Question Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Krzysztof_O]

Tbh talent is such a vague term here which people will understand in different ways. I do agree that Pog is a better rider overall, but I'm not that certain about Pogacar just striking back next time.

I think Vingegaard hit a level Pogacar absolutely didn't expect. But I also think that when Pogacar said he didn't feel the same after Granon he's full of baloney. In interviews he seems very dismissive that he did anythign wrong, while before the Tour there were some rumors out of UAE that seemed pretty damn smug about how good he was.

Vinge's level was phenomenal plus he was helped by the team during two crucial stages: cobbles and Granon. But every year is different, I'm not sure if he will able to replicate this form again. I rate Pog's consistency higher than Dane's. But we will see, it's close to 50-50 for these two guys come the next July with maybe slight edge to the defending champion.

 

[Red Rick]

Vinge's level was phenomenal plus he was helped by the team during two crucial stages: cobbles and Granon. But every year is different, I'm not sure if he will able to replicate this form again. I rate Pog's consistency higher than Dane's. But we will see, it's close to 50-50 for these two guys come the next July with maybe slight edge to the defending champion.

I am quite positive they'll both hit similar forms next year, barring accidents or something.

The bigger question is how much better Vingegaard actually was considering his self destructiong on the Galibier and Spandelles/descent. Also, I think that Vingegaard is naturally a very passive rider which might come to hurt him against Pogacar in future TdFs.

 

[pman]

Let's then assume not all pros do it. But, even so, can we really believe that a Tour with an average speed of 42 kph bespeaks of cleanliness? Answer: no. Well then, is it possible that those in the top say 30 are on just bread and water? Answer: no. That's because for the winner to average 42 km there must be high octane fuel driving the peleton. Hence if the top 30 are doped to some capacity then the rest of the peleton is too, with only possible few exceptions, because they are less strong riders, who, even to finish at that average speed, would need pharmacological assistance. At this point we must realize that if not all pros do it (all the time), to be of any consequence at the biggest World Tour races it cannot be avoided. Unless we were daft enough to believe that a Tour won at 42 kph, and what this implies for the whole group, is possible without it.

I remember being rebuked for bringing up how fast the Tour was raced. I heard a lot about how the speed of a race is irrelevant because it's all about course design, etc. With that, I agreed then and I agree now that the speed of the 22 Tour was eyebrow raising. More alarming was the gap between the 1 and 2 and then 2 and the rest of top 10. With that said, here we go again going down the doping rabbit hole except this time it's with Ving instead of Pog.

 

[Extinction]

I remember being rebuked for bringing up how fast the Tour was raced. I heard a lot about how the speed of a race is irrelevant because it's all about course design, etc. With that, I agreed then and I agree now that the speed of the 22 Tour was eyebrow raising. More alarming was the gap between the 1 and 2 and then 2 and the rest of top 10. With that said, here we go again going down the doping rabbit hole except this time it's with Ving instead of Pog.

It's not a rabbit whole. Doping simply has not gone away. Course design or no course design, speeds simply don't keep increasing in the age of "clean cycling." There has been enough variety in courses to gleen the big picture, which suggests a sport no cleaner than before. After things like the bio passpprt and MPCC we should have seen, at the very least, a leveling off, but really a lowering, of average velocity. Yet not only did that not happen, but races actually have been ridden faster. No marginal gains can account for it in the absence of pharmacological enhancement, which means doping. And not just Vingegaard, but systematic practice throughout the peleton. Ricco and others have talked about new as yet undetectable porducts and, of course, genetic doping, which for a decade or so has been discussed as the new e frontier of illicit performance enhancement, which only the mega budgets would have access to.

 

[pman]

It's not a rabbit whole. Doping simply has not gone away. Course design or no course design, speeds simply don't keep increasing in the age of "clean cycling." There has been enough variety in courses to gleen the big picture, which suggests a sport no cleaner than before. After things like the bio passpprt and MPCC we should have seen, at the very least, a leveling off, but really a lowering, of average velocity. Yet not only did that not happen, but races actually have been ridden faster. No marginal gains can account for it in the absence of pharmacological enhancement, which means doping. And not just Vingegaard, but systematic practice throughout the peleton. Ricco and others have talked about new as yet undetectable porducts and, of course, genetic doping, which for a decade or so has been discussed as the new e frontier of illicit performance enhancement, which only the mega budgets would have access to.

All fair points. I just don't understand the point of focusing on it. Doping has been around for many, many decades in the sport. It's there, we choose to watch anyway. I think some of it is the fact that it's November and we miss our sport. The Tour Down Under is less than 2 months away!

 

[Extinction]

All fair points. I just don't understand the point of focusing on it. Doping has been around for many, many decades in the sport. It's there, we choose to watch anyway. I think some of it is the fact that it's November and we miss our sport. The Tour Down Under is less than 2 months away!

I don't focus upon it and, by now, could not care less. Perhaps we are on the same page. I don't pretend that what I see is "real." But I'm not so stupid as to think that what I see is without pharmacological enhancement.

 

[pman]

I don't focus upon it and, by now, could not care less. Perhaps we are on the same page. I don't pretend that what I see is "real." But I'm not so stupid as to think that what I see is without pharmacological enhancement.

I think we are on the same page. My biggest issue is with the people who weaponize doping, which is what drew me to this thread in the first place.

 

[Extinction]

I think we are on the same page. My biggest issue is with the people who weaponize doping, which is what drew me to this thread in the first place.

Weaponizing doping only has a place when it turns donkies into race horses on teams that preach we are holier than thou, but use omertà and other mafioso techniques to silence adversaries, and have the brandwith to get the governing body to cover up or the budgets to buy legal loopholes to get a positive overturned. Otherwise just watch and enjoy thè show.