don't smoke weed though. Consume copious amounts of carbs on rides and off them.

I agree with parts of your post related to training and riding a bike fast, though I do not like the tone ("what do non-racers know"), and disagree with some other parts.

Broadly, I agree with you that "modern" training and nutrition methods, however we define the term, just work. Buying a power meter was the best bucks I ever spent on a bike. But it would have remained a useless gadget had I not learnt to use it and attained a working knowledge of the relevant physiology.

As a caveat, though, what exactly is modern? Follow up questions: How much have the practices themselves evolved, and how much more available information about them has become to average joe riders? Also, do we actually know what pros did in the 90s - I don't, but I also do not want to project a simple past fallacy into the era. These days knowledge is more available to us, but I would contend quite a bit was availalable in the professional realm for sure, IF someone was willing to listen. That IF is a qualification, since cycling is often described as a fairly conservative sport. But there were movers-shakers there, too.

Just a couple examples about how difficult it would be to define "modern" off the top of my head: Interval training (Gerschler, 1930s) actually precedes long steady distance (Bowerman, Lydiard, 1960/70s) as the prevalent method! In the Eastern block, several periodisation methods were experimented with early on, including block periodisation, which seems to be the poison of choice these days. (I use it too). Issurin is a household name of blocking stuff out these days. In the West, Jim Martin of AIS was studying and publishing on block periodisation of intensity in the early nineties at the latest; USA cycling was playing with it already for the 1996 olympics (Morris, Golich). Il Dottore Ferrari was mostly known for his witchcraft, but as described by Hamilton in his book, the training methods were not too shabby either. Same with Cecchini. Norwegian runners and XC skiers experimented with what is nowadays called polarised training in the 80/90s, and also with blocking intensity. Lemond used a power meter in the early 1990s. Altitude training is ages old. Boardman / UK Cycling coach Peter Keen's training principles from 1996 published in a UK cycling mag (can't recall which one) are still mostly sound, IMHO. Heck, the old Lydiard principles are still sound.

Etc.

And here is the kicker, IMHO: if you look at what world tour pros do, it is still a lot of volume, volume, volume and climbing, climbing, climbing, often at altitude. Just do the work. Some lift, others don't. Intensity is utilised frequently and is embedded into long rides; what exactly is being done is dictated by individuals' race specific needs, mostly. There are no magic formulas, magic sessions, magic anythings. Just doing as much as one can possibly absorb, resting, and then doing some more. And I think it is here, in getting the stimulus - recovery equation right, that modern approaches to quantifying training with power meters, nutrition, etc definitely help.

So, I kinda agree with this part. But want to add that doping helps and probably boosts the gains from all of this.

I also think that you are right about the TUE abuse, painkillers, etc.

I think I disagree with you about the scope that is available for (blood) doping. Published articles have shown one can microdose EPO to boost HBmass 10% without flagging the passport (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21336951/). Say you train very well, and very modern, and then microdose EPO to conservatively add 5-8% aerobic capacity on top. Isn't that quite something? Of course, just microdosing may not be ideal.

Transfusions have been discussed in the Pogacar topic recently. The Operation Aderlass fallout showed that they are still being used. I don't want to reiterate what I wrote there, but it might be a good idea to migrate the more general discussion into this topic. I'll just say that I don't think the passport eliminates them. Rather the passsport itself is a lame duck if the goal is to prevent doping and somewhat useful, if the goal is to regulate it (prevent riders from killing themselves).

As to the gene doping stuff, I am definitely a bit behind. But I would not be very surprised if someone is experimenting with it. A quick googling landed a couple manuscripts where upping the body's natural EPO production was discussed as a plausible possibility.

 

[Netserk]

As it pertains to climbing records, the relevant question is how much faster Pantani would have climbed with modern tech. How much faster do you really think he would have ridden Alpe d'Huez if he could fuel during the stage with modern gels and bidons? I can see the argument for limiting the risk of bonks, but when it comes to peak performances, I don't really think they were constrained by amount of carbs available.

 

[meat puppet]

In fairness, I think the stages were generally longer and harder, though.

And speaking out of experience, slamming 100g/hr with 100mg of caffeine at the end of a long ride for the first time was probably the closesest I have ever been to a religious experience. Fatigue just went away, legs just went brrrr.

Didnt't make me 10% stronger, though.

 

[Mr. 64%]

I am quite like you. Amateur, trained and ridden competitively for 15yrs. Don't smoke weed though. Consume copious amounts of carbs on rides and off them.

I agree with parts of your post related to training and riding a bike fast, though I do not like the tone ("what do non-racers know"), and disagree with some other parts.

Broadly, I agree with you that "modern" training and nutrition methods, however we define the term, just work. Buying a power meter was the best bucks I ever spent on a bike. But it would have remained a useless gadget had I not learnt to use it and attained a working knowledge of the relevant physiology.

As a caveat, though, what exactly is modern? Follow up questions: How much have the practices themselves evolved, and how much more available information about them has become to average joe riders? Also, do we actually know what pros did in the 90s - I don't, but I also do not want to project a simple past fallacy into the era. These days knowledge is more available to us, but I would contend quite a bit was availalable in the professional realm for sure, IF someone was willing to listen. That IF is a qualification, since cycling is often described as a fairly conservative sport. But there were movers-shakers there, too.

Just a couple examples about how difficult it would be to define "modern" off the top of my head: Interval training (Gerschler, 1930s) actually precedes long steady distance (Bowerman, Lydiard, 1960/70s) as the prevalent method! In the Eastern block, several periodisation methods were experimented with early on, including block periodisation, which seems to be the poison of choice these days. (I use it too). Issurin is a household name of blocking stuff out these days. In the West, Jim Martin of AIS was studying and publishing on block periodisation of intensity in the early nineties at the latest; USA cycling was playing with it already for the 1996 olympics (Morris, Golich). Il Dottore Ferrari was mostly known for his witchcraft, but as described by Hamilton in his book, the training methods were not too shabby either. Same with Cecchini. Norwegian runners and XC skiers experimented with what is nowadays called polarised training in the 80/90s, and also with blocking intensity. Lemond used a power meter in the early 1990s. Altitude training is ages old. Boardman / UK Cycling coach Peter Keen's training principles from 1996 published in a UK cycling mag (can't recall which one) are still mostly sound, IMHO. Heck, the old Lydiard principles are still sound.

Etc.

And here is the kicker, IMHO: if you look at what world tour pros do, it is still a lot of volume, volume, volume and climbing, climbing, climbing, often at altitude. Just do the work. Some lift, others don't. Intensity is utilised frequently and is embedded into long rides; what exactly is being done is dictated by individuals' race specific needs, mostly. There are no magic formulas, magic sessions, magic anythings. Just doing as much as one can possibly absorb, resting, and then doing some more. And I think it is here, in getting the stimulus - recovery equation right, that modern approaches to quantifying training with power meters, nutrition, etc definitely help.

So, I kinda agree with this part. But want to add that doping helps and probably boosts the gains from all of this.

I also think that you are right about the TUE abuse, painkillers, etc.

I think I disagree with you about the scope that is available for (blood) doping. Published articles have shown one can microdose EPO to boost HBmass 10% without flagging the passport (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21336951/). Say you train very well, and very modern, and then microdose EPO to conservatively add 5-8% aerobic capacity on top. Isn't that quite something? Of course, just microdosing may not be ideal.

Transfusions have been discussed in the Pogacar topic recently. The Operation Aderlass fallout showed that they are still being used. I don't want to reiterate what I wrote there, but it might be a good idea to migrate the more general discussion into this topic. I'll just say that I don't think the passport eliminates them. Rather the passsport itself is a lame duck if the goal is to prevent doping and somewhat useful, if the goal is to regulate it (prevent riders from killing themselves).

As to the gene doping stuff, I am definitely a bit behind. But I would not be very surprised if someone is experimenting with it. A quick googling landed a couple manuscripts where upping the body's natural EPO production was discussed as a plausible possibility.

Great post, thanks for putting those things down better than i'd probably ever be able to! Very good perspectives on training, many of which i hadn't even considered myself. Riis was another (relatively) early addapter of using a power meter - and he speaks about his approach to training in this article from CN in May '97. No doubt the doping regime was all guns blazing - but the training was obviously a huge part of the equation. And i agree on your notion that a good doping regime only tends to strengthen a good training regime.


I think the comment about having ridden "long and fast enough to know" might have come across a good bit more arrogant than intended - apologies on that. Just felt like there's lots of one-line comments (in this thread and others alike) that paints a picture a bit too black/white for my liking.

 

[Mr. 64%]

As it pertains to climbing records, the relevant question is how much faster Pantani would have climbed with modern tech. How much faster do you really think he would have ridden Alpe d'Huez if he could fuel during the stage with modern gels and bidons? I can see the argument for limiting the risk of bonks, but when it comes to peak performances, I don't really think they were constrained by amount of carbs available.

I tend to disagree here. GCN had a video recently where Conor Dunne is pretty surprised about his own performance "gains" (or lack of loss, rather) from carbing like he's never been carbing before. My own experiences are, although anecdotal at best, the same.

 

[pastronef]

In fairness, I think the stages were generally longer and harder, though.

And speaking out of experience, slamming 100g/hr with 100mg of caffeine at the end of a long ride for the first time was probably the closesest I have ever been to a religious experience. Fatigue just went away, legs just went brrrr.

Didnt't make me 10% stronger, though.

what's that?

 

[meat puppet]

what's that?

Carbs

 

[noob]

OMG 😲 This stage, this Jonas. Ouch 😲

 

[StryderHells]

State of the peloton… ThermoVoltaNuclear

 

[Mayomaniac]

State of the peloton… ThermoVoltaNuclear

Seriously, now all bets are off, you might as well sign Najar, Moreira, Frolov and Figueiredo for next season. At this point you either go big or go home.