State of the peloton 2021

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
This has to be the most laughable Tour for some years! So many doped aliens I don't know where to start! Today's freak show was good, Jumbo obviously needed a little boost after the disappointment of Roglic. Enter someone who wins a double Ventoux stage after finishing 2nd in a sprint. And Vingegaard, LOL. And then we have Pogacar, DQS turning someone who couldn't get a top 10 for 3 years into the World's best sprinter. What next I wonder?
 
Van Aert & Pogacar definitely but I was hoping that Cavendish wasn't. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Does everyone think he is doped?
I think everyone is thinking the transformation back after a number of years is just too suspicious and too linked with DQS. Perhaps his is the least, given history with EBV and recovery and he is sprinting only (lolz at Colbrelli)

Another feelz good story from the Tour!
 
Sep 8, 2019
4
0
1,510
I think everyone is thinking the transformation back after a number of years is just too suspicious and too linked with DQS. Perhaps his is the least, given history with EBV and recovery and he is sprinting only (lolz at Colbrelli)

Another feelz good story from the Tour!
Thanks for the reply. It is a little suspicious when I look at how long Cavendish has been struggling and now he's winning all these stages.
 
The big boys are taking it all.
MvdP, Jumbo Visma, Pogacar, Bahrain, DQS.
Kinda feels like a peloton a deux vitesses.

The only weird outliers are AG2R winning and Ineos not up there with the best.
All the other teams just feel like they're there to largen up the peloton abit.
 
Reactions: CJCycling
I am guessing you needed to keep it to 3 and that is why no vdP? Because I think it is a toss up between vdP, vA, Cav and TP. WvA might even be the least suspicious of these four (lol at even reading that out loud!)
VDP would probably be 4th for me, but I didn't find any of his performances too crazy, except I guess the TT. actually yeah, that TT was hilarious lol.

i've always been suspect of that team too, going back two or three years ago when they were Corendon. maybe it was just my own ignorance of random Belgium riders (dont want to pull a Roundabout here), but it always seemed like they had a bunch of random Belgian riders I'd never heard of doing insane rides in support of VDP. the way they've built that team up with mostly all of their own riders without poaching from other teams all that much has been strange.
 
Van Aert & Pogacar definitely but I was hoping that Cavendish wasn't. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Does everyone think he is doped?
its hard to gauge doping in sprinters (except van aert obviously), its just always suspiscious when a sprinter transforms overnight - colbrelli into a climber and cavendish into fastest guy in the peloton - double that if he gets "after joining quickstep" buff (also this QS stuff needs to be mentioned more often, there is fast growing evidence of guys either joining or leaving QS and their performance does 180)

especially troubling is the conclusion that for past few years hes been struggling, it wasnt because he doesnt have physical ability anymore (as you would expect from an aging sprinter) but some sort of circumstances, as if all that was in his head or something and he just needed someone to believe in him or whatever - it really is a hollywood screenplay, mind you he wasnt even preparing for tour, he jumped in when bennett was offed, but generally if something in cycling feels to good to be true, it is
 
Indeed. There are legal ergogenic methods of improving performance. There is doping. Legal methods are not doping. WADA has made a good attempt to also capture subgroups/methods of doping, so even if a particular product or method is not specifically called out, if it falls in that territory, it is still doping.

This is why so-called 'grey areas' where teams will use supplements or medications that are not addressed in WADA as doping might be ethically grey, but are considered 'legal' insofar as banned substances. And this is where teams time and time again "push the envelope".
Sorry but no, I disagree with this, or what I think you're saying, and calling it a "grey area" just feels like synonym for "legal doping". Looking for an edge within the rules is absolutely fine and teams do it in lots of different ways. Of course, a lot of the time it seems that teams use this as cover for doping, but the rules are clear here and it doesn't help to conflate things that are against the rules with things that are winthin the rules.
 
Reactions: CJCycling
its hard to gauge doping in sprinters (except van aert obviously), its just always suspiscious when a sprinter transforms overnight - colbrelli into a climber and cavendish into fastest guy in the peloton - double that if he gets "after joining quickstep" buff (also this QS stuff needs to be mentioned more often, there is fast growing evidence of guys either joining or leaving QS and their performance does 180)
The weirdest thing about this though is, that there aren't any "disgruntled" Ex-Steppers who blow the whistle, especially considering the way Lefevre habitually treats riders who fall out of favour.
 
Is there some catch all rule that basically forbids any performance enhancing drugs in some overarching way anyway?
Not a single rule that I'm aware of. There's a rule banning anything that is unapproved for human use and then, once approved, things either fall under the Prohibited List or they don't. There's no "You can't use any substance to enhance your performance" rule as it would likely be impossible to enforce. There is a rule like that for TUEs I believe, but I can't remember if it's a specific rule or if the TUE rules just effectively outlaw TUEs for performance enhancement (and we all know that it's possible those rules could be easily gamed).
 
Reactions: Red Rick
The weirdest thing about this though is, that there aren't any "disgruntled" Ex-Steppers who blow the whistle, especially considering the way Lefevre habitually treats riders who fall out of favour.
Yes, I've been wondering about that for some time. That's why I have really thought about the possibility of the riders not knowing what they get, or at least not exactly what... but then I mostly put that down as too much of a conspiracy theory. Probably just the usual omerta. Probably most of the peloton takes something illegal at one point, and even if you know you aren't one of the hardcore dopers (anymore), you don't say anything because you could never state you were/ are clean. :confused:
 
Sorry but no, I disagree with this, or what I think you're saying, and calling it a "grey area" just feels like synonym for "legal doping". Looking for an edge within the rules is absolutely fine and teams do it in lots of different ways. Of course, a lot of the time it seems that teams use this as cover for doping, but the rules are clear here and it doesn't help to conflate things that are against the rules with things that are winthin the rules.
Sorry, I don't think I made that really clear. I called it so-called grey area and put it in quotes to try and emphasize that it is completely legal, ie not doping. I think sometimes there is a moral or ethical issue at play that draws people's attention, but it's not actually doping.
 
Reactions: yaco
It feels like 5-10 years ago we regularly had stage wins contested by groups of riders that got slower as the finish line approached (a sign of understandable fatigue). Obviously there were highly suspect performances during that period but I can distinctly remember actually laughing at some stage finishes as the poor suffering breakaway riders almost crawled to the line in a small bunch 'sprint' for the line.

Now we seem to be regularly getting one guy on GC or the breakaway managing to serenely dispatch their rivals (defying the laws of drafting and the psychological power of wheelsucking) and make it to the line alone without losing any speed (no obvious sign of fatigue).

All completely unscientific but I feel better when there are a group of riders near the finish who have been unable to shake each other off due to the power of drafting. My ill informed perception is that the proportion of riders getting a 'boost' has gone through the roof in the past two years, from maybe 1-5% of the field to 10%+.
 
Not a single rule that I'm aware of. There's a rule banning anything that is unapproved for human use and then, once approved, things either fall under the Prohibited List or they don't. There's no "You can't use any substance to enhance your performance" rule as it would likely be impossible to enforce. There is a rule like that for TUEs I believe, but I can't remember if it's a specific rule or if the TUE rules just effectively outlaw TUEs for performance enhancement (and we all know that it's possible those rules could be easily gamed).
I think the one that comes close is the one about the manipulation of blood in any way if I am not mistaken. I read it here but you probably know this since you know the information very well. :)
 
Is there some catch all rule that basically forbids any performance enhancing drugs in some overarching way anyway?
Not a single rule that I'm aware of. There's a rule banning anything that is unapproved for human use and then, once approved, things either fall under the Prohibited List or they don't. There's no "You can't use any substance to enhance your performance" rule as it would likely be impossible to enforce. There is a rule like that for TUEs I believe, but I can't remember if it's a specific rule or if the TUE rules just effectively outlaw TUEs for performance enhancement (and we all know that it's possible those rules could be easily gamed).
The WADA Prohibited List depends on classes of substances and this brings a great deal of flexibility.

For example:

"Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS)
When administered exogenously, including but not limited to ... [list of drugs]
" (my emphasis)

So provided that WADA has identified a suitable class for your mystery substance, you can be sanctioned for it because the list of substances is deliberately non-exhaustive.

However all of that assumes that the main problem has been solved which is, of course, detection.
 
I have not been under any illusion that cycling is a clean sport post-Lance, but the TdF right now is so crazy that I've even stopped watching 5 minute stage highlights. I just don't care enough.

To be fair, I've lost interest in watching most sports at this point. Not just doping, but a combination of things. I'd actually say the whipped up personal interest stories prevelant in many pro American sports, and the Olympics for someone in the U.S., turn me off the most. Soap operas aren't my thing.
 
I have not been under any illusion that cycling is a clean sport post-Lance, but the TdF right now is so crazy that I've even stopped watching 5 minute stage highlights. I just don't care enough.

To be fair, I've lost interest in watching most sports at this point. Not just doping, but a combination of things. I'd actually say the whipped up personal interest stories prevelant in many pro American sports, and the Olympics for someone in the U.S., turn me off the most. Soap operas aren't my thing.
I could really do without those personal interest stories as well. Unfortunately for the Olympics (at least in the US) those have been around for as long as I can remember.
 
Does the fact that Froome and Thomas (and most of team INEOS) appear to suck now make the doping appear more obvious? Of course there are other examples, but it seems like more riders are taking steps backwards than those who have significantly improved, thus making riders like Pogacar appear as if they are doing something shady. I highly doubt Froome would be racing if he was not healthy (due to the injuries he sustained in his crash (or fake crash)). Since INEOS appears to be "cleaner" then why is it so strange that Carapaz can't hang with Pogacar when he makes a move?
 
Does the fact that Froome and Thomas (and most of team INEOS/former Team INEOS) appear to suck now make the doping appear more obvious? Of course there are other examples, but it seems like more riders are taking steps backwards than those who have significantly improved, thus making riders like Pogacar appear as if they are doing something shady. I highly doubt Froome would be racing if he was not healthy (due to the injuries he sustained in his crash (or fake crash)). Since INEOS appears to be "cleaner" then why is it so strange that Carapaz can't hang with Pogacar when he makes a move?
 
Does the fact that Froome and Thomas (and most of team INEOS) appear to suck now make the doping appear more obvious? Of course there are other examples, but it seems like more riders are taking steps backwards than those who have significantly improved, thus making riders like Pogacar appear as if they are doing something shady. I highly doubt Froome would be racing if he was not healthy (due to the injuries he sustained in his crash (or fake crash)). Since INEOS appears to be "cleaner" then why is it so strange that Carapaz can't hang with Pogacar when he makes a move?
I'd say Froome, and Ineos' main problem (asides from injury) is age. As for Carapaz, I would say he's just not as good as Pogacar, he's always been a pure climber with a bad time trial.
 
Reactions: CJCycling

ASK THE COMMUNITY