Primož Roglič

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
you mean like Armstrong;)
Uhm... no not like Armstrong. :D Seriously, I don't know anymore, but I guess something like Asgreen this year (although DQS is of course not a synonym for cleanliness) would come close to what I think looks rather unsuspicious to me, in regards to the form-curve, or Carapaz (not that Ineos is... well), or Wellens... It's hard to look at the past for me because it's hard to name a rider from the past who was definitely clean. :oops: History would say they are all just more or less heavily doped. More rather than less. :(
It's just what I read from training science, that it must be hard to impossible to keep more or less great form throughout the year. Of course it might be that Roglic is just usually (in races that kind of suit him) above the others anyway, peak or not, and that we can only guess where his actual peaks are if he doesn't push it.
 
Reactions: noob
Uhm... no not like Armstrong. :D Seriously, I don't know anymore, but I guess something like Asgreen this year (although DQS is of course not a synonym for cleanliness) would come close to what I think looks rather unsuspicious to me, in regards to the form-curve, or Carapaz (not that Ineos is... well), or Wellens... It's hard to look at the past for me because it's hard to name a rider from the past who was definitely clean. :oops: History would say they are all just more or less heavily doped. More rather than less. :(
It's just what I read from training science, that it must be hard to impossible to keep more or less great form throughout the year. Of course it might be that Roglic is just usually (in races that kind of suit him) above the others anyway, peak or not, and that we can only guess where his actual peaks are if he doesn't push it.
I never understood the idea that consistency = clean either. It makes zero sense with humans. To me it also makes more sense to be more specialized; to have an area to excel in. Winning everything isn't believeable to me.

The only guys I tend to give more credit are those born on higher altitudes, but I am slowly learning that it doesn't necessarily help either. Otherwise I would have believed the South Americans and Sepp to be cleaner.
 
Peak form as a concept lost all value in cycling as a barometer of pan y agua 'clean' riding when EPO landed on the scene in the 1990's & riders became obsessed with hitting the right hematocrit level just before their number one target. Peak form was essentially a game of maximizing their red blood cells at the right time.

Roglic meanwhile has a level he reached in 2019 & has since then been perfecting small details (such as punch, climbing style etc. & TT as well). I won't insult anyone here by screaming "he's cleanz!" like a Lance fanboy circa 2000's (or even fanboys of more recent riders who find it hard to act objectively re dope), but Roglic doesn't peak his condition in the same way others do.

That means he wins all year round but gets occasionally beaten by some extraterrestrial in the bigger races. Ergo I can't follow the line of reasoning whereby consistency = more evidence of pharmaceutical enhancement versus inconsistency.

The history of the sport tells a different story & has shades of grey everywhere which muddies most attempts at creating an easily definable "doper profile".
 
Reactions: Luthor
Basically, being unfathomably good, either as a one off, or consistently, is suspicious
It's the rules we accept when we follow cycling.

This applies to Roglic but also applies to every other winner. And today's final climb wasn't even "Alien" versus the rest, i.e. Thibaut Pinot did the same climbing time in 2018:

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1445769920512331793


Yes, obviously race conditions etc. means it's never a scientific comparison but with Roglic the "thing" which often makes people flip out & lose their minds is the visual impression given by his mountain sprint. People watch the final 500 meters & go "holy sh*t!".

But the rest isn't out of the ordinary as a top competitor of his era versus previous top riders of their own eras.
 
Reactions: noob
It's the rules we accept when we follow cycling.

This applies to Roglic but also applies to every other winner. And today's final climb wasn't even "Alien" versus the rest, i.e. Thibaut Pinot did the same climbing time in 2018:

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1445769920512331793


Yes, obviously race conditions etc. means it's never a scientific comparison but with Roglic the "thing" which often makes people flip out & lose their minds is the visual impression given by his mountain sprint. People watch the final 500 meters & go "holy sh*t!".

But the rest isn't out of the ordinary as a top competitor of his era versus previous top riders of their own eras.
Indeed

Of course, I find Primo more believable than some others, but he can still be pretty alien
 
Reactions: Rackham and noob
I've been in a similar competetive environment in a whole other area of the society, but it's quite similar with the grey areas everywhere; rivalry, backstabbing, narcissistic behaviour, conspiracies etc. Some enviroments just feeds certain behaviours. When it's about winning people go crazy. Hence why I don't believe everyone that dopes to be an ***, psychopath or anything like it. Some are, obviously. But it's also about belonging in groups, being part of something, not being left behind or forgotten etc etc. And people do a lot to fit in or to "be someone".

I just think it's far more about a culture and then there are occasional true villains. But a competive environment fosters cheating, it's just how it is. And I don't expect anything else. If figuring out people was a sport I'd compete at the highest level without any doping lol.
 
Ok, sorry this is me being really really silly and OT but here's a funny riddle. It's not supposed to be serious, but fun:

What did Primus Roglic say when asked if he wanted to try some doping?
 
Last edited:
Ok, sorry this is me being really really silly and OT but here's a funny riddle. It's not supposed to be serious, but fun:

What did Primus Roglic say when asked if he wanted to try some doping?
Here's an even funnier riddle: what did Primoz say when he was told 99% of the peloton & all the world tour teams have programs of their own?

I mean therein lies the moral dilemma of all cyclists & followers alike, i.e. where is the line drawn between cheater & business as usual?

Some of this goes back to Lance, i.e. people (in general) focused way too much on painting that one man as the ultimate villain without noticing the bigger elephant in the room, which was the fact it transpired just about everyone at the time was on a program (even nobodies like Laurent Roux). And the riders from that era are now sporting directors & team managers today. And many of the team doctors (Yvan van Mol at DQS) are also still in business.

Cycling is a niche sport with passionate fans & sportsmen who aren't ordinary people. It's their little world & their little bubble, so considering all the fun & entertainment they give me I have a certain laissez-faire attitude towards the darker stuff, which is compounded by the fact it's a sport targeted by anti-doping regulators to a maniacal degree whereas others like Tennis & football (where the physical is just as important) get a total free pass & everyone fawns over "robots" who run around for hours without tiring. Although I still have my limits, i.e. for example Pogacar at the Planche in last year's Tour was too much.

The sequence of events i.e. a Tour commissaire destroying Roglic's bike on the Col de la Loze after testing for motor doping on the Wednesday evening followed by a completely "out of nowhere" performance which destroyed the field on the flat & climb by Pogacar on the Saturday (when he'd shown he was seemingly on a downward trajectory in terms of form). It was difficult to stomach.
 
So any old Xenomorph, or specifically Xenomorph XX121?
Roglic as the perfect organism confirmed.

Also, as Ripley once said "I don't know which species is worse, you don't see them (xenomorphs) f**king each other over for a goddamn percentage".

So Roglic the "alien" better than the hypocrites screaming "doper!" whilst turning a blind eye elsewhere confirmed.
 
Still, what isn't so funny is the fact the internet always seems to explode with talk of doping when Roglic wins a bike race. It's like he just triggers some people.

What would have been totally "wild" is if Yates actually blew Roglic off his wheel on a climb... less than a month after the Vuelta when both only did 1 GT this season.
 
Reactions: noob
What did Primus Roglič say when offered [insert whatever suitable substance]?

Why not, eh?

*

I mean it's a joke. But if he'd dope I don't expect him to ponder it too much. And honestly even the risk of getting caught could potentially add to his excitement. ;) Not saying it would. Only that it could.
 
Still, what isn't so funny is the fact the internet always seems to explode with talk of doping when Roglic wins a bike race. It's like he just triggers some people.

What would have been totally "wild" is if Yates actually blew Roglic off his wheel on a climb... less than a month after the Vuelta when both only did 1 GT this season.
Sometimes I really don't know why you state some thing like you do and I am now convinced it's because you read things on other sources in the internet, like twitter, and then you transfer this to the forum - but for someone like me, who is usually not on twitter and hardly uses other social media in regards to cycling, it's very weird. Also maybe there is a heavy French-speaking view involved in your statements. This forum certainly doesn't explode in regards to doping when Roglic wins a bike race. Actually here he's one of the riders, compared to his success, who's under lesser scrutiny. That there are doubts - yes, but compared to many others and looking at his success it's really not that much.
 
Still, what isn't so funny is the fact the internet always seems to explode with talk of doping when Roglic wins a bike race. It's like he just triggers some people.

What would have been totally "wild" is if Yates actually blew Roglic off his wheel on a climb... less than a month after the Vuelta when both only did 1 GT this season.
I also find it surprising that there there does not seem to be as much 'concern' expressed when Tad or Matthieu go completely nuclear. It is not like Rogeratta is more suspicious
 
I also find it surprising that there there does not seem to be as much 'concern' expressed when Tad or Matthieu go completely nuclear. It is not like Rogeratta is more suspicious
Taddy got quite a bit of "coverage" post Tour. To me it seems VDP and Alaphilippe attract the least attention, maybe the entertainment factor? A fun game that I like to play is to guess who's thread will be on top after each race.
 
Reactions: Ripper and noob
Sometimes I really don't know why you state some thing like you do and I am now convinced it's because you read things on other sources in the internet, like twitter, and then you transfer this to the forum - but for someone like me, who is usually not on twitter and hardly uses other social media in regards to cycling, it's very weird.
You make me sound like some sort of undercover 1960's KGB agent secretly in contact with the Kremlin (whilst having a barbecue) who acts in a "weird way" according to his neighbour mowing his front lawn across the street.

But, it seems normal to get most cycling news from elsewhere, no? This forum is a small island inhabited by polite people, i.e. not representative of the greater online sphere. And let me tell you, the "Slovenians" are red-hot thermonuclear in public perception over here. It swings from one to another based on who is on top but there's an element of sheer stubbornness involved, i.e. a refusal to accept their own favorites (Pinot, Bardet etc.) could never reach this level - ergo the only way to get this high is to literally "get high" with permanent needles in their arms.

I call these people who're obsessed with talk of Slovenian doping 24/7 hypocrites with selective memory & convenient blindness when it suits them (hello France 98 world cup as well). And many of these same critics unironically will also accuse riders like Evenepoel & Cavendish of doping... whilst saying Alaphilippe has a natural progression. All DQS riders of course.

Meanwhile I know what I'm doing watching cycling considering all the champions I've watched since I was a kid could have a ? on the "dark arts" aspect (some were busted, whilst most can be logically considered part of a peloton wide culture engrained in the sport since year zero).

Basically you can't turn a donkey into a racehorse with a doping program. If it was that easy, UAE wouldn't be paying Pogacar 6 million a year.

I also find it surprising that there there does not seem to be as much 'concern' expressed when Tad or Matthieu go completely nuclear. It is not like Rogeratta is more suspicious
Taddy got quite a bit of "coverage" post Tour. To me it seems VDP and Alaphilippe attract the least attention, maybe the entertainment factor? A fun game that I like to play is to guess who's thread will be on top after each race.
I've reached the conclusion there's actually something psychologically deeper involved as well, i.e. the broader "masses" prefer to believe in geniuses rather than hard work. Roglic represents the latter, i.e. a late bloomer who's reached the top with constant hard work (he's described as a literal robot by many).

I've noticed MvdP, Alaphilippe (& sometimes even Pog) get a "genius" label which acts as a giant encompassing all-in-one explanation regarding their performances. This "miracle" of genetics is comforting for the viewer because it doesn't reflect on their own personal lives in a negative way (i.e. essentially they don't feel like they could have achieved greatness in whatever field themselves if they'd worked harder, which is always, always, an uncomfortable feeling).

It happens in tennis as well, i.e. Djokovic is a robot who naturally gets accused of doping, whilst Federer was the "genius" who gets a free pass.

This is a Franco-French view FYI. Armstrong used to say "the French don't like winners", but that's not true (& certainly generalizing isn't correct either), i.e. what is true is they use the argumentation of "natural talent versus hard worker" to paint the latter as way more suspect in terms of doping. You'll hear the same conversations in football, also, where Ronaldo is described as a "machine" & Messi a genius. The latter gets way, way more love.
 
Reactions: MTV and noob
You make me sound like some sort of undercover 1960's KGB agent secretly in contact with the Kremlin (whilst having a barbecue) who acts in a "weird way" according to his neighbour mowing his front lawn across the street.

But, it seems normal to get most cycling news from elsewhere, no? This forum is a small island inhabited by polite people, i.e. not representative of the greater online sphere. And let me tell you, the "Slovenians" are red-hot thermonuclear in public perception over here. It swings from one to another based on who is on top but there's an element of sheer stubbornness involved, i.e. a refusal to accept their own favorites (Pinot, Bardet etc.) could never reach this level - ergo the only way to get this high is to literally "get high" with permanent needles in their arms.

I call these people who're obsessed with talk of Slovenian doping 24/7 hypocrites with selective memory & convenient blindness when it suits them (hello France 98 world cup as well). And many of these same critics unironically will also accuse riders like Evenepoel & Cavendish of doping... whilst saying Alaphilippe has a natural progression. All DQS riders of course.

Meanwhile I know what I'm doing watching cycling considering all the champions I've watched since I was a kid could have a ? on the "dark arts" aspect (some were busted, whilst most can be logically considered part of a peloton wide culture engrained in the sport since year zero).

Basically you can't turn a donkey into a racehorse with a doping program. If it was that easy, UAE wouldn't be paying Pogacar 6 million a year.





I've reached the conclusion there's actually something psychologically deeper involved as well, i.e. the broader "masses" prefer to believe in geniuses rather than hard work. Roglic represents the latter, i.e. a late bloomer who's reached the top with constant hard work (he's described as a literal robot by many).

I've noticed MvdP, Alaphilippe (& sometimes even Pog) get a "genius" label which acts as a giant encompassing all-in-one explanation regarding their performances. This "miracle" of genetics is comforting for the viewer because it doesn't reflect on their own personal lives in a negative way (i.e. essentially they don't feel like they could have achieved greatness in whatever field themselves if they'd worked harder, which is always, always, an uncomfortable feeling).

It happens in tennis as well, i.e. Djokovic is a robot who naturally gets accused of doping, whilst Federer was the "genius" who gets a free pass.

This is a Franco-French view FYI. Armstrong used to say "the French don't like winners", but that's not true (& certainly generalizing isn't correct either), i.e. what is true is they use the argumentation of "natural talent versus hard worker" to paint the latter as way more suspect in terms of doping. You'll hear the same conversations in football, also, where Ronaldo is described as a "machine" & Messi a genius. The latter gets way, way more love.
First of all I didn't want to accuse you or insult you, if my post came across as such I'm sorry. I was trying to find an explanation for your sentences that sometimes don't make that much sense to me simply because you state that people say xy all the time and I'm wondering "they do? where?"
Here, like I have mentioned very many times by now, the general interest in cycling is very low since decades now, so I don't have many German speaking sources. In general there is a high level of scrutiny towards cycling (cycling=doping), there isn't much difference between how single riders are perceived. If there were wildly successful German riders I'm sure they would be getting more excuses or less doubts than others, but there aren't, so... I also sometimes read cyclingweekly and cyclingtips, but I never read any doping allegations there.
I remember hearing the German commentators (who in strong contrast to the newspapers usually avoid the topic doping completely) be suspicious in the last years on two accounts (on a low level), that was Pogacar's PdBF time trial ("let's just hope the result will stand in the future" or something like that), and actually a recent, surprisingly good time trial of Urska Zigart, where they said this was quite sudden.
I haven't heard anything against Roglic or anyone else from them.
Of course you can have other sources and that will make you better informed, but hence why I need to understand you first.

Regarding this forum I think Pogacar is one of the riders who's most accused of doping and he has very few defenders (apart from a small Slovenian minority), his thread is quite active, and if it's not I think it's because everyone just agrees or has come to accept that this is the reality. At least personally I think he's one of the most obvious cases and don't bother much anymore of writing something about him in that regard.

Van der Poel is also quite on something, if you ask me, but as I have often enough stated he's not one of my favourite riders and he often wins against some of my favourite riders, like Alaphilippe, so I simply don't want to come here every time and scream "doping!!" because I would likely and probably rightfully accuses of bias. His Strade win though was something.

Alaphilippe - well, here's a case of a rider I kind of defended, mostly because not many others are doing it here (will be different in France, I'm sure), and I just like him and think that at least some perspective and level-headedness is needed, in the same way that I'm giving it to, for instance, Roglic. (But for Roglic I don't need to do it, because he has enough other fans and defenders here. :))

In Germany Messi gets way more love from me than Ronaldo, but I can't say that's the state of the general discourse. Quite the contrary, Ronaldo gets admired more exactly because of his "work ethics", while Messi's character is seen quite critical (apart from the usual fandom of some and yellow-press hyperboling that of course happens in regard to him as well).
Doping isn't really talked about in regards to them (it's football), if anything, it's about Spanish football (suspicious) or Messi's growth hormones as a child.

I agree with the general sentiment though that in cycling those who seem to be there since they were children are under less scrutiny. The most striking case must be Evenepoel.
But then, in a way I find that natural, because what always strikes me and many others most is a sudden "whoop". Someone who delivers spectacular performances, but you cannot even say when it started, since he seems to have had that talent forever, is harder to point at.
 
Reactions: noob and Rackham

ASK THE COMMUNITY