Tadej Pogačar’s power numbers are “mind boggling”, says Chris Froome; Cyclist photographs “things destroyed by drivers” on cycleway “not fit for purpose”; Dairy-free diet for Tour de France team; Olympic drama; Brutal Basque climb + more on the live blog

My thoughts are with Colin's friends and family.

You'd have thought that coked up and on the phone could and should have been enough to get a jury to convict on dangerous. Especially with the toe rag lieing and blaming the victim.

Smoggysteve wrote:

A bio passport can tell you any strange peaks and abnormalities in a riders bio chemistry. But what if they were always there from day one? What is abnormal?
 

once every so often you get a wonder kid or a talent do good they leave everyone behind. But to have 3-4 all at once? Are Pogacar, Vingegaard and Evenapoel really so much better than every else? The gap between these and the next best riders is cavernous. 
 

The biological passport has been around in cycling since 2008, so certainly will have followed the current riders all their professional lives.

The gap between Pogacar and the rest is large but by no means cavernous, yes he's won three Tours but he's lost two, he's yet to win a WC title and so on. Also it's clear that he's a once-in-a-generation talent, possibly a once-in-a-lifetime talent like Merckx. The others aren't so far above the rest and the fact that plenty of other riders have won big races, world championships and even GTs (Kuss, Geoghan Hart, Bernal, Carapaz, Yates, Hindley, Dumoulin, Thomas, Aru, Quinatana all in the last decade) shows they're not quite as dominant as is sometimes claimed. That's before you even talk about the other extraordinary riders like MVDP, WVA and so on. It's not just three or four at the top.

Rendel Harris wrote:

The biological passport has been around in cycling since 2008, so certainly will have followed the current riders all their professional lives.

The biopassport is there to catch really dumb dopers, who dope without the support of bio-science / medical staff to keep them "within the lines". It won't catch anyone who knows what they're doing, is my impression (from being around some sports scientists for a period - sports scientists who had grants from WADA for anti-doping studies).

As I commented below, riders can now take in and utilise up to 250g of carbohydrates more over the course of a 5 hour race than was thought possible just a few years ago. That's around 1,000 (kilo)calories give or take, enough for an hour's hard effort for a decent amateur and enough to make a massive difference for a pro towards the end of a stage, not to mention how well they can recover for the following days if they're not completely depleted. So a gifted athlete beating a doped athlete's 'record' on a long climb by 3 minutes at the end of a mammoth stage with today's training methods, altitude camps, nutrition, aero equipment (which makes a difference even at 20kph), power meters etc etc is entirely feasible, especially considering the doper was probably riding on fumes by the end of the stage. 

I've been wrong before - I was an LA believer - and was very skeptical of Pog and Roglic after Operation Aderlass when the UCI announced an investigation into Slovenian cycling in general. However, I am slowly starting to believe again.... 

Jakrayan wrote:

 aero equipment (which makes a difference even at 20kph)

And let's not forget the energy saved throughout the day on the way to the climb, when people say the extra two kilos of bike weight and aerodynamic advantages wouldn't make an enormous difference on a climb they are forgetting all the extra energy it took the previous generation of riders to get those heavier, less aerodynamic bikes to the foot of the climb in the first place.

It's like listening to battered wives defending their abusers in here. If you think this current crop of riders are getting better power numbers than peak doping of 20 years ago with a few extra grams of carbs, aero frames and fat tyres then good for you.

Nick T wrote:

It's like listening to battered wives defending their abusers in here. If you think this current crop of riders are getting better power numbers than peak doping of 20 years ago with a few extra grams of carbs, aero frames and fat tyres then good for you.

Aero frames save an estimated 80W at 20mph (more at peleton speeds). Tubeless wide tyres maybe 20W. 2kg of weight saved, maybe another 10W. Take two riders of equal capabilities on identical bikes except one has a 110W motor, ask them to ride 150kms at the same pace and then take away the motor and put them on an alpine climb, are you really going to be surprised if the one who was getting 110W extra assistance all day has more power left at the end? "A few extra grams of carbs" - as Jakrayan has pointed out, modern gels allow riders to take on board around 20% more fuel than the riders of just a few years ago, let alone the "peak doping" era when nutrition wasn't far off the jelly babies, fig rolls and ham baguettes days, the effect that will have is surely obvious. Then you completely ignore the effect of altitude training, pretty much absent back then and part of every pro's programme now; altitude training has much the same effect as doping in increasing EPO production and so improving oxygen supply to the muscles, increasing VO2 max and improving lactic tolerance. So, you have huge power savings from equipment, massive extra fuelling capacity and training methods that greatly increase the amount of oxygen supplied to the muscles, if you think all that won't increase power numbers then good for you.

Aero frames don't change your w/kg figures!

an article on this very website demonstrated that Pantani was riding a bike as light of lighter than todays bikes. 
 

altitude traning has been understood for at least 30 years, Boardman utilised it for the Barcelona Olympics. 

peak doping era nutrition was no more than jelly babies and a can of flat coke? Seriously? In the days of Dr Ferrari? Get a grip for heaven's sake man. 
 

"power savings to reach the climb fresher" is absolutely meaningless, you get there as quickly as the peloton gets there. If you're all on steel tube frames and box section rims you just get there slower. On the climb you'll do whatever watts you can do. 7w/kg is unnatural, just like 6.7w/kg was 20 years ago

Nick T wrote:

Aero frames don't change your w/kg figures!

Yes, in fact they will, because as I tried to point out if a rider has been using 100 W less power all day clearly they will have more power left at the end. As a matter of fact the watts per kilo figures haven't changed that much, Pogacar is putting out around 7 W/kg for 15 minute periods on climbs, Pantani is estimated to have done about the same. The difference is that Pogacar can do it more regularly and for longer periods, in large part due to the amount of power he will have saved on the flat due to equipment, far superior fuelling strategies and the effects of prolonged training at altitude.

Nick T wrote:

"power savings to reach the climb fresher" is absolutely meaningless, you get there as quickly as the peloton gets there. If you're all on steel tube frames and box section rims you just get there slower. On the climb you'll do whatever watts you can do. 7w/kg is unnatural, just like 6.7w/kg was 20 years ago

The current average speeds in the Tour are only about 2 km/h faster than they were in the 2000s, or 5%, and yet they are riding bikes that save around 100 W at 40 km/h, or 30%. Of course that will deliver riders to a final climb having used less effort to get there and therefore they will be able to sustain peak power for longer. There is nothing "unnatural" about 7w/kg, by the way, I'm 55 and don't race and I can put out 7w/kg and more easily, the difference, obviously, is the length of time that power can be held, for me about 20 seconds, for the pros 15 minutes+. Still, if you want to persist in your strangely desperate desire to claim that superior fuelling, altitude training and bikes which require a lot less power for the same speed don't make any difference and Pogacar and all his close rivals are definitely on drugs, in your own phrase, good luck to you. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

I've got to agree with Nick. The advantages of aero frames are negligible when you're sat in the middle of the peloton. The idea that a few more carbs are allowing the current crop of riders to eclipse the superhuman performances of the EPO era is fanciful in the extreme. I enjoy watching the performances of the likes of Pog and Remco, but I'm not naive enough to believe that they're clean.

As I pointed out, it's not "A few more carbs" but around 20% extra fuelling. Riders aren't always in the peloton, are they, particularly on a mountain stage between ascents. Another factor which has not yet been mentioned here is the far greater comfort of modern frames, wider tyres and lower pressures, anyone old enough (as regrettably I am) to have ridden 1980s road bikes on 21 mm tyres through to the bikes available today will testify that modern bikes and tyres are far less fatiguing to ride, another thing to take into account when considering why riders appear to be arriving on final climbs much less fatigued than their predecessors. On a wider point, athletic performances always have improved and will continue to improve, it's ridiculous to say that however many improvements in training, nutrition and machinery there have been, and I've been at pains to point out that they have been huge, anyone who matches the times of the EPO cheats* must be cheating themselves. On that basis Usain Bolt must've been cheating because he ran far faster than Ben Johnson? Fausto Coppi took seven packets of amphetamine to break the hour record in 1964, does it follow that everyone who has broken the record since must have been doping?

*When you talk of the EPO era it should be remembered that altitude training is effectively legal doping in that it naturally increases EPO levels so it is not that surprising that athletes who now undergo substantial amounts of altitude training that brings their EPO level close to those artificially achieved by the dopers should be achieving similar performances.

No, they're not always in the peloton, but GC contenders are very rarely on their own until they're on a climb.

It just seems incredible that riders such as Armstrong were doping on an industrial scale when all they needed to do was eat more and they would have achieved better results than from the drugs.

And hypoxic tents and altitude training have been around for decades. Armstrong himself did significant altitude training.

Today's riders aren't just matching the EPO era, they're outperforming it by a good margin. I'd love to believe they're doing that clean, but it seems very unlikely to me.

AidanR wrote:

No, they're not always in the peloton, but GC contenders are very rarely on their own until they're on a climb.

That's true but then they benefit from the benefit their domestiques have got from needing less effort to lead them; I'm sure you've noticed over the last decade how much longer and deeper domestiques are carrying their leaders up climbs, something which would would indicate that they are arriving at the climbs less exhausted than in the past.

AidanR wrote:

It just seems incredible that riders such as Armstrong were doping on an industrial scale when all they needed to do was eat more and they would have achieved better results than from the drugs.

Come on, firstly you know I haven't said anything of the sort, "all they needed to do was eat more" forsooth! I've tried to detail a multitude of reasons why performances may have improved without having to accuse riders of doping. In terms of nutrition though, I refer you again to Jakrayan's comment that new products now allow riders to consume 120 g of carbs per hour whereas before 90 g was regarded as the upper limit, it's not a question of all they needed to do was eat more, they were eating as much as they could without making themselves sick, now they can get significantly more in the tank.

AidanR wrote:

And hypoxic tents and altitude training have been around for decades. Armstrong himself did significant altitude training.

Armstrong said he used an altitude tent, yes, and maybe he did, but I wonder how much that was pre-emptive misinformation to try and explain away his high EPO levels if he did get caught.

I've heard this all before: they're not cheating, it's just this-that-and-the-other advance.

I don't doubt many of the strides that have been made, but what I do doubt is that they add up to anything like enough to thoroughly eclipse the times and power outputs of an era of epic doping.

Let's not forget how few people got busted for doping in that era. The lack of positives now should be treated with similar scepticism.

AidanR wrote:

Let's not forget how few people got busted for doping in that era. The lack of positives now should be treated with similar scepticism.

Let's also not forget that the biological passport did not exist in that era. You say you doubt that the advances in cycling are anything like enough to eclipse the times and power output of the EPO era, and yet as detailed here they are riding bikes that are 100 W more efficient, using nutrition that allows them to take on 20% more fuel, and undergoing sustained and regular altitude camps that effectively replicate in a natural way the effect of EPO. These are facts and you say you don't doubt them and yet you still insist that they must be doping? I'll ask that question again that I asked above, because Ben Johnson smashed the world record and took the Olympic gold for 100m in 1988 and was subsequently proved to be on drugs, does that mean that all the athletes who have beaten his world record time since, and particularly Usain Bolt who obliterated it, must've been on drugs? The advances in track technology and running shoes have been nowhere near the advances in cycling over the last quarter of a century, so they must've been doping as well?

ETA I've probably made it clear by now, but I really hate the lazy accusation that anybody who turns in an amazing performance in cycling must be doping. These are quite extraordinary young men and women who put themselves through training regimens and physical demands in racing that we could not possibly imagine and make incredible sacrifices and indeed risk their lives for our entertainment. Unless and until it is proved that they are doping they deserve better than baseless accusations that of course they must be because dopers back in the day didn't achieve their times when they were on much less efficient bikes, less accurate nutritional regimes and with much less effective training programmes. Unless people can produce proper evidence rather than "I think there must be something going on" it's silly and disrespectful.

Forgot to add something which was on the tip of my tongue, in part possibly thanks to a fractured skull and concussion just over a year ago due to a crash (not my fault) during a training race a little over a year ago. NB definitely NOT trying to start the helmet debate all over again! 

Talking of equipment, in addition to aero gains, lower rolling resistance and so on, the 'easier' gears have definitely made a significant impact. When the pros are riding 34x34 on some of the bigger climbs, you know there's something to it. A higher cadence means you can produce the same power at a lower torque, which is less fatiguing as you are (counterintuitively perhaps) using the slow-twitch, endurance muscle fibres rather than the fast-twitch ones which are more suited to short, hard efforts like sprints and Classic-type climbs. Basically you can sustain the same power for longer at a higher cadence, though the exact cadence is different for different riders, not everyone can 'spin to win'. An an, admittedly anecdotal, example, I rode L' Alpe d'Huez a good few years ago with 39x25 as my bottom gear, and was just outside the hour to the TdF stage finish. I went back the following year - same weight, same FTP, same bike similar weather (little to no wind) with a 29 at the back and went up 2 full minutes faster - 58:31. The lower gear was the only difference I am aware of. 

So can a much better trained and fuelled rider on vastly superior equipment beat the record set by a doped athlete running on fumes by 3 minutes on a long Pyrenean climb? Of course he can. 

AidanR wrote:

I've heard this all before: they're not cheating, it's just this-that-and-the-other advance.

I don't doubt many of the strides that have been made, but what I do doubt is that they add up to anything like enough to thoroughly eclipse the times and power outputs of an era of epic doping.

Let's not forget how few people got busted for doping in that era. The lack of positives now should be treated with similar scepticism.

The "but the bikes are better!" stuff is a complete smoke-screen. If the power meter and the weighing scales say 7 W/kg, the equipment is irrelevant. If we're estimating power from time up a climb using calculations, well, we can take improvements in CDa and rolling resistance into account in those calculations, and still arrive at a good estimate of the human W/kg.

7 W/kg is a significant improvement over 6.7 W/kg - and it's not the equipment, by *definition*. And if the free-reign EPO and blood dopers in the 90s and 00s couldn't get past 6.7 on ~40 min climbs, well...

While remaining agnostic on the doping front, you've fairly comprehensively missed Rendel's point here. He's saying that the equipment allows for less exertion and fatigue prior to the climb. If that's true (again, not taking a position either way here), then they'll have more in the tank to put out more watts for longer on the climb (and would do so even if they switched to a vintage bike at that point - or, for that matter, if they decided to ride up it on a Boris Bike Ken Cycle).

That was indeed my point, it wasn't necessarily that vintage bikes would not climb as well but that modern bikes would deliver the rider in fresher condition and, as you say, allow them to ride harder for longer. Another point that hasn't been addressed is the fact that Pantani & co were riding with a 42/25 maximum low gear (in fact Pantani had a 23 largest cog, claiming that anyone who needed more was not a proper climber), what effect did that have on muscle fatigue by the end of the race compared to someone spinning up climbs on a 40/30? Throw in the capacity to take on 20% more carbs and that's a lot of factors to consider, and to consider more seriously than simply stating "that doesn't make enough difference".

I'm still waiting for any of the skeptics to answer my question with reference to Usain Bolt and Ben Johnson: if somebody breaks a record that was previously set by a known doper, does that mean that the person who set the new record must de facto also be doping? That appears to be their position, in which case every current world record holder in any speed or endurance or strength sport must be a doper.

Rendel Harris wrote:

The current average speeds in the Tour are only about 2 km/h faster than they were in the 2000s, or 5%, and yet they are riding bikes that save around 100 W at 40 km/h, or 30%. Of course that will deliver riders to a final climb having used less effort to get there and therefore they will be able to sustain peak power for longer. There is nothing "unnatural" about 7w/kg, by the way, I'm 55 and don't race and I can put out 7w/kg and more easily, the difference, obviously, is the length of time that power can be held, for me about 20 seconds, for the pros 15 minutes+. Still, if you want to persist in your strangely desperate desire to claim that superior fuelling, altitude training and bikes which require a lot less power for the same speed don't make any difference and Pogacar and all his close rivals are definitely on drugs, in your own phrase, good luck to you. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Old steel bikes roll incredibly well. On the flat, in a bunch, a vintage bike is no less efficient. I have a top-3 KOM somewhere on a flat segment, on a cheap-ish 1982 Holdsworth road bike. Due to tail-wind and old wheels still being very good (see below for a possible reason why).

My expensive late 70s / early 80s Campagnolo Record hub wheels on my vintage Colnago road bike are noticeably fast spinning wheels. Pretty sure they still spin with lower resistance than some of my modern wheels. Cup and cone bearings are actually _better_ for wheels than press fit bearings, from what I gather from various bearing experts - but the latter are cheaper to build and maintain, so nearly all modern bikes have those now. Shimano held out with cup and cone for a long time, maybe they still do - not sure.

So I just don't buy "but they'd be fresher today arriving at the climb".

David Walsh, who was instrumental in bringing down Lance Armstrong, is a fan of Pogačar and often writes articles (in the Times no less, which doesn't exactly carry a huge amount of pro cycling stories) that are full of praise for him, Vingegaard etc. That tells me all I need to know. 

it doesnt really, just because Walsh was a factor in Armstrongs case (everyone forgets LA Confidential was co written with Pierre Ballester), it was Landis really who was instrumental in taking him down.

so it doesnt mean Walsh is some annointed dope finder general, and his apparent seal of approval means theres nothing going on.

theres something going on with the current group of riders to produce these kind of numbers, and it aint all better nutrition and rounder wheels, whether it crosses the line into breaking the rules, I dont think anybody but those directly involved really knows.

It was Landis' testimony that was the smoking gun for sure, but Walsh had been pursuing him for years, speaking to Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly amongst others, asking awkward questions at press conferences when no-one else dared. I was in the LA camp at the time and thought DW was little more than a troll, but was proven very wrong. He spent a.lot.of time with Team Sky / Ineos more recently and, although he wasn't impressed with everything, didn't see any signs of any wrongdoing (Jiffygate not withstanding). So if he's convinced by Pog etc al then that's good enough for me. 

Also, a decent cycling calculator will have taken different aero-drag and rolling resistance figures into account. A human doing 6.7 W/kg on a steel bike with 19c box section rims wearing wool, and a human doing 6.7 W/kg on a modern aero bike with a skinsuit, are both doing 6.7 W/kg. The speed will be different, but the physiological effort is directly comparable.

The human factor of a 7 W/kg effort is simply way above a 6.7 W/kg. The bike and equipment are irrelevant (other than to what speed results).

Jakrayan wrote:

As I commented below, riders can now take in and utilise up to 250g of carbohydrates more over the course of a 5 hour race than was thought possible just a few years ago. That's around 1,000 (kilo)calories give or take, enough for an hour's hard effort for a decent amateur and enough to make a massive difference for a pro towards the end of a stage, not to mention how well they can recover for the following days if they're not completely depleted. So a gifted athlete beating a doped athlete's 'record' on a long climb by 3 minutes at the end of a mammoth stage with today's training methods, altitude camps, nutrition, aero equipment (which makes a difference even at 20kph), power meters etc etc is entirely feasible, especially considering the doper was probably riding on fumes by the end of the stage. 

I've been wrong before - I was an LA believer - and was very skeptical of Pog and Roglic after Operation Aderlass when the UCI announced an investigation into Slovenian cycling in general. However, I am slowly starting to believe again.... 

Nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism. All of the same reasons (better bikes, training, nutrition etc) were provided as evidence when la and co had their results questioned. It could all the reasons you mentioned as well as a crop of freak cyclists maturing at the same time or maybe not. 

Yet another factor that will make a difference is the tendency towards shorter stages, and shorter transfers between stages thanks to pressure from the riders, along with having their own bedding so they are more rested before the start of each stage compared with days gone by. It might not make a huge difference in a one day or short stage race (I've raced following very little sleep and felt fine once the flag drops) but over 3 weeks an extra hour or two's rest every day could well be significant.