Ybodonk wrote:
BTW wonder if Roland is performing lets say under level, due to the speculation of him being doped. With the perspective of him being afraid of getting caught - hence no/less dope this year?

Ybodonk wrote:
Look at Contador, ever since he got caught, he has been afraid to get back to his former level. By afraid - he is not heavy doping himself? Maybe getting micro-doses of EPO, but thats not enough when Froome is in contest.

Pellizotti2 wrote:

I'd say he simply struggling to cope with a much stronger field than last year.


His weakness is related to age and natural decline, not cleanliness.

Miguel98 wrote:
Contador may have doped, but he appeared young at his best. So he declines earlier. Same thing will happen with Quintana.

kubys wrote:
It will be interesting to see Froome stripped of the title post-TdF, which will be given to Contador (Yeah I know, Mollema's still there). It can be quite paradox satisfaction for Alberto.

Ybodonk wrote:
Contador is only 30 years old, he should be in his prime now and the next 3 years. I am not buying it.

Aquarius wrote:
As fro Contador, there may be age, there may be time to recover from his suspension (although it's been about one year he's started racing again), but I'd say there's mostly the bio-passport. It's harder to cheat nowadays, so his performances have decreased by 5 or 10 %.

Aquarius wrote:
Rolland is struggling with two things : they've been warned (at Europcar) and especially him about their corticoids (ab)use, and the level of the leaders (say the 15 strongest guys) was rather natural or normal in 2010-2011-2012, but it looks like it's strongly increasing again this year.

As fro Contador, there may be age, there may be time to recover from his suspension (although it's been about one year he's started racing again), but I'd say there's mostly the bio-passport. It's harder to cheat nowadays, so his performances have decreased by 5 or 10 %.

Pellizotti2 wrote:

There's no such thing as a specific age where every single rider is at their best. It's individual.

Some peak early and become stars in their low 20s (Contador, Sagan, Schleck). However, this also means that they'll start declining early. Some even before they turn 30.

Meanwhile, those who hit their prime late can still get results at 35 (Purito, Petacchi).

I don't have enough knowledge in the physical phenomenons causing this to give a more scientific explanation. There are others who explain it better than I do.

issoisso wrote:


This. Contador was winning big at 20, there's no way he could be at peak at age 30 still. He improved every year until 2009, then became worse every year since

issoisso wrote:
Also, in nearly all sports recent statistical analysis shows that results peak way earlier than most people think they do. At age 27 usually. Moneyball has a chapter about this. I'll bet anything that cycling is the same.

Does anybody have any such statistics (results by age) for cycling?

The average age of a monument classic winner for the past thirty years is 28.54. Last year’s average age of 26 is the youngest of the past thirty years and a full two and a half years younger than the average winner. Gone seem to be the days of the old classics hard man socking it to the young pretenders. The likes of Andrei Tchmil, Sean Kelly, Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle and Johan Museeuw all won monuments whilst over the age of 35. There are few riders in the current peloton over the age of 35 who are likely to challenge for the win at one of the five biggest one day races on the calendar. The only three names that come to mind are 36 year old George Hincapie who seems destined never to win his beloved Paris-Roubaix, 38-year old Davide Rebellin who has now doped his way into suspension (and probably retirement) anyway and finally Alessandro Petacchi who could challenge at Milan San Remo next March at the age of 36.

The average age of the competitive cyclist is definitely creeping down. In my opinion there are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, riders are retiring earlier. There aren’t that many riders over the age of 35 capable of challenging for a monument classic because there aren’t that many riders over the age of 35 still riding. In the top 500 riders in the world this year (according to Cycling Quotient) only 34 of them are 35 or over. The second and more important reason for the success of younger riders, in my opinion, is that directeur sportifs are trusting their younger riders with more responsibility. I argued in a previous post that the peak age for a cyclist is not 29-32 as is widely suggested, but more like 24-28. The reason why cyclists in the latter age bracket fail to win as many races as the older riders is the idea of a pecking order within a team. A young rider is expected to earn his corn, ride at the service of his older team mates for a number of years, chalking up smaller victories when the opportunity allows. Only after a solid number of years as a domestique may a rider be considered expereinced enoug

Another point to supplement this argument is the age at which cyclists peak in their careers. Many believe that the peak age for a cyclist is in their early thirties. I think that a cyclist peaks much younger. In fact, Merckx won his five Tours between the ages of 24 and 29, Anquetil between 23 and 30 and Hinault won his first four Tours before he turned 28. Why it takes so long for some riders to reach their potential in terms of results is simply the pecking order that lies within a professional cycling team. Why should the established riders in a team bow to the services of a younger rider who hasn’t won anything of note? Conversely, how does a young rider win anything when he is never designated as a team leader for a race? Even though a young rider could have greater fitness and ability than a team leader, it takes time to rack up minor victories and work your way up the pecking order to finally command the respect and services of a team of domestiques.

Ybodonk wrote:
Sorry I cant agree here. With your knowlegde and insight in cycling, the age explanation is a cheap one

Ybodonk wrote:
- especially in a sport like cycling and long distance running. History of endurance sport is a lot the elite are competing between 30's - 40's. All the legends in cycling did compete atleast into the middle of the 30's

Ybodonk wrote:
Contador in 2010 was at the same level as 2009, and he was equally doped.

Ybodonk wrote:
It is not a natural explanation. Contador will win TDF again.

Ybodonk wrote:
I predict, if Froome and Sky continue these performances, Contador will get enough of his mediocre riding, and will "marginal gain" his way back to the top