Thank you for your answer !
I'm trying not to pick sides but here are a few arguments they oppose to these key points :
- Technological advancement : Although it does play a role, they measure power in long climbs to limit that bias. Speeds are lower so aero plays less of a role. Bikes were already as light or even lighter in the 2000s. They also calibrate their power predictions against riders of the peloton who publish their power on strava.
- Nutrition has indeed changed, it helps producing near max power efforts at the end of long stages (aka durability) but doesn't play a direct role on pure max power (VO2 max related) which is what they are worried about.
- Regarding training, I'm not really sure, I think the pro peloton already had access to power meters in the 2000s.
- Regarding testing, it's indeed quite frequent but it's not bullet proof.
- I think the history of the sport is so bad it's hard to see the half full glass.
I raced in the early 2000s. Power meters were expensive, but Pros had them.
The only thing back then is they sometimes didn't use them on race day for fear they were too heavy.
Bikes are actually much heavier today than they were back then. Almost all bikes were near the weight limit back then, I just read an article where they weighed riders bikes at the TdF this year and some bikes were over 18lbs.
Disc brakes + Aero + Electronic components have really made the bikes heavier and have made it much more expensive to get a bike at the same weight as 10-15 years ago. You're either spending about the same money and getting a bike that is 1.5kg heavier or you're spending 2-2.5x more money to get a bike as light as what you would have bought in 2010-2015.