-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
It's not that this doesn't happen in other sports where doping isn't really a factor.
Yeah, probably true. But van der Poel and Van Aert are still devouring Classics and plenty of stages in GTs. We haven't seen a rider do that in quite some time.
But yes, Pogacar truly is the lone outlier. Guys used to lean on their speciality to win a GT or win a specific Classic. Now we have guys winning on all types of parcours and in both one-days and GTs. All sports are more and more specialized, so to suddenly have all-arounders who are a level above is just tough to accept.
I can't think of an example of that, but maybe it's because I misunderstand what you mean by "this" and "sports where doping isn't really a factor".
"having 3-4 guys race 10 months a year and win by wide margins and contest every stage of a GT"
I don't believe this would be any less likely to occur without any doping at all.
It would be less likely without doping because with doping there are the two factors of aerobic talent/leg muscle makeup and doping response on top of it. Of course those are intertwined but in general, doping adds another factor you can be talented at, thus making the disparity between the outliers and the average pro bigger.
This added margin for error allows those aerobic freak-super responders to fight for victories year round instead of having to focus on one or two main goals.
I think the debate was about a few guys dominating all season long and if this makes people lose interest in cycling. If I understand this correctly, the argument here is that other sports are similar oligopolies and thus cycling wouldn‘t be at a competitive disadvantage in the sports market because of doping.
Looking at examples in other sports (or types of competition) suggests that superiority of a select few or just one competitor over the rest is possible without foul play. QueenStagiaire basically already addressed this above, specifically with regard to a sport like cycling. "there are the two factors of aerobic talent/leg muscle makeup and doping response on top of it [...]"doping adds another factor you can be talented at, thus making the disparity between the outliers and the average pro bigger" my question now would be how much bigger.
Sorry but I just cannot agree with this. I have always accepted doping is part of the sport but its also cheating hence should be disqualified as a "talent". It would mean otherwise unremarkable pros can be considered more talented if they are great responders to doping? Armstrong comes to mind.
The most talented riders are those who I think achieve results with less doping - or are poor responders. We know for a fact that some people respond better to doping methods than others. These riders are not more talented. Talent is the physical ability you are born with to race on the road. Genetics. Since road racing is an endurance sport that means aerobic capacity, FTP and recovery (for grand tour racing). Genetically better for doping? Just no.
With Pogacar, of course he is doping. But his results stretch back way before he was associated with or even came to the attention of Mauro Gianetti. Not sure if its can be verified but Wiki mentions Pogi was noticed in 2011 when he was only 9 years old? How many other pros were noticed at such a young age? Pretty sure Pogacar wasn't doping then.
. That would be talent IMO.
Pfff… semantics, if I was really good at stealing wallets, I‘d call myself a talented pickpocket.Sorry but I just cannot agree with this. I have always accepted doping is part of the sport but its also cheating hence should be disqualified as a "talent". It would mean otherwise unremarkable pros can be considered more talented if they are great responders to doping? Armstrong comes to mind.
The most talented riders are those who I think achieve results with less doping - or are poor responders. We know for a fact that some people respond better to doping methods than others. These riders are not more talented. Talent is the physical ability you are born with to race on the road. Genetics. Since road racing is an endurance sport that means aerobic capacity, FTP and recovery (for grand tour racing). Genetically better for doping? Just no.
With Pogacar, of course he is doping. But his results stretch back way before he was associated with or even came to the attention of Mauro Gianetti. Not sure if its can be verified but Wiki mentions Pogi was noticed in 2011 when he was only 9 years old? How many other pros were noticed at such a young age? Pretty sure Pogacar wasn't doping then.
I'm inclined to think natural margins are so small it's near impossible to rise to the top without being a good responder.Sorry but I just cannot agree with this. I have always accepted doping is part of the sport but its also cheating hence should be disqualified as a "talent". It would mean otherwise unremarkable pros can be considered more talented if they are great responders to doping? Armstrong comes to mind.
The most talented riders are those who I think achieve results with less doping - or are poor responders. We know for a fact that some people respond better to doping methods than others. These riders are not more talented. Talent is the physical ability you are born with to race on the road. Genetics. Since road racing is an endurance sport that means aerobic capacity, FTP and recovery (for grand tour racing). Genetically better for doping? Just no.
With Pogacar, of course he is doping. But his results stretch back way before he was associated with or even came to the attention of Mauro Gianetti. Not sure if its can be verified but Wiki mentions Pogi was noticed in 2011 when he was only 9 years old? How many other pros were noticed at such a young age? Pretty sure Pogacar wasn't doping then.
Disagree. Ask all amateur racers that they think natural margins are small. Even at pro level something happened after the introduction of the EPO test followed by the UCI passport. Right around 2011 😉
Tell us about these sports where doping isn’t really a factor. If you’re talking pro sports or the most elite level of pseudo-amateur, we’ve seen examples of some type of “doping” in chess, figure skating, tennis, etc.
Regarding other sports:
Tennis - in the last 20 or so years the same 3 guys won almost all the tournaments they entered, could argue the same with S. Williams in the women's side.
Football - Messi and Ronaldo dominated in the past 15 years.
Basketball - The same few guys like James and Curry have been at the top for over 10 years and are still going. These days you have guys like Jokić and Dončić who are by far better than the rest and have been in the last few years.
Handball - the same few guys always at the top.
Winter sports - Alpine skiing - You had a guy win 7 or so overall titles without any real contest, same with Shiffrin in the women's side. She even broke the record of Stenmark for the most wins. Something nobody thought was even possible. A record which should have stood forever.
Climbing - You have a woman who wins every competition she enters in Janja Garnbret.
I tried to think of as many sports as I could which had a dominant force come out in recent years. The difference between them and cycling is that nobody even considers or thinks that they're using anything illegal . Instead you hear that they're the goat and a historical phenomenon. In cycling every time you see some guy push a little bit more watts than in the past it's always because of doping. It's not like things have massively changed not only in the past 20 years but also in just the last 2-3 years, post covid. Not just with the bikes and prep of riders (diets, training) but also with their approach to racing. You even have guys who spend most of their time indoors on a trainer playing a cycling game on tv, become one of the best climbers and domestiques in the world (Vine).
If they are using something, the very likely thing is that its not illegal, it's not on the WADA banned list.... yet. Considering how much some teams spend just to have a team in the world tour it's very likely they have a R&D department which focuses on such things. Especially UAE, Bahrain, Jumbo and Ineos. UAE and Jumbo in particular as it would appear that everyone who goes there instantly becomes a monster within a few months.
Tennis - in the last 20 or so years the same 3 guys won almost all the tournaments they entered, could argue the same with S. Williams in the women's side.
Football - Messi and Ronaldo dominated in the past 15 years.
Basketball - The same few guys like James and Curry have been at the top for over 10 years and are still going. These days you have guys like Jokić and Dončić who are by far better than the rest and have been in the last few years.
Handball - the same few guys always at the top.
Winter sports - Alpine skiing - You had a guy win 7 or so overall titles without any real contest, same with Shiffrin in the women's side. She even broke the record of Stenmark for the most wins. Something nobody thought was even possible. A record which should have stood forever.
Climbing - You have a woman who wins every competition she enters in Janja Garnbret.
I tried to think of as many sports as I could which had a dominant force come out in recent years. The difference between them and cycling is that nobody even considers or thinks that they're using anything illegal . Instead you hear that they're the goat and a historical phenomenon. In cycling every time you see some guy push a little bit more watts than in the past it's always because of doping. It's not like things have massively changed not only in the past 20 years but also in just the last 2-3 years, post covid. Not just with the bikes and prep of riders (diets, training) but also with their approach to racing. You even have guys who spend most of their time indoors on a trainer playing a cycling game on tv, become one of the best climbers and domestiques in the world (Vine).
If they are using something, the very likely thing is that its not illegal, it's not on the WADA banned list.... yet. Considering how much some teams spend just to have a team in the world tour it's very likely they have a R&D department which focuses on such things. Especially UAE, Bahrain, Jumbo and Ineos. UAE and Jumbo in particular as it would appear that everyone who goes there instantly becomes a monster within a few months.
But like I've said before: Since we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, natural talent and being a good responder are indistinguishable to us.Sorry but I just cannot agree with this. I have always accepted doping is part of the sport but its also cheating hence should be disqualified as a "talent". It would mean otherwise unremarkable pros can be considered more talented if they are great responders to doping? Armstrong comes to mind.
The most talented riders are those who I think achieve results with less doping - or are poor responders. We know for a fact that some people respond better to doping methods than others. These riders are not more talented. Talent is the physical ability you are born with to race on the road. Genetics. Since road racing is an endurance sport that means aerobic capacity, FTP and recovery (for grand tour racing). Genetically better for doping? Just no.
With Pogacar, of course he is doping. But his results stretch back way before he was associated with or even came to the attention of Mauro Gianetti. Not sure if its can be verified but Wiki mentions Pogi was noticed in 2011 when he was only 9 years old? How many other pros were noticed at such a young age? Pretty sure Pogacar wasn't doping then.
Also, Pogacar is much better relative to the entire pro peloton now, than he was relative to his peers in the junior ranks, after doping supposedly came into the picture, which could point towards him being a super responder.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but I absolutely think that everyone at the top in those sports (perhaps climbing aside) are all doping, and more so than just tipping their toes in the pool.
... are doping.
"Those teams must be clean because everyone joining them instantly becomes a monster."
Bizarre take.
I'm confused here. Sagan would win cobbled Classics and the green jersey. He was fast, had power, and could win sprints and ride long distances over cobbles. He wasn't contesting hilly stages in the TdF. He was an an all-arounder of sorts, but nothing like Wout van Aert.
Sagan 2016 - wins Ronde, wins WC in Doha (flat/sprint) and the green jersey.
TdF points = 1
TdF mtns = 57
TdF GC = 95
van Aert 2022 - wins E3, Omloop and the green jersey
TdF points = 1
TdF mtns = 5
TdF GC = 21
These guys appeared to be similar riders at one point - tall, big, strong guys. Good on cobbles, great sprinters.
And then van Aert became a climber and could win any darn stage in the TdF. That was never happening with Sagan, nor Boonen.
For me, van Aert and Pogacar are doing something unique because they can win any race day on the calendar, no matter the parcours. And they're racing almost around the calendar!
I don't think you can make that argument for Boonen or Sagan. Versatile and talented, but neither of them went #5 in the TdF mountains.
Sagan 2016 - wins Ronde, wins WC in Doha (flat/sprint) and the green jersey.
TdF points = 1
TdF mtns = 57
TdF GC = 95
van Aert 2022 - wins E3, Omloop and the green jersey
TdF points = 1
TdF mtns = 5
TdF GC = 21
These guys appeared to be similar riders at one point - tall, big, strong guys. Good on cobbles, great sprinters.
And then van Aert became a climber and could win any darn stage in the TdF. That was never happening with Sagan, nor Boonen.
For me, van Aert and Pogacar are doing something unique because they can win any race day on the calendar, no matter the parcours. And they're racing almost around the calendar!
I don't think you can make that argument for Boonen or Sagan. Versatile and talented, but neither of them went #5 in the TdF mountains.
I'm not talking about stage wins that suit their skills, I'm talking about van Aert contesting every stage in the TdF and pulling off #5 in the mountains and #21 GC in the 2022 Tour.
Pretty sure Tom nor Peter got anywhere near Top 5 in mtns classification. Winning on cobbled Classics and particular GT sprint stages is one thing, but van Aert is now both a cobbled specialist and one of the best GC climbers in the world? That seems unlikely. And is historically unusual in the sport.
Same with a guy going on 80 km breaks on one-day races on dirt and going to the TdF and winning the youth, the mountains, the GC and being 8th on points. (Pogacar 2021 TdF)
Well in chess (not commenting on, to what degree this is a sport - but its also takes a combination of talent and training), there is this one guy much better than anybody else for over a decade now. He is so much better, that he even became bored of defending his world title....
I think if the sport of cycling was traditionally one where less natural ability + being a super responder to dope outperformed more natural ability and the same dope and that was a measurable thing/fact/number/win, all teams involved through to Festina and Armstrong would have naturally evolved to signing only such super responders to gain an advantage, just like all teams doped to try and gain an advantage. They didn't though, or perhaps it all gets blurred through youth progression and a mistake is made that progression equals some form of credibility regardless of them doping probably throughout. So I'm not even sure you could claim Armstrong must have been a super responder when even Ferrari said they used very little doping compared to what was happening in the peloton or could be used, but you would then easily get caught like Ullrich, Pantani etc. Of course we can say Ullrich & Pantani were doped donkeys like Armstrong too, but that's generally not the story told in the clinic.
So, let's get to the $64k question here: What's the consensus? Is van Aert clean (genetic freak) or suspected PEDs/motor? (inquiring minds want to know. Lol).
This guy is huge (6'3" 172 lbs) for a world-class cyclist let alone a guy that can climb big mountains. I look back at a guy built like van Aert - "Big Mig" (6'1" 170 lbs), who was one heck of a climber & 5xTour winner. But I suspect Indurain was probably using rocket fuel with its prevalence back in the Wild West of the 90's & his affiliation with a doping doctor back then.
Another rider built like van Aert & one of my favorites back in the day is Thor Hushovd (6'0" 174 lbs). But Thor was a sprinter/classics guy that couldn't climb worth beans. Lol
I vacillate back & forth on van Aert, IOW...I don't have a clue! That's why I'm asking for the expert opinion of others here.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d‘Italia 2024 Stage 15, Manerba del Garda-Livigno (Mottolino), 222 km- Started by QueenStagiaire
- Replies: 977
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 14: Castigliano delle Stiviere – Desenzano del Garda, 31.2k (ITT)
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 342
-
Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 12: Martinsicuro – Fano, 193.0k- Started by DenisMenchov
- Replies: 349
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 7: Foligno – Perugia, 40.6k (ITT)
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 626
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 8: Spoleto – Prati di Tivo, 152.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 592
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 24, Stage 10: Pompei – Cusano Mutri (Bocca della Selva), 142.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 359
-
Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 13: Riccione – Cento, 179.0k
- Started by Cookster15
- Replies: 201
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram