Thanks for your post pmcg. This is the sort of interesting discussion that I enjoy. There isn't really another forum in which geeks can discuss cycling performance that may or may not cross over into doping territory, but sometimes emotional bias seems to get in the way. My post above in fact was being too harsh on Contador. I was replying to someone who speaks in absolute terms and so I used a common language that he would understand. I had my rant but now its done.pmcg76 said:
Anyway I think you are right re. modern cycling vs the pre EPO era. World records in all sports have come down and in even in the absence of PEDs it is probable that the average power output profile of the entire peloton is slightly above those of yesteryear simply because of improvements in training periodisation and recovery methods (eg: nutrition, compression garments, ice baths, electronic muscle stimulation in addition to massage). Perhaps there were outstanding individuals that had power profiles as high as the best modern day riders, but overall I think the teams are stronger. This is why it has become so much more difficult for a GC contender to break away a long way from the finish and take big time gaps. The opposing teams are simply too strong and so they just up the chase.
The other thing I have always believed, which is in opposition to many folks around here, is that at the pro level, the blood manipulation doesn't give as much of a performance advantage as some might like to believe. Most people are correct that EPO was a real game changer. But nowadays the performance gains are more marginal than what they were 10yrs ago.
What this means is that if Contador has come back clean or "cleaner" and indeed he was riding clean or "cleaner" in 2011 whilst under scrutiny, then it's pretty clear that his prior doping program only made a small improvement (eg: 1-2min on a 20-30min cat 1 or HC climb). Certainly enough for him to win convincingly back in 2007-2009 but not enough that without them he turns into a donkey. He clearly is one of the best active cyclists (if not the best) in the world at present regardless of his links to doping.
However, the reason I still believe that the best cyclists should be able to place top 5 in consecutive GTs is because in the modern era you win and lose on the climbs esp if they are mtn top finishes, and in the ITTs. In those situations it makes little difference how strong your team is, because its usually mano-a-mano by that stage. Stronger teams means that the long breaks and huge time gaps of yesteryear have all but been wiped out. How long does it take to recover from a GT though? If anything we might expect that since recovery methods (doping and non-doping) have improved, that it should be MORE possible to compete well at consecutive GTs. However, for reasons already explained, if we factor in blood transfusions, this isn't possible because it is likely at least some of your opponents whom have decided to dope have targeted that one particular race, and thus they will perform at a level higher for that one race than what can be sustained for two in a row.
In summary, I don't think Evans is a "better" clean rider than Contador, but history has shown that when Evans is on form he can beat Contador. That doesn't make him better, just capable.
There are many in here who may disagree with me on certain topics, but I would hope that we all can agree that all we hope for is to be able to watch undoped cyclists duke it out on the mountain and not be left wondering whether one or both of them is cheating. I can recognize that its getting slightly better, I don't know why others choose to deny this.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram