Why are the riders faster this year ?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
What "overall" speeds? The race itself is within acceptable parameters (the average speed is lower than last year and not inconsistent with the last five years and blunt as average speed is, it evens out over time). A few protested loudly when two early climbs were scaled faster than previously (which some point out could be to do with where those climbs came in the race, compared to previous years) but have gone mysteriously silent since then. I think ammattipyöräily has a couple of later climbs scaled with alacrity, but no one who actually understands this area seems to have been bothered enough to collate the data yet. As it is, there's a lot of folks like you, folk with no data and no interest in looking for the data, but strong gut feelings and a willingness to state as fact things which are not factually accurate.

By all accounts we have been seeing for some time now a change in climbing speeds, dating to before the hiatus. Some point to it and imply it's got to be down to some new super secret magic rocket fuel. They don't seem interested in what's changed with regard to legal performance enhancing substances, oddly, despite there being evidence that this could be a contributing factor.
Okay, I was just asking and not properly saying that they all are hypercharged. I follow cycling and it's a passion but I got other things to do that checking every climb data. Now that you found me a source, I would look at it with due respect for sure.
Thanks for the reply, I just felt, by the overall comments, that the average speed were waaaay faster this year.
 
It's also strange that some can spot doping with their eyes but are blind to the manner in which Bernal climbed the Puy Mary - he was all over his bike, hardly looking like a man climbing at his best.
Okay I don't really agree on that point. So because a Tour winner or some GC top-tier riders are having issues (back issues, officially for Bernal and Quintana), we have to deny any doping?
 
I think there was this one stage where everyone was chilling, apart from that there have been no easy stages for the guys who in other GTs would have some tough target days and many ones where they can't relax totally, but ease a bit, nonetheless.
Stage 5 was a rolling rest day and for the GC riders most of stage 6 was as well.
Then in the beginning the quality of the riders at the start was extremely high and some of them were in really good form, so the pace up the climbs wasn't easy and must have felt even harder for those who were not at 100%.
They soft pedalled through the first climbs.

Did we watch the same race?
 
What "overall" speeds? The race itself is within acceptable parameters (the average speed is lower than last year and not inconsistent with the last five years and blunt as average speed is, it evens out over time). A few protested loudly when two early climbs were scaled faster than previously (which some point out could be to do with where those climbs came in the race, compared to previous years) but have gone mysteriously silent since then. I think ammattipyöräily has a couple of later climbs scaled with alacrity, but no one who actually understands this area seems to have been bothered enough to collate the data yet. As it is, there's a lot of folks like you, folk with no data and no interest in looking for the data, but strong gut feelings and a willingness to state as fact things which are not factually accurate.

By all accounts we have been seeing for some time now a change in climbing speeds, dating to before the hiatus. Some point to it and imply it's got to be down to some new super secret magic rocket fuel. They don't seem interested in what's changed with regard to legal performance enhancing substances, oddly, despite there being evidence that this could be a contributing factor.

I posted a few posts above how there is literally very little to compare with in the Alps, but you couldn't contain your usual urge to troll people.
 
It’s strange how riders can claim they don’t dope without releasing any data and no-one will believe them, but then riders can claim they’re producing close to their best ever numbers and getting dropped without releasing any data, and lots of people believe them.

I’m well aware these are two different things, but I’m also well aware that riders will say they’re at their best when they’re clearly not.
Well, obviously riders will always claim they don't dope. They have a huge incentive for this. Bernal's incentive when asked about his ride was also pretty obvious. Setting the expectation that "this is about all I have" and those Slovenians are "next leveling it somehow". He was clearly pointing the finger and what he said clearly mapped to what we saw play out. So yeah, what he said made sense.

Does anyone disagree that Roglič and Pogačar are at another level than anyone last year? And that Bernal at his best from last year would land just about exactly where he did that day, coming in behind these two? Or that the Slovenians are clearly a level above everyone else?

I believe riders when they say things that make sense. When they don't, I don't. Blanket belief or disbelief in certain scenarios doesn't enter into it.
 
Reactions: djpbaltimore
If that is true, and the defending champion is hinting that the Slovenians are ripped to the tits to the point that he cant even contest the race, then well..yeah..it would be enough to make you not bother
 
If that is true, and the defending champion is hinting that the Slovenians are ripped to the tits to the point that he cant even contest the race, then well..yeah..it would be enough to make you not bother
Yes, it's true that he made those comments.

“I did my best, but the others were stronger than I was. I couldn't do more than this. I felt very good all day. I looked at my numbers from today's stage and they were almost my best ever. The rest simply went faster. We have to see what will happen in the coming days. From now on I will look at it day by day. We must continue to focus and manage our efforts. In any case, I'm not giving up. We have to keep morale high and we do our best. That's the second time I've heard a rider say they were equal to or out-performing previous Tours. Those Slovenians are next-leveling it somehow."
 
Reactions: F_Cance
What "overall" speeds? The race itself is within acceptable parameters (the average speed is lower than last year and not inconsistent with the last five years and blunt as average speed is, it evens out over time). A few protested loudly when two early climbs were scaled faster than previously (which some point out could be to do with where those climbs came in the race, compared to previous years) but have gone mysteriously silent since then. I think ammattipyöräily has a couple of later climbs scaled with alacrity, but no one who actually understands this area seems to have been bothered enough to collate the data yet. As it is, there's a lot of folks like you, folk with no data and no interest in looking for the data, but strong gut feelings and a willingness to state as fact things which are not factually accurate.

By all accounts we have been seeing for some time now a change in climbing speeds, dating to before the hiatus. Some point to it and imply it's got to be down to some new super secret magic rocket fuel. They don't seem interested in what's changed with regard to legal performance enhancing substances, oddly, despite there being evidence that this could be a contributing factor.
Aside from ketones, what substances are you referring to?
 
They are definitely very fast. But the explanation of being "rested" is a cheap one. Bernhard Kohl already used it after crashing in the preparation for the 2008 Tour. Of course that was ***. Also, if resting instead of racing is the better approach (like in marathon races, where runners target only two races a year), was Sky bullshitting us even more than they already did when Wiggins won every race he started, leading up to the Tour 2012? Then again, Armstrong (who only peaked for one race) wasn't particularly clean either.
 
Well, obviously riders will always claim they don't dope. They have a huge incentive for this. Bernal's incentive when asked about his ride was also pretty obvious. Setting the expectation that "this is about all I have" and those Slovenians are "next leveling it somehow". He was clearly pointing the finger and what he said clearly mapped to what we saw play out. So yeah, what he said made sense.

Does anyone disagree that Roglič and Pogačar are at another level than anyone last year? And that Bernal at his best from last year would land just about exactly where he did that day, coming in behind these two? Or that the Slovenians are clearly a level above everyone else?

I believe riders when they say things that make sense. When they don't, I don't. Blanket belief or disbelief in certain scenarios doesn't enter into it.
This reads a lot like confirmation bias. There are also lots of reasons riders would lie about their form and numbers.
 
If that is true, and the defending champion is hinting that the Slovenians are ripped to the tits to the point that he cant even contest the race, then well..yeah..it would be enough to make you not bother
If Pogacar comes back with a stronger team and same performance in the next coming years there is no hope for anyone. We would really have US Postal 3.0 (If we believe Sky was 2.0).
I am hoping this is an odd year because of the Covid made things completely different.
 
Reactions: djpbaltimore
By all accounts we have been seeing for some time now a change in climbing speeds, dating to before the hiatus. Some point to it and imply it's got to be down to some new super secret magic rocket fuel. They don't seem interested in what's changed with regard to legal performance enhancing substances, oddly, despite there being evidence that this could be a contributing factor.
I don't think we need to make that kind of argument given the dearth of anti-doping tests in the months prior to the race. I also don't think defining a legal means as contributing factor is worth arguing about. Just about anything could be a marginal benefit. But after witnessing the last three weeks, I think it is pretty clear that there is an increase in performance that is likely driven by non-legal methods caused by COVID-19 testing gaps. I would be curious to see if your opinion that climbing levels are not increased this year survived the ITT climb by Pogacar?
It’s strange how riders can claim they don’t dope without releasing any data and no-one will believe them, but then riders can claim they’re producing close to their best ever numbers and getting dropped without releasing any data, and lots of people believe them.

I’m well aware these are two different things, but I’m also well aware that riders will say they’re at their best when they’re clearly not.
This issue came up again in Dumoulin's comments on his ITT performance. I find it strange that we have some of the top guys going on record that they gave it their absolute best and were soundly beaten. Personally, I find it believable because this is not something that you would expect a sportsman to admit (even if it were true).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY