Team Jumbo-Visma

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
You clearly don't know much about Vingegaards history. On his old team ColoQuick they tested him back in 2016 and it was clear he was a complete physical freak. They talked about him as a potential winner of the Tour even back then. This is three years before he even joined Jumbo. At 20 he broke his femur, and his development was set back probably at least a year.

This notion that he came out of absolutely no where is just plain wrong. Clearly he burst onto the scene quite suddenly, but he was seen as a climbing prodigy, even in his teenage years.
Every young rider who gets a pro contract has at some point had a good result & showed promise. It's why they turn pro.

But making that jump to greatest GT rider in the world (capable of smashing ITT's, short climbs & long climbs) over 18 months, i.e. going from bottle carrier filtering breakaways in November 2020 in the Vuelta to the rider we see in this TdF today? No.

It was far more sudden. Rogla was a completely different climber in the 2017 Tour compared to the 2016 Giro. That was a bigger difference than that of Vingegaard from the 2020 Vuelta to the 2021 Tour.

With your own standard, you might as well call that a Froome-like transformation. But that too would be a poor comparison.
But you can't ignore the radically different professional environment at Jumbo, i.e. 2017 Jumbo is not 2021 Jumbo.

Vingegaard came after & benefitted from an existing structure which Roglic didn't have. Maassen also described Roglic as a 'Ferrari' when they signed him but it took years of ironing out all the kinks to get him into shape as a race winner, along with building a team around him.

It was deliberately chosen to be an equally bad example as the one Rackham was giving :)
There's no comparison between the trajectory Roglic took towards the top & Vingegaard. Where are Vingegaard's race wins? His stage race wins? Where's anything to show he'd turn into the beast he is today?

It's not relatable or believable. He's dominating the hardest race in the world. I mean people need to square with the weirdness of this transformation & not rehash the same old trite excuses for unlikely miracles again, again & again.
 
There's no comparison between the trajectory Roglic took towards the top & Vingegaard. Where are Vingegaard's race wins? His stage race wins? Where's anything to show he'd turn into the beast he is today?

It's not relatable or believable. He's dominating the hardest race in the world. I mean people need to square with the weirdness of this transformation & not rehash the same old trite excuses for unlikely miracles again, again & again.
You were using a 120th place in a time trial, where all he had to do was conserve energy so he could help Roglic in the mountains, as an example of how he had no talent. That's just a straight up bad example.
 
You were using a 120th place in a time trial, where all he had to do was conserve energy so he could help Roglic in the mountains, as an example of how he had no talent. That's just a straight up bad example.
Everything is a 'bad example' if you handwave mediocre past performances in order to excuse a meteoric rise.

There's always a reason 'why' sudden champions used to have bad results, right? Everyone has an excuse & you listed yours regarding Vingegaard going from bottle carrier to GT legend in half a year. I just think we've heard all of this before, i.e. (I'll paraphrase yours & add some other clichés as well) "he wasn't pushing in that race! "he was injured badly before that other race!" "he was ill", "he had untapped potential" "his best friend's coach said he'd win the TdF someday!" etc.

I would have been more receptive had this been Tobias Foss instead of Vingegaard, actually (he did win the Tour de l'Avenir in 2019). But Vingegaard? You need a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief.
 
Vingegard to me is quite obviously highly charged. Just look at the times and how he rides. One can take issue with that if that's how you swing. It bothers me and seems quite ridiculous, but that's just me.

Rackham on the other hand seems primarily bothered about Jumbo doing this nefarious business with someone other than roglic. I don't know what to make of it, to be honest. Ofc pro sports teams go with their best bets to win.
 
Everything is a 'bad example' if you handwave mediocre past performances in order to excuse a meteoric rise.

There's always a reason 'why' sudden champions used to have bad results, right? Everyone has an excuse & you listed yours regarding Vingegaard going from bottle carrier to GT legend in half a year. I just think we've heard all of this before, i.e. (I'll paraphrase yours & add some other clichés as well) "he wasn't pushing in that race! "he was injured badly before that other race!" "he was ill", "he had untapped potential" "his best friend's coach said he'd win the TdF someday!" etc.

I would have been more receptive had this been Tobias Foss instead of Vingegaard, actually (he did win the Tour de l'Avenir in 2019). But Vingegaard? You need a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief.
He wasn't riding GC. He had no reason to go all out, so obviously he wasn't. It's like saying Pogacar started this tour as a terrible sprinter as he finished 152 on stage 1, but then an unbelievable rise made him sprint really well just a few stages later.

I'm not even sure what you mean by unbelievable. We know they are all on dope. What is it you want to believe? You make it sound like Jumbo just took some random guy off the street and did something really unique, to turn him into a world beater. That's obviously not possible. Vingegaard is likely on the same program as Roglic has been on for years, and Kuss and the others. He probably just responds really well.
 
Reactions: noob and Luthor
Vingegard to me is quite obviously highly charged. Just look at the times and how he rides. One can take issue with that if that's how you swing. It bothers me and seems quite ridiculous, but that's just me.

Rackham on the other hand seems primarily bothered about Jumbo doing this nefarious business with someone other than roglic. I don't know what to make of it, to be honest. Ofc pro sports teams go with their best bets to win.
10 years ago I would have been far more receptive to the cynical bottom line needs of a pro sports team. And I would have probably agreed with people justifying what Jumbo has done.

But seriously, without the human factor there's nothing here. No point watching. I've heard & seen all sorts of lunatics justify winning at all costs with cyborgs & it's completely nihilistic. It's just a cash grab operation with military means in terms of using pharmaceuticals to create a business venture. The TdF is merely the marketplace of choice for these cutthroat money grabbers. Where's the romanticism? Where's the "dance with the one who brought you here"? What happens when Vingegaard gets outgunned by a newer watts monster with even better response to the program? Does Jumbo simply say "oops, sorry about Jonas but this new guy is now our champion! believe!". There's no story, it's just empty meaningless sh*t scoring results & earning his bosses more money.

Does any of this even have any value whatsoever when its origin is so fake? From the moment none of this is about a champion naturally rising to the top & competing on merit, it's entirely orchestrated & controlled by Jumbo themselves. Once that is established, there has to be something 'more,' i.e. something which makes the story more interesting & the riders easier to support.

This? It's simply watts warfare between rival performance scientists & one side who discarded their previous model who made their team what it is today for an upgraded version to fight Pogacar. I don't care how people spin this, it's way too cynical for my tastes so I nope out. If UAE for example came back next year with another rider with Pogacar & Vingagaard watts output, I reckon the narrative glue which keeps the sport together might start to unravel completely. It would be too ridiculous for words.

You just can't produce generational talents like iPhones. The story goes to hell.
 
Ok, I understand your perspective Rackham, just don't share it. The thing with narratives and stories is that they are affective and subjective. Many lenses and perspectives are possible. Also casual watchers less invested in the dramatis personae themselves may just as well shrug the rise of Vingo and bow to his novelty, new rivalry etc.

Me, I don't mind the mere watts warfare without stories, and when it comes to results mostly want to see reigning champions slain sooner rather than later so that ridiculous legacies a la indurain, lance and froome don't get to form. After all, the TdF is merely the marketplace of choice for these cutthroat money grabbers, as you put it.
 
Reactions: noob
Strawman. It's not about reaching your prime, it's about talent showing early. Which it absolutely did before the 90s-00s. Young people bursting into the scene and standing out right away and then steadily improving before reaching their prime in their mid-to-late 20s is absolutely the historical norm.
That last sentence is basically Vingegaard's story, no?, someone that showed a lot once he got the chance to, like 12th in the saturday's stage to Eibar in Itzulia 2019, his second race after Vuelta a Andalucia and the stage win in Koscielisko in Tour de Pologne later that year.

He has no wins in under 23 stage races like Isard, Savoie, Alsace or junior races like Lunigiana but he never started in any. The races he was able to do as an under was Pressnietz Spa nations cup (fifth in gc begind Pogacar, Battistella, Errazkin and Hirschi), Valle d' Aosta (stage win in the mountain time trial then crashed out), Avenir (not competitive because of the concussion from the crash in Aosta). That's the three u23 mountainous stage races he started in.

How was could a rider of this type who didn't have a lot of chances to race in the mountains as an under 23 have done more?
 
Reactions: noob
That last sentence is basically Vingegaard's story, no?
Here is that sentence ...

Young people bursting into the scene and standing out right away and then steadily improving before reaching their prime in their mid-to-late 20s is absolutely the historical norm.
Steadily? On what planet does this describe Vingegaard? I've checked both Vingegaard and Pogacar's records many times. The difference is stark. Then add that Vingegaard is nearly two years older. Sorry but this simply does not add up. Only perfecting a program with a super responder makes sense to explain what we have seen since he emerged from absolutely nowhere in the 2021 TdF.
 
If UAE for example came back next year with another rider with Pogacar & Vingagaard watts output, I reckon the narrative glue which keeps the sport together might start to unravel completely. It would be too ridiculous forI words.
But that's not gonna happen. You can't just turn anyone into a world beater. Getting to that level takes exceptional talent, and, like it or not, Pogacar and Vingegaard both have that.

Pantani would turn teetotal seeing the cocktail the Fisherman is on.
Why? Because he'd be tired of dropping him with his own EPO watts? To even out the playing field a bit?
 
Reactions: noob
My only point is that the Jumbo labrat theory has big holes. Because it has to ignore too many things. So let's make a Jonas timeline shall we? Complete with the races he did, the injuries, the watt tests. The swift rides, what people have said about him etc.

Because showing results is also about resources. Money, time, available races, equipment etc matters. Let's not forget; terrain.

Where are the mountains to train on in Denmark? The altitude?

How can you compare that to being born in the Alps of Slovenia? Seriously. You think it doesn't matter if you have to go at least 700 km (it's closer to 1000) to even reach the mountains vs having the mountains at your door?
 
Last edited:
Pantani didn’t transform overnight like Vingegaard. Check his record it is blindingly obvious.
I don't know. I actually never know with Pantani. What is so different with his meteoric rise in 1994 to lets say Berzin? The later is always regarded as the Gewiss EPO posterboy, the former as wonderkid. Why? Both the same age, both nowhere the best until 93 (age 23 for both), the suddenly world beaters aged 24. Not that different to Vingegaard. And in a peloton were 93/94 EPO became a must use.

I get where the Pantani hype is coming from - on his good days he reached climbing highs unseen before and after. But personally to me he is one of the faces of EPO profiteurs.
 
Btw., what really makes no sense is the notion that previously Ineos and now Jumbo could turn ANY rider into a Tour winner because of doping. If it would be so easy, they would obviously constantly do it with the best "fitted" riders. And with fitted I mean marketing. From that perspective it just made no sense to make themselves attackable with Froome's rise from Ineos' view and it makes no sense for Jumbo to have a Danish not a Dutch star now.

I just think both teams are forerunners in their systematic approach to performance enhancement - and bodys (unrelated to their athletic capabilities) react differently to the "programs". So I actually think transformations of lower tier riders in the teams (like the mentioned Froome ans Vingegaard) are actually more like "happy little accidents" that teams can't predict (as shown by the infamous Sky plot graph that indicated limited potential for Froome). Hyperresponders of you want so.
 
I don't know. I actually never know with Pantani. What is so different with his meteoric rise in 1994 to lets say Berzin? The later is always regarded as the Gewiss EPO posterboy, the former as wonderkid. Why? Both the same age, both nowhere the best until 93 (age 23 for both), the suddenly world beaters aged 24. Not that different to Vingegaard. And in a peloton were 93/94 EPO became a must use.

I get where the Pantani hype is coming from - on his good days he reached climbing highs unseen before and after. But personally to me he is one of the faces of EPO profiteurs.
Pantani didn’t have a “meteoric” rise. Everyone was taking EPO then so there was no such thing as “EPO profiteers”. If you wanted to be a professional in Europe that is what you did. But you compare Pantani to Berzin? Nobody who actually followed cycling back then would refer to Pantani as hype, EPO or not. For example Berzin was never revered. In the 98TdF Pantani destroyed Ullrich who was doping with everything Marco had.
 
Last edited:
Pantani didn’t have a “meteoric” rise. Everyone was taking EPO then so there was no such thing as “EPO profiteers”. If you wanted to be a professional in Europe that is what you did. But you compare Pantani to Berzin? Nobody who actually followed cycling back then would refer to Pantani as hype, EPO or not. For example Berzin was never revered. In the 98TdF Pantani destroyed Ullrich who was doping with everything Marco had.
Yes, and I said that highs of Pantani were very high. And obviously his good years lasted longer as Berzins. But what is your explanation of Pantani going from nothing in 90/91/92/93 to suddenly podiuming the Giro and the Tour in 94. I would very much call that meteoric. And its the very point Vingegaard gets criticized for. Since in the early 90s the whole peloton got on EPO, it can only be doping-fueled. In the best case (for the Pantani story) - he just was comparably clean in 90-93 and then changed that, in the worse case he took more risk (actually tested positive later) or was just a very good responder to EPO. I simply don’t know but point is I am struggling as to why Pantani is so widely acknowledged as one of the greatest talents of all time. I say you simply cannot tell.
 
Yes, and I said that highs of Pantani were very high. And obviously his good years lasted longer as Berzins. But what is your explanation of Pantani going from nothing in 90/91/92/93 to suddenly podiuming the Giro and the Tour in 94. I would very much call that meteoric. And its the very point Vingegaard gets criticized for. Since in the early 90s the whole peloton got on EPO, it can only be doping-fueled. In the best case (for the Pantani story) - he just was comparably clean in 90-93 and then changed that, in the worse case he took more risk (actually tested positive later) or was just a very good responder to EPO. I simply don’t know but point is I am struggling as to why Pantani is so widely acknowledged as one of the greatest talents of all time. I say you simply cannot tell.
Age. By 1994 Marco was still only 24.
 
Not buying the notion that all riders benefited the same from epo. Lower natural hb mass baseline meant that other, mostly peripheral factors (mainly efficiency and utilization of vo2 at threshold) had to compensate for the relative low vo2 availability. When epo use eased that central constraint, the prior peripheral adaptations did not disappear but added to performance capacity. This is the donkey to race horse logic often referred to.

Also not much point trying to differentiate between good/deserving and bad/undeserving dopers.

Arguing for the relative cleanliness of pantani is a good one.
 
Not buying the notion that all riders benefited the same from epo. Lower natural hb mass baseline meant that other, mostly peripheral factors (mainly efficiency and utilization of vo2 at threshold) had to compensate for the relative low vo2 availability. When epo use eased that central constraint, the prior peripheral adaptations did not disappear but added to performance capacity. This is the donkey to race horse logic often referred to.

Also not much point trying to differentiate between good/deserving and bad/undeserving dopers.

Arguing for the relative cleanliness of pantani is a good one.
LOL, Who said Pantani was relatively clean? Of course some riders are better responders. Armstrong is one example. Vingo ticks that box today.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS