4 ms·

> How has the peloton gotten so fast? This question in the article is almost comically naive. In the most drug-filled sport in history, with its most famous at

> How has the peloton gotten so fast? This question in the article is almost comically naive. In the most drug-filled sport in history, with its most famous athlete a known drug cheat, the answer to this isn’t “carbohydrates”, it’s almost assuredly “drugs not being tested for”.

Manfred 3y ago
That seems like an unfair response. There are certainly still drugs in the peloton and there are a lot of teams trying to stretch the gray areas. But given the amount of testing and verification of those tests by reputable journalists it's unlikely that it would have the same impact it did in the early 2000's. Training methods and nutrition have made a large impact on all levels of cycling in the past 10 years, and from personal experience I know that's certainly not all drugs.
- zemvpferreira 3y ago
  Lance Armstrong was USADA tested 60 times, and likely hundreds more by other organizations, without a single positive. It's all drugs.
  - Manfred 3y ago
    The fact that someone cheated the system in the past is in no way proof that the same thing is happening now.
    - pengaru 3y ago
      Proof, no, but the best predictor of future behavior we have is past behavior.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Of course it's not proof of cheating, but it is strong evidence not to trust the testing unless something very fundamental has changed. And your argument strongly depends on accurate testing.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      First it wasn’t just him. The entire sport has been plagued by accusations that the top performers are doping. Secondly, he won 7 consecutive races. When he dropped out, the race times didn’t change that much and now the Tour de France winning times are faster than Armstrong. You can claim that it’s better bikes, training, diet etc. The simplest explanation given all the facts though seems like doping.
VeejayRampay 3y ago
this is absolutely the right answer to the question that the peloton can go faster now that it did in the worst of the EPO years is a dire reminder that it'll always be a race between cheaters and the doctors that come up with reliable tests other ludicrous explanations coming from people that make a living from the cycling industry is "improvement in bike technology" (which then again is absolutely laughable)
- lormayna 3y ago
  I am an amateur cycling and I am pretty sure that bike technology is a key factor in improvement in cycling performances. Better aerodynamic, disk brakes and more sliding wheels are a thing. There is also another factor that is having an huge impact on cycling performances: power meters. Power meters help a lot on energy and fatigue management and also on training in a scientific way. In the 90s (the EPO era that you are referring), pros used only HR monitor, right now pros are using PM and a lot of other sensors to track every details of their body. I am not saying that there is no doping, but reducing the improvements only to doping is a bit silly.
  - alephxyz 3y ago
    They actually started using powermeters in the 90s, Lemond was one of the first to train using one. Nothing compared to what we have today though.
    - lormayna 3y ago
      I remember a former pro that I know bought tlhis first PM around 2005: it was crazy expensive (more than 1500€ at that time) an not comparable with the PM that we have now (Assioma Duo costs 6/700€).But what it was a really game changer is data analysis tool: right now using free tools like GoldenCheetah or intervals.icu you can have an incredible set of metrics and analytics. Thanks to that, there was an huge improvement on training theory in the last year: things like VO2Max or Z2 where unknown in the '00. And today pros are using also other sensors to have a more olystic overview of the body condition and training effects: glucose meter (banned on races), lactate sensor, basal temperature sensor, etc.
ImprovedSilence 3y ago
I’m not going to disagree with the sentiment that drugs are speeding up the peleton. but >>” most drug filled sport”. comes off as probably naive. o think footbal, hockey, soccer, or baseball are are more clean is laughable, they just dont test for anything EVER, except maybe steroids every so often. id bet my bottom dollar all those pro sports with $$$$ flying around HAMMER any drug cocktail that might get them the edge. its just not tested or as public as pro cycling.
- JauntyHatAngle 3y ago
  Doping is probably still common, but the more endurance or speed based the more drugs help. Soccer values attributes drugs exaggerate - but it has a skill component that is more important vs cycling. Soccer also has breaks and substitutes and ways to slow the game down to close the gap. I'm not ignorant to the tactics and technique required in cycling, but its a smaller part of the sport vs tactics and skill in football. So it's not as important to dope. But yes, still happens.
  - alephxyz 3y ago
    PEDs aren't just for endurance. Prescription painkillers, stimulants and corticosteroids are easy to get prescriptions for or even TUEs. The typical player in the NHL gets tested 2-3 times a year, and almost never in the off season. Some sports barely test more than once a year. In cycling it's closer to once a month for an average rider but it can get a lot higher if you're successful as most orgs will test their top 3 after every stage or race.
    - Someone 3y ago
      > In cycling it's closer to once a month for an average rider but it can get a lot higher Extreme example (https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jumbo-visma-and-uae-team-emirates-undergo-extra-anti-doping-tests-at-the-tour-de-france https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jumbo-visma-and-uae-team-em...): “Jonas Vingegaard has had no fewer than four blood tests in the last 48 hours. We are happy to participate in this.”
  - 3y ago
Gualdrapo 3y ago
> its most famous athlete a known drug cheat I'd bet you're thinking about Lance Armstrong, and arguably that person would be Eddy Merckx - but the funny thing is that with either one that premise holds true
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  To be fair, with cycling, you can pick pretty much any famous one and you'd stand a fair chance of picking a doper (either exposed or widely suspected.)
rokkitmensch 3y ago
I would love to see some good performance distribution charts. Outliers are interesting for all sorts of reasons!

Manfred 3y ago

That seems like an unfair response. There are certainly still drugs in the peloton and there are a lot of teams trying to stretch the gray areas. But given the amount of testing and verification of those tests by reputable journalists it's unlikely that it would have the same impact it did in the early 2000's. Training methods and nutrition have made a large impact on all levels of cycling in the past 10 years, and from personal experience I know that's certainly not all drugs.

zemvpferreira 3y ago
Lance Armstrong was USADA tested 60 times, and likely hundreds more by other organizations, without a single positive. It's all drugs.
- Manfred 3y ago
  The fact that someone cheated the system in the past is in no way proof that the same thing is happening now.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    Proof, no, but the best predictor of future behavior we have is past behavior.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Of course it's not proof of cheating, but it is strong evidence not to trust the testing unless something very fundamental has changed. And your argument strongly depends on accurate testing.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    First it wasn’t just him. The entire sport has been plagued by accusations that the top performers are doping. Secondly, he won 7 consecutive races. When he dropped out, the race times didn’t change that much and now the Tour de France winning times are faster than Armstrong. You can claim that it’s better bikes, training, diet etc. The simplest explanation given all the facts though seems like doping.

VeejayRampay 3y ago

this is absolutely the right answer to the question that the peloton can go faster now that it did in the worst of the EPO years is a dire reminder that it'll always be a race between cheaters and the doctors that come up with reliable tests other ludicrous explanations coming from people that make a living from the cycling industry is "improvement in bike technology" (which then again is absolutely laughable)

lormayna 3y ago
I am an amateur cycling and I am pretty sure that bike technology is a key factor in improvement in cycling performances. Better aerodynamic, disk brakes and more sliding wheels are a thing. There is also another factor that is having an huge impact on cycling performances: power meters. Power meters help a lot on energy and fatigue management and also on training in a scientific way. In the 90s (the EPO era that you are referring), pros used only HR monitor, right now pros are using PM and a lot of other sensors to track every details of their body. I am not saying that there is no doping, but reducing the improvements only to doping is a bit silly.
- alephxyz 3y ago
  They actually started using powermeters in the 90s, Lemond was one of the first to train using one. Nothing compared to what we have today though.
  - lormayna 3y ago
    I remember a former pro that I know bought tlhis first PM around 2005: it was crazy expensive (more than 1500€ at that time) an not comparable with the PM that we have now (Assioma Duo costs 6/700€).But what it was a really game changer is data analysis tool: right now using free tools like GoldenCheetah or intervals.icu you can have an incredible set of metrics and analytics. Thanks to that, there was an huge improvement on training theory in the last year: things like VO2Max or Z2 where unknown in the '00. And today pros are using also other sensors to have a more olystic overview of the body condition and training effects: glucose meter (banned on races), lactate sensor, basal temperature sensor, etc.

ImprovedSilence 3y ago

I’m not going to disagree with the sentiment that drugs are speeding up the peleton. but >>” most drug filled sport”. comes off as probably naive. o think footbal, hockey, soccer, or baseball are are more clean is laughable, they just dont test for anything EVER, except maybe steroids every so often. id bet my bottom dollar all those pro sports with $$$$ flying around HAMMER any drug cocktail that might get them the edge. its just not tested or as public as pro cycling.

JauntyHatAngle 3y ago
Doping is probably still common, but the more endurance or speed based the more drugs help. Soccer values attributes drugs exaggerate - but it has a skill component that is more important vs cycling. Soccer also has breaks and substitutes and ways to slow the game down to close the gap. I'm not ignorant to the tactics and technique required in cycling, but its a smaller part of the sport vs tactics and skill in football. So it's not as important to dope. But yes, still happens.
- alephxyz 3y ago
  PEDs aren't just for endurance. Prescription painkillers, stimulants and corticosteroids are easy to get prescriptions for or even TUEs. The typical player in the NHL gets tested 2-3 times a year, and almost never in the off season. Some sports barely test more than once a year. In cycling it's closer to once a month for an average rider but it can get a lot higher if you're successful as most orgs will test their top 3 after every stage or race.
  - Someone 3y ago
    > In cycling it's closer to once a month for an average rider but it can get a lot higher Extreme example (https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jumbo-visma-and-uae-team-emirates-undergo-extra-anti-doping-tests-at-the-tour-de-france https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jumbo-visma-and-uae-team-em...): “Jonas Vingegaard has had no fewer than four blood tests in the last 48 hours. We are happy to participate in this.”
- 3y ago

Gualdrapo 3y ago

> its most famous athlete a known drug cheat I'd bet you're thinking about Lance Armstrong, and arguably that person would be Eddy Merckx - but the funny thing is that with either one that premise holds true

zimpenfish 3y ago
To be fair, with cycling, you can pick pretty much any famous one and you'd stand a fair chance of picking a doper (either exposed or widely suspected.)

rokkitmensch 3y ago

I would love to see some good performance distribution charts. Outliers are interesting for all sorts of reasons!