State of Peloton 2023

[the delgados]

I know the Roglic story is true, but it beggars belief.
Guy suffers serious injuries in crash. He quits the sport and is riding for a pro conti team within 12 months.
I know there are genetic freaks who take to cycling quickly; Michael Woods is a good example. But Woods came from the very top tier of middle distance running -- i.e. he was already super fit.
Aside from needing strong legs, I don't see a connection between ski jumping and cycling. That, combined with the length of time he needed to heal from his injuries leaves little room to go from a cat 5 novice to a professional rider. Unless, of course, he and his buddy from a tiny country were on some state sponsored gear.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I have a hard time imagining another big bust occurring.
Of course, if it does, we will go through the whole rigmarole again. The same narrative has been repeated time and time again. Problem discovered, proper steps taken to prevent repetition, etc. etc. and so on and so forth and more of the same.
I get it.
But you will never see that happening in pro sports like NFL, NHL, or MLB.
Pro cycling remains susceptible for reasons already mentioned, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Not that I would care either way if the sport was cleans, but I'm still curious how the sport got to this point.
Are riders finding it harder to access the gear because of more stringent anti-doping measures?
If so, why do those at the top seem to have free access?
I saw a Youtube video the other day that described Primo Roglic and his ascendency to the sport thusly: Elite ski jumper crashes and breaks multiple bones. Elite ski jumper decides to quit ski jumping and become a cyclist. He never rode a bike before. Within one year of quitting the sport, and after the injuries healed, he was a professional cyclist.
Nonsense.
I submit that the way this story is presented is impossible, yet it is not questioned.
How can someone like Remco pummel the competition in every discipline -- TT's, sprinting, mountains -- without even a hint of competition?
That does not make sense. I do not believe that with all the advancements in training, diet, etc. that everyone has access to, leads to such an incredible outlier.
MDVP.
WVA.
Pidcock.
Remco.
I'm sure I'm missing one or two, but the advantage shown by these riders makes others look like they're riding in the junior category.
I don't think rice cakes make the marginal difference here.

What's more likely, that there exists some sort of magic pill that only a few can get their hands on, or that what we are seeing is actually what "clean" cycling looks like? That without the big drug programs of the recent past to raise the level of everybody the most talented rise to the top naturally. Not necessarily saying I believe this, but it would certainly save us a lot of time if it could be proven to be true.

 

[Rob5091]

During the just finished Giro, Eurosport had EF's Vaughters as a guest during a stage, and he told the experience they had with a young, rough rider with lots of talent that they dropped because Vaughter's was getting so much stick from the team for his "projects". That cyclist was Roglic. So, it was not only Jumbo who saw his potential.
His ski jumping crash broke Roglic's nose and he had concussion, but according to the video I linked to, nothing else.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

The Roglic story is true - though he was only a Junior ski jumper and quit when he realized he'd never make the elite or the crash gave him "the willies". ( This video shows his crash etc https://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling...-enough-so-crashed-big_vid1111195/video.shtml ) It took 4 years before he rode for Jumbo.
It's interesting that both Roglic & Vingegaard got signed by Jumbo after doing physical tests for their former teams. The numbers were obviously better then average.
The big one you're missing is fellow Slovenian Pogacar.

Wasn't Roglic called Ferrari after he did physical tests at JV? He had a very high VO2max value for a guy who hadn't even had a top-level training program.

 

[the delgados]

Rob5091:
I have no idea what JV means when saying he got stick from the team for his "projects."
Also, I don't know if this really matters, but unless I'm wrong, Jumbo didn't sign him 12 months after healing from injuries and turning professional in a sport he never tried. Another pro-conti team did.
I'm just curious to know how these guys got so much information from someone who just took up the sport. I'm not trying to be facetious when asking if some highly advanced form of training and testing has been developed to test a random athlete and determine his or her level of fitness. If so, how did Roglic get so fit, and who performed the tests to determine he was a future Giro winner? And who forwarded those test to JV and professional cycling teams?

 

[Red Rick]

Rob5091:
I have no idea what JV means when saying he got stick from the team for his "projects."
Also, I don't know if this really matters, but unless I'm wrong, Jumbo didn't sign him 12 months after healing from injuries and turning professional in a sport he never tried. Another pro-conti team did.
I'm just curious to know how these guys got so much information from someone who just took up the sport. I'm not trying to be facetious when asking if some highly advanced form of training and testing has been developed to test a random athlete and determine his or her level of fitness. If so, how did Roglic get so fit, and who performed the tests to determine he was a future Giro winner? And who forwarded those test to JV and professional cycling teams?

There's more than 3 years between Roglic taking up professional cycling and signing with Jumbo. I also think he was recommended to Jumbo by a mutual contact after some other riders deal Jumbo wanted to sign fell through, he was a last minute signing. But IIRC after they tested him they signing him as quickly as they could.

 

[Red Rick]

Now we have the opposite: Members/moderators, etc. who quell the argument by either excising members or saying they are in cognitive decline.

Not sure how you go the impression mods have anything to do with it. To my knowedge we've only ever enforced the same rules on this subforum as everwhere else.

The way I see it, the Clinic suffers simply because of the overall decline of the forum, in addition to a lack of any real information or rumors coming out of the doping landscape. It's like the omerta is completely rejuvenated. Any positive tests are continental team nobodies busted for EPO or a boring drug that wouldn't explain any super performance either.

 

[Red Rick]

Evidence came from the riders Armstrong *** over.
True that.
I'm curious to know how everything changed with regard to doping in cycling. Back in the day, cyclingnews was the go-to place for talking about doping in cycling. It was a beehive of activity that included contributions from insiders in the sport. I cannot overstate how interesting this forum used to be.
That changed, and I understand why. It's not good for business, and I have no doubt that advertisers and team directors/sponsors etc. played a role in relegating the Clinic to the bottom of the totem pole. In a relatively short period of time, the Clinic went from a go-to place to a no-go place. People who clearly knew what they were talking about were dispatched and replaced by intelligent contributor(s) who implied that the 'nay-sayers' were stupid and had no idea what they were talking about. "Prove it, dummy!"
I use cyclingnews as a small example of how the narrative changed overnight. Suddenly the conversation shifted and doping talk was taboo.
I'd love to know how that happened.
Most professional sports have unions that negotiate collective agreements which include a wink-wink drug testing policy. In short, both sides get that PEDs are here to stay, but they create the impression that doping is bad, when in fact an athlete would have to be *** to get caught. That's how easy the anti-doping policies are easy to navigate and get by without causing a stink.
You would never see, say, an NFL player call out a teammate for doping, but that's what happened to Armstrong. Reason being is there were no protections in place to cover both riders and sponsors.
Riders still do not have a legally binding union, but they act the same as those who do.
Why?

If I had to guess, it's just a social contract. Literally everyone's interests align. Even journalists like for example Thijs Zonneveld, who will ask questions about certain riders when there's enough smoke, but will never bother to ask questions around riders like Pogacar or team Jumbo or whatever. I guess the scepticism needs to be sellable enough, and the "everyone dopes probably" story doesn't sell, and it certainly gets you ostracized from the sport instantly.

As for why some fans care super much about defending riders, I think it's fairly simple. One one hand, it's simply like religious behavior, where it becomes important enough to someone that being rational doesn't matter. On the other hand, I think the combination of 1) "Doping is bad and I don't support doping" and 2) "Innocent till proven guilty/I give any new rider the benefit of the doubt" gives a really easy 'out' to the doping conundrum because both seem like fair propositions but you're really hating riders for getting caught and not for actually doping. It's very nice for virtue signaling. "I don't support dopers and I also don't accuse people without evidence" makes a decent holier than thou attitude in the world of cycling.

I also think there's a large amount of fans that realise doping exists and accept that's part of the sport, and I think the media spectacles around doping may undersell how big that part of the fanbase is. Doping is just a really easy stick to beat riders you dislike with when they get busted.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

I also think there's a large amount of fans that realise doping exists and accept that's part of the sport, and I think the media spectacles around doping may undersell how big that part of the fanbase is.

And they can't wait to top-fuel racing in July. Bring it on!

 

[the delgados]

There's more than 3 years between Roglic taking up professional cycling and signing with Jumbo. I also think he was recommended to Jumbo by a mutual contact after some other riders deal Jumbo wanted to sign fell through, he was a last minute signing. But IIRC after they tested him they signing him as quickly as they could.

"Taking up professional cycling"
That's funny.

"I'm not sure how you got the impression the mods had anything to do with it."
Red Rick, the mods had everything to do with jettisoning long-term members who stirred the pot. Who else kicked them off the forum?
Rick, we could go on and on about this, but unless archives no longer exist, I'd prefer not to go down the list one-by-one.
I'm sure this is not the only forum that takes on unpaid moderators to subjectively interpret rules. It happens all the time. The history and reasons for suspensions/bans changes according to who is doing the banning. Again, I could go on and on about who received warnings prior to being suspended to those who didn't receive warnings and were banned altogether. And I'm not just talking some kook who goes off the rails and starts talking complete nonsense; those are a given.
But really that's neither here nor there.
My point being is the tone changed around the time the Clinic was relegated to the back pages. I don't think I need to have been in on editorial meetings to surmise doping talk was going to be received and addressed henceforth. As I've said before, it totally makes sense. And combined with the lack of doping stories, I understand why it is put to bed.
I can't argue with the social contract idea, because it seems to be the one that makes the most sense.
Someone above correctly pointed out that the reason there is no doping talk might be because there is no doping. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest, but it's not an idea I believe.
The social contract thing seems to be the glue that is holding this together. What makes that notion even more impressive is the riders do not have collective bargaining rights.

 

[Rob5091]

Just to elaborate for people who didn't hear it, Vaughter's "projects" was the name given by the EF team to Vaughter's young riders he picked and believed to be the next Merckx. The EF team had the actual job of trying to make these "projects" into professional riders. After a while they said no more, which was a shame as the last guy was Roglic.

 

[Rackham]

"Taking up professional cycling"
That's funny.

"I'm not sure how you got the impression the mods had anything to do with it."
Red Rick, the mods had everything to do with jettisoning long-term members who stirred the pot. Who else kicked them off the forum?
Rick, we could go on and on about this, but unless archives no longer exist, I'd prefer not to go down the list one-by-one.
I'm sure this is not the only forum that takes on unpaid moderators to subjectively interpret rules. It happens all the time. The history and reasons for suspensions/bans changes according to who is doing the banning. Again, I could go on and on about who received warnings prior to being suspended to those who didn't receive warnings and were banned altogether. And I'm not just talking some kook who goes off the rails and starts talking complete nonsense; those are a given.
But really that's neither here nor there.
My point being is the tone changed around the time the Clinic was relegated to the back pages. I don't think I need to have been in on editorial meetings to surmise doping talk was going to be received and addressed henceforth. As I've said before, it totally makes sense. And combined with the lack of doping stories, I understand why it is put to bed.
I can't argue with the social contract idea, because it seems to be the one that makes the most sense.
Someone above correctly pointed out that the reason there is no doping talk might be because there is no doping. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest, but it's not an idea I believe.
The social contract thing seems to be the glue that is holding this together. What makes that notion even more impressive is the riders do not have collective bargaining rights.

I could be mistaken but until the Festina affair everything was 'rosy' in 1998 as well, i.e. when doping was controlled by the teams themselves. They had a lid on everything & it was meticulous. It's only after Festina that the teams told the riders they had to DIY the dope on their own out from under the team's umbrella (because it became too risky) & that led to a complete collapse in structured team doping, i.e. which eventually led to disasters like Puerto.

My opinion? The pharmaceutical side of things is now controlled like it was pre-Festina & that's by the teams. In that respect it won't differ much from how football operates, hence no leaks.

And I bet the UCI covers for everything & everyone at a world tour level as well because business reasons. It seems fairly obvious that Sky really hammered home the superiority of a team set-up to deal with the clinical side of things, after which it became about finding the right talent with the best response to their respective programs.

 

[Rackham]

And just to add a little detail to my above post: pharmaceuticals have been a part of cycling since forever & absolutely predate dope controls. The history of the sport was made by dopers & all its greatest legends were dopers. IMO no matter what the intent of the first testers was, once the conversation started to gravitate around "doping is bad", it became a bogeyman with which people could beat-up on cyclists with, i.e. at a time when footballers & other sports get a free pass.

Dope doesn't turn a donkey into a racehorse though.

My own red line is mechanical doping (might as well just watch a freaking e-bike race), fixing results (like match fixing in football) or double standards where some riders could get some stuff which others are prohibited from using (a theoretical scenario).

 

[Nick2413]

And just to add a little detail to my above post: pharmaceuticals have been a part of cycling since forever & absolutely predate dope controls. The history of the sport was made by dopers & all its greatest legends were dopers. IMO no matter what the intent of the first testers was, once the conversation started to gravitate around "doping is bad", it became a bogeyman with which people could beat-up on cyclists with, i.e. at a time when footballers & other sports get a free pass.

Dope doesn't turn a donkey into a racehorse though.

My own red line is mechanical doping (might as well just watch a freaking e-bike race), fixing results (like match fixing in football) or double standards where some riders could get some stuff which others are prohibited from using (a theoretical scenario).

Your last point is de facto how things work today I think. Whether it’s money, politics, or some other form of influence, only certain riders and teams have the luxury of a free pass to do what they want.

 

[pmcg76]

I would have been a regular in The Clinic and I wouldn't frequent here as much now. I feel a lot of the old posters just got bored, moved on whatever, though some were banned as well.

Personally I kinda of got bored with it, much of the talk was Armstong and his crew, once they bit the dust, things got quiet. There is nowhere as many doping cases in the last 10 years and I don't think there is as much media interest/speculation as there used to be on the subject so there is less to talk about. Other than amazing performances, there is precious little to work with. In comparison, the 90s/00s was an absolute shitshow, endless info to work with. Just ain't the same now.

 

[Rackham]

Your last point is de facto how things work today I think. Whether it’s money, politics, or some other form of influence, only certain riders and teams have the luxury of a free pass to do what they want.

I get there's an arms race & I get money can buy better doctors & better stuff. I'm also reminded of an old interview of Laurent Roux who said he raced the Alpe d'Huez 2001 stage with some drugs in his pocket & basic cheap stuff, i.e. at a time when Lance was on the best program money could buy. Whilst sh*tty in a 'lord of the flies' sort of way it's not what bothers me the most.

What bothers me (if we use the L.A. case as a study) are stories whereby Hein Verbruggen didn't just cover for Armstrong but he actively screwed over Iban Mayo at the behest of the US Postal 'boss' when he complained about others being 'pas normal'. That's an example of a double standard.

Right now in the peloton it looks to me like a typical arms race & somewhat similar to the early 90's when EPO was taking off & performances were exploding.

 

[Rob5091]

With all the money, time and energy put into getting someone ready to attempt to win a GT, then it seems logical that the team would control everything. The last thing they would want is some rider going off on his own for "medical help". But as we read about Roglic, he had to go to a specialist outside the team to get a MRI scan for his 2 fractured vertebrae https://velo.outsideonline.com/2022...isma-of-putting-team-goals-over-rider-health/
So, there's always the chance that a rider feels the need to perform better.

 

[Rob5091]

Critérium du Dauphiné stage 2 , guys cramping up. Is this something? Certainly odd.
Edit - Stage 1 Mas loses 15 seconds- "Enric Mas lost 15 seconds in yesterday’s finale at Dauphiné, he said this morning that he simply ‘blew up’ in the last kilometre & still doesn’t really know why."
Stage 1, 157 km , 4 Cat 4 climbs and a guy who podiumed a GT does not know why he blew up.
Stranger and stranger.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Critérium du Dauphiné stage 2 , guys cramping up. Is this something? Certainly odd.
Edit - Stage 1 Mas loses 15 seconds- "Enric Mas lost 15 seconds in yesterday’s finale at Dauphiné, he said this morning that he simply ‘blew up’ in the last kilometre & still doesn’t really know why."
Stage 1, 157 km , 4 Cat 4 climbs and a guy who podiumed a GT does not know why he blew up.
Stranger and stranger.

Normally I would say that maybe it's some virus but the race has only started. Mas blowing up? The Skeletor's watts do the damage even on false flats, wait & see what happens on proper climbs

 

[Rob5091]

According to PCS, Mas got dropped again with 800m to go on stage 3, so it sounds like he's not 100%.

 

[Scarponi]

I mean two of the top ten best stage racers and climbers are effectively banned from the major pro Peleton (Quintana and Lopez) without a hard positive to wipe them out. Really weird how they have gone so quietly

 

[Rob5091]

Fastest ever non-TT stage at the Dauphiné stage 5 - 47 km/h - congrats!
(I know- tailwind, better tech, better nutrition etc etc)

 

[Rob5091]

"the greatest football season in sportswashing history" so is the headline in the UK's Guardian. Which makes me wonder if the same will be said about pro-cycling come the end of the year.​

 

[Rob5091]

https://cyclinguptodate.com/cycling...-ullrich-in-his-victory-at-the-tour-de-suisse
"Ayuso has become the fastest cyclist to climb a peak as demanding as the Albula Pass. This port is 22.4 kilometres long with an average gradient of 6%. The top of the ascent is 2312 meters above sea level. In this challenging port, as commented by colleagues from Diario del Triatlón, the Spanish cyclist recorded a time of 34 minutes and 35 seconds, surpassing the record that Jan Ullrich had held since 2006 by 2 minutes and 7 seconds, and by 3 minutes and 51 seconds Lance Armstrong's fastest time in 2010.

Juan Ayuso's record was favoured by ideal weather conditions in terms of temperature and favourable wind. However, it is important to note that the German and American star's records were further aided by the use of EPO, which makes the Spanish cyclist's achievement even more remarkable."

 

[pastronef]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657850247320666114

View: https://twitter.com/ketoneaid/status/1657850247320666114