Jonathan Vaughters, says that professional cycling’s increased willingness to embrace technology is a sure sign that doping is in decline, reports Reuters. The Cannondale-Garmin team manager says that teams can no longer afford to be sceptical about technological innovations with margins in the sport increasingly tight.
While Vaughters himself has admitted doping during his racing career, his team has long been known for maintaining a strong anti-doping stance. He says that there are now tighter margins between the top riders and explains how the situation differed during his own career.
"The scepticism regarding technological developments has eroded because in old cycling, in the end someone would say we can gain five watts in the wind tunnel if we exact your position and use the perfect skinsuit and use this special material or whatever… and then the team doctor says, yeah, but we can gain 50 by doping.”
For this reason, Vaughters describes riders of that time as being ‘a little bit demoralised’ when it came to technological development and innovation, but he argues that this is no longer the case. He adds that a rider’s weight has also become a much bigger concern in recent times, for similar reasons. "When I was racing, losing one kilo, two kilos, who cares, you know, because you could make a big difference with EPO. Now you come down to losing one or two kilos, it's a big advantage."
However, Vaughters says that it is becoming harder and harder to find an area which is not already being exploited by other teams.
"When I started racing I had a SRM. I was one of the first with Stefano Della Santa and LeMond. It was three guys in the peloton who had a SRM. Now it's standard that everyone measures power. In 2008 with David Millar we did lot of wind-tunnel testing. We had fast equipment, we had a big advantage. Nowadays that advantage is gone."
Lance Armstrong expressed similar sentiments about the state of the sport in a BBC interview earlier in the year. Asked whether he would dope again, he answered:
“It's a complicated question, and my answer is not a popular answer. If I was racing in 2015, no, I wouldn't do it again, because I don't think you have to. If you take me back to 1995, when it was completely and totally pervasive, I'd probably do it again. People don't like to hear that."
14 thoughts on “Peloton’s appetite for innovation is a sign that doping is on the wane says Vaughters”
I like Vaughters and his
I like Vaughters and his honesty. In this example I think he is right. We can all be cynical about the pro peloton but tech is increasing at a large weight for min gains and filters down to us as well.
Why would they do that if doping was available ?
ianrobo wrote:I like
I agree, however I do not think that any of these technological advances could make any difference on an amateur level.
Vegita8 wrote:ianrobo wrote:I
I agree, however I do not think that any of these technological advances could make any difference on an amateur level.— ianrobo
I meant in terms of tech cascading down to our level like with F1 etc !
because they’re all taking
because they’re all taking the same drugs?
Smoke and mirrors. Vaughters
Smoke and mirrors. Vaughters has a very vested interest in making cycling appear clean. But irrespective I’m not convinced. It’s like the well trotted out line that athletes come up with to explain why they’ve improved: ‘I’ve got a new trainer/training coach/diet etc’ only using improved tech as a means to explain the improvement.
There’s really been little change in the speed of the peloton since Armstrong’s time and you’d expect that there would be a drop off if Vaughters was right.
If Vaughters was right you’d probably see amateur riders getting closer to the pros, especially if it was about tech.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:If
You do realize that there are more young cyclists winning important races now than ever since the very beginning of professionalization of the sport, right?
I’m not saying cycling is 100% clean. But for sure it’s MUCH harder to gain any serious advantage through doping nowadays than it used to be. You can’t deny the fact that it’s not possible to juice yourself up like Pantani or Riis did back in the day. It’s just not possible, you’d never get away with that magnitude of cheating.
Which is exactly why technology (both in terms of equipment and training/preparation for races) has become se important in the last few years.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Smoke
The sport has moved on massively in the past few years with regards to physiology and fitness. Right across the competitive spectrum the standard has improved. A third cat today is quicker than a third cat ten years ago. This is about equipment, its about training methods, its about the embracing of the margins.
5 years ago Cyclefit were working with top pros, and what they were doing was revolutionary… we all think the pros are dialled in to the max, but only 5 years ago, the default was that many, many pros made it despite their position on the bike, not because of it.
My point is that there is loads of reasons why the speed hasn’t dropped since the Armstrong years other than doping. By suggesting that the speed would need to have dropped is negating ten years of training/technical innovation.
Second point… the amateurs are much closer to the pros… certainly the lower end pros are much closer to the top end riders. Look at Adam Blythe… it works both ways. Drops to UK domestic pro last year, and whilst he won races, he was not dominant… then moves back up to World Tour this year and still in the mix.
Likewise, the UK domestic pros are more than surviving the Tour of Britain, they are competing. These domestic pros then ride amateur races and whilst the strongest, amateurs can still compete.
The difference is no longer night and day.
Am I saying its totally clean out there? No, but I’m saying we are in a totally different world now to the one we all visualise.
Strange… I could have swore
Strange… I could have swore I read some place on the web that at least 5 riders on the same team that the winner of the Tour De France cycles for had tested positive for banned performance enhancing drugs… maybe if me thinks harder me’s will recall which the part of the webs I read it on. 😕
Wasn’t Lance eeking out
Wasn’t Lance eeking out whatever advantage he had through diet and weighing his food?
don simon wrote:Wasn’t Lance
The same as 99% of serious athletes amateur and pro if they want to get nurtition spot on.
I think technological
I think technological improvements have much more to do with selling bicycles to us rather than gaining advantages at pro level. The change in demographics of those who buy bicycles and the increase in disposable income has had a much larger impact on R & D in the cycling world than any gain seen on the pro circuit.
Doping wise, he’s probably right but ‘cleaner’ is a relative term…
I support slipstream because
I support slipstream because I believe they are as clean as can be and over the years have proved so with I think no positives.
(helps local boy Dan Martin is on the team !!)
I think it’s not just the
I think it’s not just the technology during the race that is making the difference, I think the better training techniques and understanding is really being seen, and that’s probably why there is still a big gap between pros and amateurs, the pro teams can afford to invest in a lot of the behind the scenes training technology, whereas an amateur might ride an aero bike with all the aero kit, but if they’re not extracting the most out of their training/recovery they still won’t get that much faster.
I’m saying that doping goes
I’m saying that doping goes on despite whatever technological gains go on. I know there are ‘improvements’, but these really are marginal – sometimes they only benefit riders at specific times (aero bikes in a sprint for instance).
Training techniques have fundamentally not changed. What we know about physiology now we have known for a long time.
You cannot hang your coat on technology and say it proves doping isn’t happening, which is what is implied in Vaughters’ message, the fact that he is trying to suggest this seems to be trying to divert attention…..as the poster above points out there are still enough pro-riders being busted to suggest that things have not changed vis-a-vis drugs. If he had said ‘technology means the riders don’t have to take as much dope’ I would have believed him more.
But as another posted pointed out the numbers and the demographic involved in cycling are the key factors – money is the driver in innovation….that and marketing.