The Heßmann doping case and its far-reaching consequences
When you read about a positive test result in cycling with a masking agent these days, you actually want to turn the pages in boredom. At first you think that the convict was “guilty” of a PCR test positive for a non-specific cold [1] and was walking around with the corresponding nonsensical patronizing mask [2]. In the case of Michel Heßmann from Münster, from the Jumbo-Visma team that currently historically dominates professional cycling, the current Tour de France winner Jonas Vingegaard, as well as the reigning Giro d’Italia triumphant Primoz Roglic and the newly crowned Vuelta champion Sepp Kuss, it is worth it However, we need to take a closer look because this actually raises some delicate questions.
The sober chronology of the Heßmann case begins with a positive doping test result on June 14, 2023, which his Jumbo-Visma team expanded on in a press release on August 16, 2023 with the explanation that the substance was a masking agent. The exact active ingredient is not named, nor is the time when the team member first became aware of the positive doping result [3]. This would be significant if the information had already been available to the team during the Tour de France. This would, for example, make the very unusual formulations of the tour winner and Jumbo-Visma team leader, Jonas Vingegaard, appear in a different context at his press conference following the individual time trial of the 16th stage [4]. After his almost unbelievable par force ride, which inevitably raises questions about the credibility of this performance, Vingegaard expresses himself very openly and self-critically, contrary to his otherwise sparse and rather dismissive statements on the possible use of doping. What is also bizarre for insiders in this PK is his revelation that he had used a 20 watt higher continuous output than he would have expected [5]. Above all, the absolute dimension of 380 watts that he states is reminiscent of dark times in recent cycling history. When Vingegaard mischievously adds that he initially thought his power meter was defective, he indirectly confirms that this line was real. You don’t just run a 20 watt higher continuous power as a surprise. In the high-performance range, these are quantum leaps, the year-round data monitoring of the athletes makes such outliers simply impossible, you always know exactly what the athletes are capable of or what they definitely couldn’t achieve. Vingegaard is of course also clear about this in his statement, which is why he phrases it very sympathetically and cleverly.
A small digression is permitted at this point because in connection with the comparability of the performance spectrums from the proven doping era of the 1990s and 2000s with the characteristics of the current generation of athletes, the argument is repeatedly made that materials and nutrition have been developed to the extent that they are There was no equivalence given the circumstances at the time. This may certainly be true if you compare modern cycling equipment with the state of cycling technology in the 1960s. However, with the innovations of the 1990s and 2000s cycling technology products, the difference for exorbitant technologically induced performance jumps becomes significantly smaller and cannot adequately explain the current complete compensation of the doping-based performance advantages from the heyday of the EPO generation around the turn of the millennium. Even back in the days of Miguel Indurain, when he unpacked his “airplane” during the individual time trials, as the former cycling legend Rudi Altig commented so inimitably, the engineers from Indurains Pinarello or the FES [6] spent days and weeks in wind tunnels or at Aerodynamics tests were carried out on various cycle tracks. Relevant documentation from this time [7] provides impressive evidence of the meticulousness and inventiveness with which material improvements were worked on in order to achieve performance advantages. The older ones among us certainly remember the brilliant Christian Smolik, head of the technology department at the cycling magazine tour for many years, who was decades ahead of his time [8]. The reference to the supposedly modern watt-controlled training methodology, through the widespread use of power meters, can only cause a weary smile from contemporary witnesses from the pioneering days of mobile power measurement. The original prototype of the power meter was developed in 1987 by the resourceful engineer Uli Schoberer [9] and was widely used in professional and amateur pelotons by the mid-1990s. It is possible that a plausible explanation for the questionable performance characteristics of the athletes, which correlate in particular with incredibly short recovery times, actually lies in a modern technical achievement; after all, the rumors about motor doping in the peloton have been going on for almost a decade [10].
