State of the peloton 2022

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Is anyone here great at stats and probability? What are the chances that a country of 2.1 million produces 2 of the most dominant riders in pro cycling, at around the same time? I live in an area of 14 million, with a bigger racing scene than Slovenia and we've only produced 4 or 5 World Tour riders in 40 years. Are we just that soft? Is it genetic? Someone help me understand this. I don't tune into racing too often these days, but geez, Paris-Nice and Tirreno, dominated by two Slovenians.
Is it all that different to Kelly and Roche?
 
Is it all that different to Kelly and Roche?
I take your point, but honestly, PogRog seem to be on a trajectory of more dominance, at least when it comes to GTs (still to be determined for monuments, WCs, and other 'big' races).

Having said the above, it is not like all riders in Slovenia take the same path or there is no culture of racing in Slovenia! So I do not think of the issues we are seeing as 'country based'. I do think that Pog specifically appears to be so clearly ahead of others, in so many ways, that it understandably raises concerns about doping.
 
May 27, 2012
27
5
8,595
I take your point, but honestly, PogRog seem to be on a trajectory of more dominance, at least when it comes to GTs (still to be determined for monuments, WCs, and other 'big' races).

Having said the above, it is not like all riders in Slovenia take the same path or there is no culture of racing in Slovenia! So I do not think of the issues we are seeing as 'country based'. I do think that Pog specifically appears to be so clearly ahead of others, in so many ways, that it understandably raises concerns about doping.
I never really thought it was country based, but more individual. I've raced on 4 continents (a lifetime ago it seems) and the various racing cultures were always fascinating to me. It is amazing that some, with a small scene (and at 2.1 million people, Slovenia's is small), produce outsized results. The Netherlands and Belgium have (or had when I was there) thousands of licensed racers, it makes sense that a fair number of them would turn out to be champs. This can be repeated over and over when you look at it-with some countries doing somewhat better (say, the US at one time, though again, they had thirty or forty thousand racers), or worse (France-they can't win a GT despite having huge numbers of racers, but still pump out huge numbers of pros). Then, you have outliers-currently Slovenia is off the charts (even more than Ireland, which I think had more racers/racing when Roche and Kelly were around).

There are other factors other than just straight numbers, I get that, but my feeling is that at some point, being such a profound outlier in those terms is a red flag. Just an observation really, was wondering if anyone felt the say way.
 
Is anyone here great at stats and probability? What are the chances that a country of 2.1 million produces 2 of the most dominant riders in pro cycling, at around the same time? I live in an area of 14 million, with a bigger racing scene than Slovenia and we've only produced 4 or 5 World Tour riders in 40 years. Are we just that soft? Is it genetic? Someone help me understand this. I don't tune into racing too often these days, but geez, Paris-Nice and Tirreno, dominated by two Slovenians.
I’ve thought about this a lot but the tricky thing is the country a cyclist is from seems irrelevant given they spend most of the year and almost the entire competitive year outside their native country, if the idea is they use it as a doping haven. It seems more relevant to look at which countries a rider is racing and doing training camps in and what the culture or legal repercussions are about doping there. Or if the idea is riders are more likely to dope due to ethical or financial reasons such as being from a very poor country I could see that, but I think there are more suspect countries in that sense.

I’ve always wondered if France’s tough doping regulations have something to do with them having less dominant riders despite a large population with a lot of decent cyclists to draw from.
 
May 27, 2012
27
5
8,595
I'm thinking of things in a purely statistical sense-as in, what are the chances that you get two GT winners, racing at the same time, in a country that fields around 50 riders at their national championship each year as opposed to say France, that fields maybe 150 riders each year (and in essence, many times more as their regional championships field many hundreds each year). France can't produce a GT winner and yet Slovenia manages two simultaneously.

Someone pointed out Ireland, a really statistical outlier, mind you at Roche's and Kelly's time, the Irish Nationals fielded far more than 50 each year.

Numbers at Nationals are just one example, there could be many more. I'm really just getting at pursuing a purely statistical analysis on performances on International stage. This might help us remove some of the speculative (and frankly often emotional) thinking behind saying this rider is doped vs. this rider isn't. That sort of thing.

This line of investigation isn't likely to get much traction, but I think there is merit in it. When I saw the vast numbers of riders (and so many kids!) racing in Europe, I just couldn't get my head around how it was that they weren't producing GT winners and yet "lesser" racing nations were. Remember-the UK, with a healthy, but not spectacular racing scene, has produced more GT winners than France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy combined in the past decade. Slovenia has produced more GT winners in 5 years than France has in 25 years (more?).

Why are nations with enormously developed racing cultures (and NOTHING compares to the "big 4") not winning Grand Tours, when statistically, they should be pumping out a GT winner every 5 to 10 years? The natural superiority of English and Slovenian speaking cultures?
 
I'm thinking of things in a purely statistical sense-as in, what are the chances that you get two GT winners, racing at the same time, in a country that fields around 50 riders at their national championship each year as opposed to say France, that fields maybe 150 riders each year (and in essence, many times more as their regional championships field many hundreds each year). France can't produce a GT winner and yet Slovenia manages two simultaneously.

Someone pointed out Ireland, a really statistical outlier, mind you at Roche's and Kelly's time, the Irish Nationals fielded far more than 50 each year.

Numbers at Nationals are just one example, there could be many more. I'm really just getting at pursuing a purely statistical analysis on performances on International stage. This might help us remove some of the speculative (and frankly often emotional) thinking behind saying this rider is doped vs. this rider isn't. That sort of thing.

This line of investigation isn't likely to get much traction, but I think there is merit in it. When I saw the vast numbers of riders (and so many kids!) racing in Europe, I just couldn't get my head around how it was that they weren't producing GT winners and yet "lesser" racing nations were. Remember-the UK, with a healthy, but not spectacular racing scene, has produced more GT winners than France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy combined in the past decade. Slovenia has produced more GT winners in 5 years than France has in 25 years (more?).

Why are nations with enormously developed racing cultures (and NOTHING compares to the "big 4") not winning Grand Tours, when statistically, they should be pumping out a GT winner every 5 to 10 years? The natural superiority of English and Slovenian speaking cultures?
Since you framed this as purely “statistically speaking,” the fact that it’s 2 riders can go to randomness in the historical distribution. I think if you’re looking at the impact by country I think it’s more interesting to look at how a country like Denmark (apologies to RHD and her brethren) produces a gaggle of elite riders in a short period of time. No clinic insinuations intended. There have always been pros coming out of Denmark (unlike for instance the U.S.) but there are a whole bunch of good ones now.
 
May 27, 2012
27
5
8,595
I think it's the "randomness" that I'm referring to. The chances seem so remote, it boggles the mind. But let's not forget, it goes the other way-why have the big 4 not produced recent GT winners in the same amounts as the smaller cycling markets.

As for Denmark pumping out pros and the US hasn't, I think you're off on that one. The US has a large enough scene to be almost purely domestic. Apples and oranges. I'm not American FYI, but I have raced there a lot over the years. Its domestic scene (when healthy) is far beyond many other places, other than the obvious suspects.
 
I think it's the "randomness" that I'm referring to. The chances seem so remote, it boggles the mind. But let's not forget, it goes the other way-why have the big 4 not produced recent GT winners in the same amounts as the smaller cycling markets.

As for Denmark pumping out pros and the US hasn't, I think you're off on that one. The US has a large enough scene to be almost purely domestic. Apples and oranges. I'm not American FYI, but I have raced there a lot over the years. Its domestic scene (when healthy) is far beyond many other places, other than the obvious suspects.
If I can conjecture randomly on it: Belgium guys want to race the Classics, Dutch guys are tall/heavier and natural time trailists, Italy still suffers from its EPO hang over and lack of WT teams, France is very insular and French riders are happy to stay in their comfort zone and race the French scene.

On Slovenia, just statistical outliers. If they have another Grand Tour winner in the next 50 years after Pog and Rog, I'd be shocked.

On the US, I've raced Canada, UK, Belgium, Switzerland and the US. The most negative, lazy, dumb jock preening racing is by far in America. Look at Legion. It's totally not conducive to producing Euro pros.
 
May 27, 2012
27
5
8,595
By "America" I'm assuming you mean the US. I can't disagree with you on that entirely, but I can say I think things have changed since "my day". Not for the better....the only races longer than 200k these days involve wide tires and Camelbaks. The US is, and has always been, it's own scene in terms of bike racing. Something I love about cycling is that every country does it's own thing and even when it looks like it's not good, sometimes good things can still come from it.

And yet, the US produces euro pros, and some good ones-Kuss, Powless, McNulty. Clearly there is still some capacity to produce riders. I don't think that will go away, even with the demise of road racing as a sport there.

Maybe you're right, lightening has struck tiny Slovenia, with it's population of 1/4 that of New York City, and it has produced 2 simultaneous GT winners. One thing that hasn't struck anything (let alone a chord), is my argument that there is merit in looking at things from a statistical approach. At least in the Clinic.
 
I don't think that Roglič and Pogačar are on the same program now or that there's currently anything directly linking their performances together. So, how likely would it be for such a small country to produce 2 super responders? Would that be higher or lower than the chance of producing 2 super talents?
 
I don't think that Roglič and Pogačar are on the same program now or that there's currently anything directly linking their performances together. So, how likely would it be for such a small country to produce 2 super responders? Would that be higher or lower than the chance of producing 2 super talents?
  1. Do you believe there was a point they were on the same program?
  2. I don't know how direct links in terms of performances suggests anything either way
  3. 3/4) I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it would take a lot of energy and unpaid time to come up with something resembling a reasoned response to either question.
I know nothing about Pogacar's rise to prominence, and very little about that of Roglic. All i know is he used to be a top level ski jumper. Although he says his ski jumping training helped a lot in making the transition to cycling, I'm having a hard time figuring out why that's the case.
 
Probably not literally the same program at every point of their careers due to the age difference, but I guess we can't rule out some kind of involvement by the Slovenian federation in some capacity.

If people are not wondering whether the emergence of both Roglič and Pogačar at roughly the same time is due to doping specifically among Slovenian riders, I have no idea what this discussion is about.
 
Jul 15, 2021
14
20
580
Just saw a picture of peak Froome and forgot how skinny and lean he was. Obviously Pogacar is lean, but he almost looks doughy compared to Froome!

You can see why Froome could climb so well given that every available gram of fat was off his body, yet Pogacar and Roglic are breaking his (and more notorious people's) records and yet relative to their heights look much heavier.

Same with Van Aert, a sprinter/TT guy build yet climbed better than Quintana in Tirreno, haha.
 
Reactions: Ilmaestro99
Just saw a picture of peak Froome and forgot how skinny and lean he was. Obviously Pogacar is lean, but he almost looks doughy compared to Froome!

You can see why Froome could climb so well given that every available gram of fat was off his body, yet Pogacar and Roglic are breaking his (and more notorious people's) records and yet relative to their heights look much heavier.

Same with Van Aert, a sprinter/TT guy build yet climbed better than Quintana in Tirreno, haha.
Roglic looks heavy because he has a massive rib cage. See photos of him shirtless and he is skin and bone. He obviously has a huge lung capacity.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
May 27, 2012
27
5
8,595
And here I go back to Slovenia....no nation has been so dominant in the past months.

Edited-the win and 4 riders in the finale of MSR. Wow. At least the winner had to use skill to win, you can't dope for that....mind you, your skills are more usable if you are fresher. See Tennis, drug use in.
 
Reactions: CannondaleCoaster
Jul 15, 2021
14
20
580
Mohoric did like 6 watts per kg up the Poggio for about 7 minutes, then did about 400 watts on the flat to hold them off.

Given that most of the day was done at like 180 watts, maybe even less, nothing looks weird. Guys chuck out way more power after way harder 5 hour stages/races all the time.
 
Reactions: topt
Mohoric did like 6 watts per kg up the Poggio for about 7 minutes, then did about 400 watts on the flat to hold them off.

Given that most of the day was done at like 180 watts, maybe even less, nothing looks weird. Guys chuck out way more power after way harder 5 hour stages/races all the time.
wont matter, their favorite rider didnt win so they have to come to the clinic
 
By "America" I'm assuming you mean the US. I can't disagree with you on that entirely, but I can say I think things have changed since "my day". Not for the better....the only races longer than 200k these days involve wide tires and Camelbaks. The US is, and has always been, it's own scene in terms of bike racing. Something I love about cycling is that every country does it's own thing and even when it looks like it's not good, sometimes good things can still come from it.

And yet, the US produces euro pros, and some good ones-Kuss, Powless, McNulty. Clearly there is still some capacity to produce riders. I don't think that will go away, even with the demise of road racing as a sport there.

Maybe you're right, lightening has struck tiny Slovenia, with it's population of 1/4 that of New York City, and it has produced 2 simultaneous GT winners. One thing that hasn't struck anything (let alone a chord), is my argument that there is merit in looking at things from a statistical approach. At least in the Clinic.
stop insinuating and speak up; you think Slovenia has a state doping programe for cyclist ?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
topcat The Clinic 121
Similar threads
State of the forum 2022

ASK THE COMMUNITY