State of the Peloton 2024

[E_F_]

What really makes me think nutrition (and all other marginal improvements constantly touted) is a bad explanation is the massive leaps and bounds we're seeing in performance. There's no correlating non-marginal improvements being made from year to year.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Ilkhan Dostiyev from the Astana developmental team just got busted for CERA.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/as...n-dostiyev-after-blood-booster-cera-positive/
The guy was never impressive in the junior or u23 ranks before this year, then he was suddenly surprisingly good in Rwanda and he was suddenly able to hang with Widar in the Giro della Valle d'Aosta, where he finished 2nd on the gc.

It's one of those instances where I can believe that a rider went rouge himself, because no way a WT developmental team is still using CERA nowadays.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Still, even with the suspicions that will always exist in this sport, that type of evolution in results over time which is said to be due to better training, better material etc. is seen in most sports, so why wouldn't it be just as true in cycling?

Or perhaps the answer is simply that all other sports are just as crooked and the reason Mondo Duplantis keeps breaking the pole vault record multiple times per year is simply due to better doping.

Evolution is to be expected, yet some world records from very dark doping times are still intact, or lasted forever before being overtaken by supposedly cleaner, yet more modern athletes.

But it's not even evolution we've seen. The increase compared to partly the same riders before 2020 is to big, the step from last year to this is just insane. Also we know they are not just beating times from the heydays of EPO, but they are beating them by minutes.

There is also the question of just how much evolution can be expected in human beings, and how much can be optimised by science. Our basic physiological makeup isn't just changing, and especially not just because some sports are getting more professional.

Duplantis I guess is a more complicated matter, because it's a very technical sport, but I am sure strength and speed plays a role in it as well, Duplantis recently won some sort of sprint dual agaist a very fast hurdles guy I forgot the name of.

Of course evolution in methods, knowledge, possibilities is always going to have an impact, but the explanation still has a historically bad track record when it comes to smoke screens to obscure the view on doping related results.

 

[Sciatic]

If we just go by the basic claim made, has the way riders refuel before and especially during a race changed much in the past 20 years? Did they keep strict control over calorie targets each hour of racing or did rider go more by feel rather than planning back then? How has the food they eat changed? From recollection there were gels back then as well right or was it still the days of white bread and jam etc.? Or when did the gels enter the peloton? Has gels and the other stuff they eat changed much during this time?

Just consider a couple of things:
—everything in a gel you can get in a water bottle. Pros were using energy drinks with sugar, electrolytes, etc back in the ‘80’s. Gels have probably resulted in fewer guys bonking because they can always have an extra gel with them, but don’t explain faster times.
—the irony is that the type of race where overall nutrition and in-race eating could make a small difference are the 220km tappones with 5 HC or Cat 1 climbs, where it would be tough to keep getting enough calories in. But they don’t have those stages anymore. Roglic’s monster record on Stage 19 was a mono climb at the end of a typical shorter stage. It’s not hard to keep glycogen levels topped off when riding in the shelter of the peloton and teammates bringing bottles.

 

[ingsve]

Just consider a couple of things:
—everything in a gel you can get in a water bottle. Pros were using energy drinks with sugar, electrolytes, etc back in the ‘80’s. Gels have probably resulted in fewer guys bonking because they can always have an extra gel with them, but don’t explain faster times.
—the irony is that the type of race where overall nutrition and in-race eating could make a small difference are the 220km tappones with 5 HC or Cat 1 climbs, where it would be tough to keep getting enough calories in. But they don’t have those stages anymore. Roglic’s monster record on Stage 19 was a mono climb at the end of a typical shorter stage. It’s not hard to keep glycogen levels topped off when riding in the shelter of the peloton and teammates bringing bottles.

OK, that seems reasonable.

Speaking of shorter stages btw, Has there been any analysis on these record times in terms of where they appear in a stage? It's of course no surprise if a rider at the end of a short stage will climb a hill faster than someone doing the same hill after a much longer and tougher stage.

 

[Sciatic]

OK, that seems reasonable.

Speaking of shorter stages btw, Has there been any analysis on these record times in terms of where they appear in a stage? It's of course no surprise if a rider at the end of a short stage will climb a hill faster than someone doing the same hill after a much longer and tougher stage.

I’m sure someone on here has that info.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Ilkhan Dostiyev from the Astana developmental team just got busted for CERA.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/as...n-dostiyev-after-blood-booster-cera-positive/
The guy was never impressive in the junior or u23 ranks before this year, then he was suddenly surprisingly good in Rwanda and he was suddenly able to hang with Widar in the Giro della Valle d'Aosta, where he finished 2nd on the gc.

It's one of those instances where I can believe that a rider went rouge himself, because no way a WT developmental team is still using CERA nowadays.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833438151550931391

View: https://x.com/AstanaQazDev/status/1833438151550931391?t=1wsP-qxqayiLS1yRiOYumg&s=19

 

[Netserk]

I just listened to a podcast with Jörgen Nordhagen. It was a skiing podcast but they ended up talking a lot about cycling and one thing that Nordhagen said stood out to me.

They were talking about eating habits and how many skiers are not very professional in their fuelling and sort of just go by feel rather than a strict nutritionist diet and especially refuelling during races. Nordhagen said that this was also more common in cycling like 20 years ago and since then the peloton has become a lot more professional in terms of what they eat and how much and what they eat during races etc. He said that this is likely a reason for the numbers that the top cyclists are putting out these days.

How does that sound to you? Are Pog and Vingegaard and the lot able to put out the watts they do simply because they have far better control over their fuel intake than past generations had?

Here is a link to the podcast: https://t.co/cH3paREbym

That was how Sky explained Froome's Finestre raid in 2018. But keep in mind that Froome was no better than he was in 2015 or 2013. At best, it's a marginal improvement. Sky were no stronger in 2019 than they were in 2013-2015.

The overall level of the best climbers was quite stable from 2013 to 2019. Then a jump and gradual increase from 2019/2020 to 2023. Then a massive jump in July this year, maybe even bigger and more sudden than the jump in performances from EPO.

How plausible is it for better nutrition to cause almost a 10 % improvement in W/kg overnight? After several years where it has been used to explain away previous gains?

 

[Netserk]

OK, that seems reasonable.

Speaking of shorter stages btw, Has there been any analysis on these record times in terms of where they appear in a stage? It's of course no surprise if a rider at the end of a short stage will climb a hill faster than someone doing the same hill after a much longer and tougher stage.

Plateau de Beille was at the end of a harder stage that was raced much harder than previously. Agnès was climbed ~10 % faster than in 2004 and 2011 by the peloton. More vertical meters and greater energy expenditure than any previous PdB stage.

 

[Squire]

Ilkhan Dostiyev from the Astana developmental team just got busted for CERA.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/as...n-dostiyev-after-blood-booster-cera-positive/
The guy was never impressive in the junior or u23 ranks before this year, then he was suddenly surprisingly good in Rwanda and he was suddenly able to hang with Widar in the Giro della Valle d'Aosta, where he finished 2nd on the gc.

It's one of those instances where I can believe that a rider went rouge himself, because no way a WT developmental team is still using CERA nowadays.

In today's least surprising news ...

 

[Mayomaniac]

In today's least surprising news ...

I mean, everyone who knows the u23 racing scene was surprised by his level in Valle d'Aosta against Widar at probably his best.

 

[Didinho]

Finally we got a rider testing positive for the real good stuff, although he will probably still blame it on having shared a tissue with a soigneur, who had treated a nosebleed with their grandmother's homemade fungal cream.

Cera cera cera cera cera cinco.

 

[Squire]

I mean, everyone who knows the u23 racing scene was surprised by his level in Valle d'Aosta against Widar at probably his best.

I raised a few eyebrows when he raced in Rwanda already.

 

[Bolder]

That was how Sky explained Froome's Finestre raid in 2018. But keep in mind that Froome was no better than he was in 2015 or 2013. At best, it's a marginal improvement. Sky were no stronger in 2019 than they were in 2013-2015.

The overall level of the best climbers was quite stable from 2013 to 2019. Then a jump and gradual increase from 2019/2020 to 2023. Then a massive jump in July this year, maybe even bigger and more sudden than the jump in performances from EPO.

How plausible is it for better nutrition to cause almost a 10 % improvement in W/kg overnight? After several years where it has been used to explain away previous gains?

Yes, plausible. Why couldn't there be a breakthrough in nutrition? Or certain people who thrive on X carbs per hour, while others can't handle it?

 

[Netserk]

Yes, plausible. Why couldn't there be a breakthrough in nutrition? Or certain people who thrive on X carbs per hour, while others can't handle it?

Because it doesn't match the timeline of how the level of performances have evolved the least bit. Because the changes have been massive and sudden several years after they supposedly figured out how much carb to eat. Because every time we've previously seen so sudden and massive changes, it has been due to doping or very tangible and verifiable improvements in technology (like swim suits). We've seen nothing of the latter that comes even close to the changes in performances, and it has been visible over the years how changes in doping and anti-doping have affected performances.

 

[Froome]

Yes, plausible. Why couldn't there be a breakthrough in nutrition? Or certain people who thrive on X carbs per hour, while others can't handle it?

The peloton found better nutrition since the stage of plateau de beille.....because between january and that stage, there weren't a big increase in terms of power, or a gradual improvement of power.

Suddendly everybody improved a lot, like more than 5%, because they found a better nutrition after pla d'adet....

Only doping can explain something like this. Nutrition could explain something if the improvement was like 1%.

 

[Brullnux]

Yes, plausible. Why couldn't there be a breakthrough in nutrition? Or certain people who thrive on X carbs per hour, while others can't handle it?

I think there's little doubt that, all things being equal, riders should be going faster now than in the 90s, 00s, 10s. The issue is, as Netserk has pointed out, the context around the current riders' levels can't really be explained by training/nutrition/bike tech etc alone. The massive jump has been so recent, and now they're putting out numbers that compare to the 60% Hemocrit days.

 

[ingsve]

Because it doesn't match the timeline of how the level of performances have evolved the least bit. Because the changes have been massive and sudden several years after they supposedly figured out how much carb to eat. Because every time we've previously seen so sudden and massive changes, it has been due to doping or very tangible and verifiable improvements in technology (like swim suits). We've seen nothing of the latter that comes even close to the changes in performances, and it has been visible over the years how changes in doping and anti-doping have affected performances.

Just to play devils advocate. Is there is chance the timeline can be explained by riders 5 years ago simply underperforming compared to where the evolution of the sport was at? Aging Sky riders still winning GTs despite declining performances and then in the past years a new generation or energetic and hungry riders take over that are performing at the actual top level of the sports capability.

I know I'm probably pissing in the wind but I so don't want to think we are still in a doping era regardless of what reason is telling me.

 

[E_F_]

Just to play devils advocate. Is there is chance the timeline can be explained by riders 5 years ago simply underperforming compared to where the evolution of the sport was at? Aging Sky riders still winning GTs despite declining performances and then in the past years a new generation or energetic and hungry riders take over that are performing at the actual top level of the sports capability.

I know I'm probably pissing in the wind but I so don't want to think we are still in a doping era regardless of what reason is telling me.

I don't see why they would get hungrier and more energetic year after year...

 

[ingsve]

I don't see why they would get hungrier and more energetic year after year...

Depends what you are comparing. I was referring to results pre-2020 to results post-2020.

 

[E_F_]

Depends what you are comparing. I was referring to results pre-2020 to results post-2020.

I got that, but if that was the reason for the jump then, what's causing the massive improvements now?

 

[hulkgogan]

If we just go by the basic claim made, has the way riders refuel before and especially during a race changed much in the past 20 years? Did they keep strict control over calorie targets each hour of racing or did rider go more by feel rather than planning back then? How has the food they eat changed? From recollection there were gels back then as well right or was it still the days of white bread and jam etc.? Or when did the gels enter the peloton? Has gels and the other stuff they eat changed much during this time?

I raced Conti 25 years ago. For racing I'd do one gel an hour and have about 15 grams of carbs in my bottle. So about 45 g an hour. I'd say I was among the higher end among my teammates. Back then the concern was too many carbs, especially in the bottle, would cause cramps. However, the notion that if I doubled my intake I suddenly gain 50 watts is hilarious gaslighting. No fricking way.

 

[Netserk]

Just to play devils advocate. Is there is chance the timeline can be explained by riders 5 years ago simply underperforming compared to where the evolution of the sport was at? Aging Sky riders still winning GTs despite declining performances and then in the past years a new generation or energetic and hungry riders take over that are performing at the actual top level of the sports capability.

I know I'm probably pissing in the wind but I so don't want to think we are still in a doping era regardless of what reason is telling me.

Geraint Thomas underperformed in 2018 relative to 2022? He got more energetic and hungry a couple of years after winning the Tour?

Sounds as plausible as Chris Horner winning the 2013 Vuelta clean.

 

[Tim Cahill]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833581939732983993

Superman will return, whether soon or in a few years

 

[Squire]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833581939732983993

Superman will return, whether soon or in a few years

I miss him. The only climber who could give the mutants a good whipping on an MTF on a good day.