• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 149 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
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. :rolleyes: . That would be talent IMO.
 
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. :rolleyes: . That would be talent IMO.
Pfff… semantics, if I was really good at stealing wallets, I‘d call myself a talented pickpocket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
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. :rolleyes: . That would be talent IMO.
I'm inclined to think natural margins are so small it's near impossible to rise to the top without being a good responder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaco and snipeheem
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. :rolleyes: . That would be talent IMO.
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.

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.
 
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 .
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
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.
Sagan? Boonen before him.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
Sagan? Boonen before him.
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)
 
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.
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.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: noob and Nomad
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.
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:
  • Like
Reactions: noob
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.
If the Hct upper safety limit (50%) was uniformly enforced, then riders in the Armstrong era would be capped on how much they could dope. And the riders with the lowest baseline Hcts could dope on a higher percentage basis than guys that had a higher baseline number. Armstrong supposedly had a baseline Hct in the high 30's (he has stated this many times in interviews), therefore if he doped right up to the limit, he's seeing a 25% + increase in his blood values. Plus there's his cocktail of HGH, testosterone, corticosteroids, etc, that most of his rivals were also using (probably not a "super responder" in the true sense but someone that had more leeway with his extremely low baseline crit).

It was a much different situation in the Wild West of the 90's where no upper safety limit existed for most of the decade & guys could dope to dangerously high blood levels. Take a look at Gewiss-Ballan's systematic doping program overseen by Ferrari. Released documents show Hct variations in 1994-95 with some of their top riders (e.g., Riis 41.1 - 56.3, Ugrumov 32.8 - 60.0, Berzin 41.7 - 53.0).

 
Last edited:
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.
How is that even a question. No, I'm also not unsure whether or not Chiappucci doped.

The world of cycling would have to be a very weird place for Van Aert to be clean. Just imagine how good a climber he'd be if he actually started doping.
 
... are doping.


"Those teams must be clean because everyone joining them instantly becomes a monster."

Bizarre take.
Where did I say that they were clean? Jumbo literally had a doping positive rider in the last Giro. All I'm saying is that these teams are likely using something that isn't illegal, but it gives them some advantage to other teams. For example look at the french team Decathlon. They are flying this season and they didn't do anything different in their prep. The only difference is their new bikes. Which even competitors say gives them an advantage. Not a big one but big enough that they started winning races.
 
If the Hct upper safety limit (50%) was uniformly enforced, then riders in the Armstrong era would be capped on how much they could dope. And the riders with the lowest baseline Hcts could dope on a higher percentage basis than guys that had a higher baseline number. Armstrong supposedly had a baseline Hct in the high 30's (he has stated this many times in interviews), therefore if he doped right up to the limit, he's seeing a 25% + increase in his blood values. Plus there's his cocktail of HGH, testosterone, corticosteroids, etc, that most of his rivals were also using (probably not a "super responder" in the true sense but someone that had more leeway with his extremely low baseline crit).

It was a much different situation in the Wild West of the 90's where no upper safety limit existed for most of the decade & guys could dope to dangerously high blood levels. Take a look at Gewiss-Ballan's systematic doping program overseen by Ferrari. Released documents show Hct variations in 1994-95 with some of their top riders (e.g., Riis 41.1 - 56.3, Ugrumov 32.8 - 60.0, Berzin 41.7 - 53.0).

OK, but the 50% limit was only really in place for 2 seasons of Armstrongs GT winning career. In 1997 he didn't compete, 1998 he was 4th in La Vuelta, 1999 won Tour, then the EPO test came in 2000 and he dominated the next 6 years while almost every rival around him got sanctioned for epo or blood. All I'm saying is, if such an advantage existed because you genetically had more room to respond to an epo gain, are we saying then that his main rivals of that time were never going to beat him as I would assume those arguing why Armstrong could dominate was because Pantani, Ullrich, Zulle, Escartin, Beloki, Contador were more naturally talented / disadvantaged by their own doping? As I said, it would be very simple in the age of risk-free EPO use pre 2000 for riders and/or teams to do the numbers and find other Armstrongs. I guess you could say Basso & Vino were borderline transformations on their day.
Or we could flip it to Froome if you think he was a similar doper transformation to Armstrong and more advantaged by doping genetically. Did all the rival teams get it really so wrong trying to beat him with Contador, Nibali, Quintana, Pinot & Bardet like they did Armstrong? Bardet & Pinot were almost as good as Froome on their day and I think many have the perception they were not doping at all but there was no rider like that in Armstrong's time, they all tested positive in a French IOC/WADA lab basically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and pastronef
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.
Peter Sagan won this stage.

images


He's also been top 5 to Montée Laurent Jalabert, 6th to Mount Baldy, won a monster steep ramps stage of Tirreno-Adriatico.

Especially early in his career he could pull some ridiculous climbing antics out. He just didn't do it at Le Tour the way van Aert does, largely because he wasn't being used to domestique for people. He'd often climb very well on intermediate and mountain stages to pick up points in the intermediate sprint, then sit up knowing he wasn't going to win the stage. He also was not riding in a totally OP team, instead he was often riding against the most OP teams in the Classics.

Had Sagan won Roubaix earlier in his career and so shifted some of his goals around the monuments and classics, it could be a different story. He was, at his peak, every bit as ridiculous as van Aert.
 
Van Aert is considerably bigger than Sagan as well.

In my view the best fitting parallel to Van Aert is probably Cancellara, but Cancellara basically was a gruppetto specialist outside the 6 races a year he cared, but he did some pretty damn big climbing performances as well.

Crans Montana was pretty damn impressive by Cancellara as a climbing performance, even though it's not exactly a HC mountain.

Van Aert meanwhile I think gets way too much focus on Hautacam when his climbing at the Olympics or on Col d'Eze were actually way more suss to me.

Cancellara did some really big W/kg for an hour in ITTs I believe, so if he never them as huge in climbs it's probably down to fatigue restance/getting enough carbohydrates in. With the modern trend of better fatigue resistance, carb loading, and fresher performances after more kilojoules, I think Van Aert does track somewhat as a progression of Cancellara's archetype.

I would also add Stefan Kung as a rider who's somewhat similar, in that he's done top 10 in Tour de Suisse while being a bigger dude than Van Aert. Ganna also has some pretty good climbing performances, but they're limited to pure grinders and unipuerto profiles.

On the lighter side of the continuum, there is ofcourse Rohan Stelvio Dennis.

Not to say it's not dirty dodgy as ***, and comparing to Cancellara is dirty dodgy in itself, I'm just trying to make sense of it.
 
Peter Sagan won this stage.

images


He's also been top 5 to Montée Laurent Jalabert, 6th to Mount Baldy, won a monster steep ramps stage of Tirreno-Adriatico.

Especially early in his career he could pull some ridiculous climbing antics out. He just didn't do it at Le Tour the way van Aert does, largely because he wasn't being used to domestique for people. He'd often climb very well on intermediate and mountain stages to pick up points in the intermediate sprint, then sit up knowing he wasn't going to win the stage. He also was not riding in a totally OP team, instead he was often riding against the most OP teams in the Classics.

Had Sagan won Roubaix earlier in his career and so shifted some of his goals around the monuments and classics, it could be a different story. He was, at his peak, every bit as ridiculous as van Aert.
Just because you’re a huge Sagan fan doesn’t make him as ridiculous of a climber as Van Aert.

But actually, Van Aert is probably a bit more unexpected imo.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: noob
OK, but the 50% limit was only really in place for 2 seasons of Armstrongs GT winning career. In 1997 he didn't compete, 1998 he was 4th in La Vuelta, 1999 won Tour, then the EPO test came in 2000 and he dominated the next 6 years while almost every rival around him got sanctioned for epo or blood. All I'm saying is, if such an advantage existed because you genetically had more room to respond to an epo gain, are we saying then that his main rivals of that time were never going to beat him as I would assume those arguing why Armstrong could dominate was because Pantani, Ullrich, Zulle, Escartin, Beloki, Contador were more naturally talented / disadvantaged by their own doping? As I said, it would be very simple in the age of risk-free EPO use pre 2000 for riders and/or teams to do the numbers and find other Armstrongs. I guess you could say Basso & Vino were borderline transformations on their day.
Or we could flip it to Froome if you think he was a similar doper transformation to Armstrong and more advantaged by doping genetically. Did all the rival teams get it really so wrong trying to beat him with Contador, Nibali, Quintana, Pinot & Bardet like they did Armstrong? Bardet & Pinot were almost as good as Froome on their day and I think many have the perception they were not doping at all but there was no rider like that in Armstrong's time, they all tested positive in a French IOC/WADA lab basically.
Good points. Armstrong explained in his recent interview with Peter Attia that Postal only used EPO IC for the 99 Tour. From 2000 on, he said Ferrari switched them to blood transfusions with 2 bags being used at the Tour - one each on the rest days (he said the team used EPO - OOC - for training).

Not all his rivals were testing positive for EPO, some had switched to blood transfusions with Fuentes & Operation Puerto. It was only when that ring was raided in 2006 that the participants were busted. And some of Armstrong's top domestiques who left Postal signed up with Fuentes for their blood doping endeavours (I don't know who Landis was blood doping with when he left Postal unless Phonak had their own in-house program?).

In the many interviews with LA that I watched he doesn't address any of those points. His mantra is that he received a "10%" boost vs a "1%" boost in performance when he transitioned from "low-octane" doping (e.g. anabolic steroids, corticosteroids, testosterone, GH, etc) to "high-octane" doping (i.e. EPO & transfusions), the only rival that he feared was Ullrich, and that he was very lucky he never crashed out of any Tour.
 
Last edited:
Van Aert is considerably bigger than Sagan as well.

In my view the best fitting parallel to Van Aert is probably Cancellara, but Cancellara basically was a gruppetto specialist outside the 6 races a year he cared, but he did some pretty damn big climbing performances as well.

Crans Montana was pretty damn impressive by Cancellara as a climbing performance, even though it's not exactly a HC mountain.

Van Aert meanwhile I think gets way too much focus on Hautacam when his climbing at the Olympics or on Col d'Eze were actually way more suss to me.

Cancellara did some really big W/kg for an hour in ITTs I believe, so if he never them as huge in climbs it's probably down to fatigue restance/getting enough carbohydrates in. With the modern trend of better fatigue resistance, carb loading, and fresher performances after more kilojoules, I think Van Aert does track somewhat as a progression of Cancellara's archetype.

I would also add Stefan Kung as a rider who's somewhat similar, in that he's done top 10 in Tour de Suisse while being a bigger dude than Van Aert. Ganna also has some pretty good climbing performances, but they're limited to pure grinders and unipuerto profiles.

On the lighter side of the continuum, there is ofcourse Rohan Stelvio Dennis.

Not to say it's not dirty dodgy as ***, and comparing to Cancellara is dirty dodgy in itself, I'm just trying to make sense of it.
The 2009 Tour de Suisse was literally designed with the sole goal of Cancellara winning, so he arrived there with the best climbing legs he ever had and the queen stage was won by legendary mountain goat Tony Martin.

Where would you rank van Aert relative to, say, George Hincapie?

On the plus side for Wout van Aert and one thing that stands in his favour is that as of yet he hasn't outright won the Tour de France.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and Cookster15