"If I put the same watts on the bike that Lance Armstrong had in 2000, I'll climb the Alpe d'Huez five minutes slower" - World Tour pro on doping questions in cycling

Cycling
Tuesday, 04 March 2025 at 09:10
lance armstrong 880050376
French cyclist Nans Peter, currently with Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale and a stage winner in the 2020 Tour de France, was asked about doping in cycling and brought up a curious example with Lance Armstrong as a model.
The man from Grenoble, who will turn 31 on March 12, is clear that cycling is one of the sports most closely monitored by the anti-doping authorities in words to Radio France:
"To answer the question of doping, I hope there is no doping. After that... no, it's impossible. In any case, I hope it will be very limited. We have a lot of controls, more than in any other sport, a lot of vigilance. I think we are one of the cleanest sports. Unfortunately, we have been victims of the image of a doping sport".
It speaks of a new generalized strategy for performance enhancement that has nothing to do with doping he argues: "I think we've replaced this form of doping, which was all about performance, with optimizing aerodynamics, weight, nutrition and altitude training. Today, that's how you achieve performance."
And he gives an example of how he believes cycling has evolved in terms of materials in recent years, comparing the material he has with that of the beginning of the century: "Tomorrow, if I put the same watts on the bike that Lance Armstrong had in 2000, I'll climb the Alpe d'Huez five minutes slower than I did on my bike today. But in reality, it will be five minutes. It's huge."
Obviously, it is clear that the technological evolution of cycling is enormous, but it was also enormous in the 90's if we compare it with those of 20 years earlier. The sport never stops evolving in all aspects and to say that the improvement in nutrition and materials is something of this era is not true. When Miguel Induráin brought out the famous 'sword' bicycle for the time trials in the nineties, it was a huge leap. As were the helmets and the change of materials in the jerseys.
claps 24visitors 17
16 Comments
Mistermaumau 20 June 2025 at 14:23+ 4316

If you patronise in the wrong way, you are encouraging people to do whatever it takes, yes. If you throw your money at sport so that money becomes the prime driver for performance, it encourages more cheating, yes. It’s unfortunate but it IS part of the consequences. There are ways to follow the sport without money concentrating where it shouldn’t, just like there are ways and choices for consuming any product. It’s of course an extreme argument, nonetheless, if you want to prevent things going wrong, you need to look ahead to see how that might happen. That includes, how to deal with ideas like One Cycling, Enhanced events. I would guess that cycling took doping a bit more serious after Uknowletsnotnamehim is because they saw the whole story (mediaworthy and ironically therefor potentially money-making) as capable of turning away audiences and probably it did, had it not, they might have just swallowed and waited.

Just in

Popular news