Unusual stat. at this years Vuelta?

[Hugh Januss]

Until Deigan won stage 18 nobody in the top 20 overall had won a stage and for eight different stage winners it was their first GT stage. Without doing the research I have to suspect that this is unusual. I find myself wondering why this might be?

Not a poll but possible conversation points:
1. McQuaid is right pro cycling is clean. (points not necessarily in order of believability)
2. Pro cycling is cleaner.
3. Vuelta suffers from position in calender when it comes to attracting the top GT contenders.
4. Lots of new up and coming talent.
5. Vuelta just not as important as other GTs.
6. None of the above.
7. If 6 then what?

Curious to hear others opinions. I suspect a combination of 2 and 3.

 

[Jonathan]

There is a difficult worlds coming that's interesting for climbers. Good 'finishers' (like Cunego) were perhaps not aiming not aiming for the GC, leaving conservative riders as the favorites.

I think this can be explained without doping.

 

[pedaling squares]

Curious to hear others opinions. I suspect a combination of 2 and 3.

I agree with this last sentence. Hopefully the Vuelta will be more attractive when it moves back to the spring. Considering the 2006 Basso vs the 2009 Basso I'd also say that doping is relevant to these results. I don't think we're just looking at the lingering effects of a layoff.

 

[pmcg76]

Based on past experience, breaks have always been more successful in the Vuelta than other major Tours, not sure why this is. Maybe the Vuelta suffers from a lower profile so stage wins are not as important to the bigger names.

I also believe judging by some of the stage winners Moncoutie, Deignan, Roux etc that the Vuelta was relatively clean this year. Nice to see.

 

[usedtobefast]

based on watching it everyday on unversal, it seemed "cleaner".
the powers that be decreed it. the sport needs a "dry" spell. it cannot
afford to keep losing sponsors, so i predict mostly "clean" for quite some time.
the passport is a way to keep a handle on it. stay within the lines and nobody
gets hurt.

 

[the truth.]

the sport is cleaning up

delighted

 

[Jonathan]

But what does a clean GT look like?

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Probably a bit of everything.

 

[Hugh Januss]

But what does a clean GT look like?

You mean as in, have we ever seen one?

 

[Jonathan]

You mean as in, have we ever seen one?

Well, as in, would the field be more equal or would there be a more clear dominant rider?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, as in, would the field be more equal or would there be a more clear dominant rider?

Hmm, good question. Although we did see a fairly dominant rider during arguably the dirtiest era of pro cycling.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Probably a bit of everything.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Until Deigan won stage 18 nobody in the top 20 overall had won a stage and for eight different stage winners it was their first GT stage. Without doing the research I have to suspect that this is unusual. I find myself wondering why this might be?

Not a poll but possible conversation points:
1. McQuaid is right pro cycling is clean. (points not necessarily in order of believability)
2. Pro cycling is cleaner.
3. Vuelta suffers from position in calender when it comes to attracting the top GT contenders.
4. Lots of new up and coming talent.
5. Vuelta just not as important as other GTs.
6. None of the above.
7. If 6 then what?

Curious to hear others opinions. I suspect a combination of 2 and 3.

1. NO
2.Yes
3. A little bit, though i personally thought some of the top riders where the ones i thought who were clean.
4. A little bit
5. NO

 

[350Watts]

Stop picking on Indurain

 

[cyclingmad]

Poor timing and field

The Vuelta has always been the third biggest tour and doesn't have the status. At the end of the season few contenders turn up for a real go at it. Everyone is tired and aside from the Spanish many drop out if they are not going well. The lesser riders go for the stages rather than the established riders who are tired and cant be bothered. It is a race to save the season more than anything. I think these factors influence the new contenders winning than having anything to do with doping

 

[elapid]

The Vuelta has always been the third biggest tour and doesn't have the status. At the end of the season few contenders turn up for a real go at it. Everyone is tired and aside from the Spanish many drop out if they are not going well. The lesser riders go for the stages rather than the established riders who are tired and cant be bothered. It is a race to save the season more than anything. I think these factors influence the new contenders winning than having anything to do with doping

The Vuelta has not always been the third GT, although I admit it has that status now. When it was run as the first GT of the season, then it ranked second in front of the Giro. The date change for the Vuelta decreased its attractiveness.

 

[cyclingmad]

When

The Vuelta has not always been the third GT, although I admit it has that status now. When it was run as the first GT of the season, then it ranked second in front of the Giro. The date change for the Vuelta decreased its attractiveness.

It is getting a bit off topic as we both agree that the Vuelta is definitely the 3rd strongest tour now but would be interested as to what period you believe the Vuelta had a stronger field than the Giro. I admit I have only followed cycling since the early 90s and knowledge of previous years comes from opinion books and videos. Since the beginning of the 90s Vuelta has definitely been 3rd strongest.

Earlier than this the great riders of the times hardly ever did it which is where my opinion of it being the 3rd strongest tour came from. Merckx only did it once, Anquetil only once, Bartali and Coppi never did it. Hinault I think did it twice. Indurain who is Spanish did it several times before he was good and only finished 4. It was almost done by the greats as a way of having a more alround career record.

 

[pmcg76]

It is getting a bit off topic as we both agree that the Vuelta is definitely the 3rd strongest tour now but would be interested as to what period you believe the Vuelta had a stronger field than the Giro. I admit I have only followed cycling since the early 90s and knowledge of previous years comes from opinion books and videos. Since the beginning of the 90s Vuelta has definitely been 3rd strongest.

Earlier than this the great riders of the times hardly ever did it which is where my opinion of it being the 3rd strongest tour came from. Merckx only did it once, Anquetil only once, Bartali and Coppi never did it. Hinault I think did it twice. Indurain who is Spanish did it several times before he was good and only finished 4. It was almost done by the greats as a way of having a more alround career record.

I would say the Vuelta & Giro were more or less at the same level pre 90s, both were very insular races with winners and contenders who didnt compete much outside their own country. I think the renaissance of Italian cycling in the 90s and the change of date for the Vuelta saw it relegated to the 3rd GT and the gap has been growing ever since

 

[elapid]

It is getting a bit off topic as we both agree that the Vuelta is definitely the 3rd strongest tour now but would be interested as to what period you believe the Vuelta had a stronger field than the Giro. I admit I have only followed cycling since the early 90s and knowledge of previous years comes from opinion books and videos. Since the beginning of the 90s Vuelta has definitely been 3rd strongest.

Earlier than this the great riders of the times hardly ever did it which is where my opinion of it being the 3rd strongest tour came from. Merckx only did it once, Anquetil only once, Bartali and Coppi never did it. Hinault I think did it twice. Indurain who is Spanish did it several times before he was good and only finished 4. It was almost done by the greats as a way of having a more alround career record.

I am in the same boat as you. My opinion was based purely on books and internet sites. What made me say that the Vuelta was second GT was a couple of things I read said the Vuelta was much more popular in its original time slot because the weather was more conducive and it was a good warmup for the TdF. Now that's comparing the Vuelta to the Vuelta, not the Vuelta to the Giro, so I may have read too much into this. Sorry if I was misleading - I didn't mean to be and am certainly not speaking from a position of authority on the topic!

 

[icefire]

Just for the curious, I read this morning in a Spanish newspaper that this has been the slowest Vuelta since 1993

 

[workingclasshero]

Just for the curious, I read this morning in a Spanish newspaper that this has been the slowest Vuelta since 1993

that is interesting as it could be said that it is a sign of cleaner times.

but i guess it doesn't really mean that much as someone who dopes won?

also to use this as proof the peloton is now cleaner we would have to weigh in weather, number of mountain finishes, how hard the race course was, how many mountains compared to the other years, who raced it etc

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I agree with this last sentence. Hopefully the Vuelta will be more attractive when it moves back to the spring. Considering the 2006 Basso vs the 2009 Basso I'd also say that doping is relevant to these results. I don't think we're just looking at the lingering effects of a layoff.

Every war alternates being relatively quiet and relatively brutal periods. This is just as likely to be evidence of a relatively quiet period in the war against use of PEDs in cycling as it is evidence of the sport actually being cleaned up.

We know that the same PED affects different athletes differently - some benefit much more from a given PED than do others.

We also know that anti-doping does make progress from time to time, including making it no longer possible to use certain PEDs. For example, CERA was widely used recently, and those who responded to it well did particularly well until they figured out how to test for it. Now those guys aren't doing so well.

But there is always other stuff out there that anti-doping has not yet started testing for. And those who respond well to the latest stuff are doing relatively well. Or maybe it's a lull period during which only microdosing is working.

But do not confuse a lull in the war with the sport actually getting cleaner. The next big scandal is only weeks, months or maybe a few years away.

 

[Jonathan]

But there is always other stuff out there that anti-doping has not yet started testing for. And those who respond well to the latest stuff are doing relatively well. Or maybe it's a lull period during which only microdosing is working.

Dutch commentators Smeets and Ducrot said there were rumours of a new kind of EPO, I think they called it '4th generation', which is supposedly used now.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Dutch commentators Smeets and Ducrot said there were rumours of a new kind of EPO, I think they called it '4th generation', which is supposedly used now.

And whether it's this new kind of 4th gen EPO, or something else, there is going to be a ramp up period. I doubt one week it's not available to anyone and the following week the whole peloton is using it. Also, even among those who obtain it and use it, they have to figure out how much to use, how it affects them, etc. All this takes time and probably accounts for much of the inconsistent performances. Compare Evans in the Tour to Evans in the Vuelta, for example. New supplier? New substance? Got the kinks worked out? Who knows?