State of the peloton 2021

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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?
Thomas dislocated his shoulder and Froome had a potentially career ending injury, I don't get why that is so hard to comprehend.
 
Reactions: Kaptain Kool
Thomas dislocated his shoulder and Froome had a potentially career ending injury, I don't get why that is so hard to comprehend.
Comprehend this: Froome wouldn't have been allowed to start the TDF if he was still injured. If his injury was as bad as everyone (you believe) says it was, then he would've been forced to drop out of the race on stage 1. So, what you're seeing, imo, if the real Froome...and the real Thomas. Even though they are on separate teams now, and for what I know have different medical personnel attending to their needs, they both seem to be riding normal for them (normal= pre-transformations).
 
So, what you're seeing, imo, if the real Froome...and the real Thomas.
What nonsense. Thomas is 35, Froome is 36.
Excluding the olden times, the oldest Tour winner was Evans at 34, Sastre was 33, Riis 32. Even legends like Hinault and Indurain didn't win much after 30. That used to be pretty much the limit for GT racing - regardless of drugs.

Others were competitive later, of course, but this drop off in performance seems totally normal.

And why would Thomas and Froome stop doing drugs now, or why would UAE have better access than Ineos (or even ISN)? There's no smoking gun here imo. They are old, they've been racing for a long time and injuries accumulate sometimes.
 

So apparently some riders started their own investigation. Targeted teams are the one we all would expect (DQS, Jumbo, Bahrain, UAE).
Found the web version but don't have a sub to 'letemps'


Anyone run it through a translator?
 
Found the web version but don't have a sub to 'letemps'


Anyone run it through a translator?
Honestly I didn't read the whole article, I stopped at "un présumé moteur nouvelle génération dissimulé dans les vélos et de mystérieuses bouteilles que certaines équipes se cachent pour boire." Seriously? Sounds like Vayer. :(
 
Reactions: roundabout
im just here to enjoy the ride. Idk what they are on at the minute but for sure it's almost as good as the stuff they used from 95-2005
Fastest Tour de France editions (all >40 Kph) | #TDF2021

2005 | 41.654 Kph
2021 | 41.160
2017 | 40.995
2003 | 40.940
2006 | 40.784
2014 | 40.662
2019 | 40.575
2004 | 40.553
2013 | 40.542
2008 | 40.492
2009 | 40.315
1999 | 40.276
2018 | 40.206
2001 | 40.070
 
A generally incredibly high level with a few performances that are head and shoulders above even this level and seem inexplicable.
Yes. Whether 90s EPO in cycling or 80s anabolica in swimming and athletics, these are the signs of a major change, this is not a kind of "normal" doping anymore (and by that I don't mean that everyone takes something in normal times, I think that's an excuse of the dopers), this looks like the start of a new excess era.
:(
 
Paolo Slongo, ex-coach of Nibali for the best part of his career said: "They are riding at a level never seen before, in the first 10 stages it was as if there was no tomorrow".
This quote reminds me of the thread "Cannondale getting dropped in clean cycling" here. It definitely looks like the three teams (UAE, Bahrain, and Jumbo) have an edge in their doping program
 
Comprehend this: Froome wouldn't have been allowed to start the TDF if he was still injured. If his injury was as bad as everyone (you believe) says it was, then he would've been forced to drop out of the race on stage 1. So, what you're seeing, imo, if the real Froome...and the real Thomas. Even though they are on separate teams now, and for what I know have different medical personnel attending to their needs, they both seem to be riding normal for them (normal= pre-transformations).
I never said Froome was injured pre-tour and do you seriously believe Thomas suddenly stopped doping after finishing 4th in the Dauphine and winning Romandie?
 
The state of the peloton is f**** madness.

Any single metric can be explained away if it is in isolation. The aggregate of different data points suggests stupidity. One of the fastest tours ever. Records being broken up climbs that were previously set during times when doping wasn't just occurring, but when it was rampant and out of control. Riders explaining how it's full gas from day one and from every day from thereon. The new all rounders who can beat time trial specialists, climbers, and sprinters. Nose breathing while obliterating everyone (and no, ease of breathing is not the same as looking at people's facial expressions). Going suddenly from a high level to an extra thermonuclear level in quick jumps, or transfroomations/track racers becoming mountain goats.

Bla bla blah.
 
The pace of GTs is often dictated by random doomed breakaways as well. In my opinion, average speed is generally a meaningless metric.
All things being equal, the fastest Tours should have been the ones from the mid 90's. At least I don't see a reason why a field capable of records up climbs that are still standing today would be worse than the current group on any other terrain.

The fact that those Tours were slower suggests that there are factors other than just dope in play.
 
Reactions: SafeBet
All things being equal, the fastest Tours should have been the ones from the mid 90's. At least I don't see a reason why a field capable of records up climbs that are still standing today would be worse than the current group on any other terrain.

The fact that those Tours were slower suggests that there are factors other than just dope in play.
I think a reason is, the fitness of average rider in today is far better than the average rider in 90s, hence the breakaways and domestiques ride faster through the stages. The GC riders only see the wind in 30-50kms in today's grand tours, which is quite insignificant in the overall picture.
 
Dec 2, 2020
68
62
280
All things being equal, the fastest Tours should have been the ones from the mid 90's. At least I don't see a reason why a field capable of records up climbs that are still standing today would be worse than the current group on any other terrain.

The fact that those Tours were slower suggests that there are factors other than just dope in play.
For peloton speed I do think a lot of it has to do with the overall professional organization of the teams being so much more powerful these days, collectively speaking. As well as bike technology. Deep rims, internal cables, etc all make for a faster average pace. I’m curious how the flat TT speeds compare from ‘95 to today. But we know the mountain speeds are much more similar.
 
Reactions: noob
I think a reason is, the fitness of average rider in today is far better than the average rider in 90s, hence the breakaways and domestiques ride faster through the stages. The GC riders only see the wind in 30-50kms in today's grand tours, which is quite insignificant in the overall picture.
I think in 98 there were more people on EPO than off it based on the retests.

I think it is reasonable that this was also the case a couple of years before that.

For me more doping in the 90's should still offset any gains from training and so on across a wider range of riders in a wider range of stages.

But I understand your reasoning as well.
 
Reactions: noob and Publiuszam

ASK THE COMMUNITY