Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Extinction]

It's a freak show of dominance. Just wait till Strada Bianche to start pulverizing the rest and everything follows a natural progression. And eat porridge.

 

[Penninepeddler]

I disagree that it's not worth it... tell all the parents of kids in sports whether they want their child getting involved with shady characters and gray moral areas just to compete with all the other kids that are doing it. None are going to say "it's not worth it" ... the only ones to say that are the people profiting with the status quo.

What they don't realize is that it's better to take a couple of small losses than one massive one. The money involved in cycling isn't even that big compared to other sports ... it's like grasping at pennies when there's paper around the corner for "doing good." And the doctors who are involved? They need to get their licenses revoked.

Yeh, I think the interesting thing with cycling is...

If you are a good athlete, say a 17 year old with a V02 max in the 60-65 area...

but have never really specialised, or are say a decent runner or decent swimmer or decent ski-jumper etc (where technique is a bit more important, especially swimming)... and are probably not going to be quite good enough to make a living out of it (especially as in many sports there are really not many people who do make a living...)

and then take the fact there are like 1,300 pro cyclists, all earning ~40,000 euros a year or more plus expenses.

Those kids have no chance to likely make a living running or swimming etc... and also have zero chance of turning their talent into a pro football, rugby, cricket, tennis career etc as so much specialisation is needed and that takes years of practice.

BUT, well, if you are already a solid athlete values wise at such an age, a year of doping and weight cutting would likely get you to roughly pro cyclist numbers territory.

 

[Penninepeddler]

Yes but I think wasn't that the scenario talked about? At least that what I was aiming for. There's a lot of PED use in amateur sports as well though. People do this for all sorts of reasons, maybe just to beat their neighbor or to impress the folks at the gym with a bench press.

A friend of mine used to do weightlifting before she came to Germany as a teenager, and she was administered steroids which deeply *** up her hormone system. That was way before there was any ideas of even becoming an olympic athlete or anything like this.

Once you're in a setup in which you want to be able to continue your successful path there's danger of doping imo.

Also: it need not be necessary for the incentive to be there. Because of the secrecy of it all, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy easily. You just gotta believe you are at a disadvantage because others are using PEDs to have an incentive.

Edit about Kids and in competitive sports:
Dopings really not the issue I'd go for either. But I'd have a very close look at the coaching environment and would pay attention to their methods. I remember being shocked for example, when I witnessed clearly incompetent coaches completely going nuts on 10 year 10-12 yo, yelling and screaming at them, making them do some punishment exercises etc., just for the crime of not competing well enough in a so-called non competitive football league. Basically punishing them for their the coache's obvious failure. And that wasn't the exception that was the rule. Almost every game we played that would happen, because we were lucky to win them all but one (3:3 draw after 0:3 down in the first game). They'd of course ridicule their players as well, while being overly dramatic in painting their inadequacy.
I'd keep a kid far away from that kind of ***.
I guess this kind of stuff isn't (hopefully) the norm anymore in a lot of places, but I think it's still widespread.

Working day-to-day in the sport sector for an NGO...

safeguarding is still not really an established concept outside of the English speaking world. A lot of places dont even have the equivalent of a "DBS" check to work with children. And a lot of places the only thing people worry about when it comes to child safety is just "sex abuse" etc... without the realisation that safeguarding is far, far broader than just that and abuse is widespread in sport.

There is a recent report funded by the EU involving several European Universities that is startling reading:

https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/50597491/CASES_Project_Report.pdf

One crazy thing? The higher the level of sport the more abuse...

Spain is making some progress for example in that area (Athetic Bilbao are a spearhead in Spain), and the EU is pushing it at grass-roots sport level... but if I told you that less than 10% of PROFESSIONAL football clubs in mainland Europe have a safeguarding policy, safeguarding officer, or any knowledge of procedure etc? Yeh... and then think of what it is like at grass-roots level with far less resources.

It is bad. The EU know it is bad and are trying to do something. But a lot of people even in the space do not take it seriously. There are MAJOR sports organisations that deal with thousands of children in sport who pretty much laugh about the need for such policy and training and basically see it as being accusatory and that "of course we are not abusing children, and how dare you think that we have pedophiles in our midst"... even when not even mentioning such abuse...

(and doping minors is also abuse, which happens far too often still)

 

[Extinction]

Yeh, I think the interesting thing with cycling is...

If you are a good athlete, say a 17 year old with a V02 max in the 60-65 area...

but have never really specialised, or are say a decent runner or decent swimmer or decent ski-jumper etc (where technique is a bit more important, especially swimming)... and are probably not going to be quite good enough to make a living out of it (especially as in many sports there are really not many people who do make a living...)

and then take the fact there are like 1,300 pro cyclists, all earning ~40,000 euros a year or more plus expenses.

Those kids have no chance to likely make a living running or swimming etc... and also have zero chance of turning their talent into a pro football, rugby, cricket, tennis career etc as so much specialisation is needed and that takes years of practice.

BUT, well, if you are already a solid athlete values wise at such an age, a year of doping and weight cutting would likely get you to roughly pro cyclist numbers territory.

But swimming and running don't have to do with crashing at high speed, nor the radical turns of speed. Cycling requires more craft. And you have to do so every day for three weeks to conquer.

 

[Nick2413]

is it the testing regime or what happens with the samples taken afterwards ?

as I remember back in 2012 chatting to a USADA doctor/tester on a tube train to Stratford, as you do, terribly unBritish of me I know, but its the craziness of being in a host city for an Olympics. But the two things he was confident on were there were almost certainly people doping at the Olympics, (which he was right about) even though that seemed a shocking thing to say, but that they would also be caught...maybe not that day but eventually they would (which he was also right about).

and by that he meant how they might not have the tests or accuracy to test in the moment, and an athlete might pass and all seem well, but they store the samples for a number of years, it was 8 years then, its now 10 years.

So 10 years from now they can go back and test all the samples from Paris again, with technology and science thats 10 years advanced from now, and if it picks up anything that means you actually fail, you maintain the same legal consequence of failing as if youd failed the day of the competition.

I dont know if TdF store 10 years worth of drug tests, just in case, or theyre destroyed once theyve all been checked and passed

Easy excuse, Pog and Vingegaard ate contaminated chips.

 

[Penninepeddler]

But swimming and running don't have to do with crashing at high speed, nor the radical turns of speed. Cycling requires more craft. And you have to do so every day for three weeks to conquer.

Certainly. But swimming especially is far, far more technical and something where physiological capacity are offset heavily against technique... hence the enormous differences across all levels of Tri with swimming... and why Tri has historically tried to keep swimming the shortest event in terms of effort etc as the time differences can get crazy if longer swims even with equivalent athletes.

Lance Armstrong was a good swimmer, but would never have been an Olympian despite being a freak because his technique was poor and inefficient... just a solid National Level swimmer.

You can be far "fitter", even as someone who the general public would consider a great swimmer, than a peer... yet that peer could probably swim a 400m free maybe 1 minute faster (say 4:30 vs 5:30) with better technique despite maybe having a V02 max of 50 vs your 60!

And with running, running is weird as also a lot of moving parts and not just about your cardiovascular fitness.

Whereas cycling of the three? The most direct in terms of cardio to output etc once have a bit of experience in the saddle.

And tbf if you are training at a decent level swimming (the world I know more on) then you are swimming like 40-50k a week at a minimum with only a day off and 4 hours in a pool a day too! Ofc less time in actual "competition" but still crazy loads.

Cycling is more "fun" and "varied" than both, with space to be really good at some things and more risk is ofc there... but it is also the "Purest" in terms of measuring how good your cardiovascular fitness is really without technique honed over years and years required. (aside from ofc on cobbles/gravel and downhill)

 

[Ripper]

Certainly. But swimming especially is far, far more technical and something where physiological capacity are offset heavily against technique... hence the enormous differences across all levels of Tri with swimming... and why Tri has historically tried to keep swimming the shortest event in terms of effort etc as the time differences can get crazy if longer swims even with equivalent athletes.

Lance Armstrong was a good swimmer, but would never have been an Olympian despite being a freak because his technique was poor and inefficient... just a solid National Level swimmer.

You can be far "fitter", even as someone who the general public would consider a great swimmer, than a peer... yet that peer could probably swim a 400m free maybe 1 minute faster (say 4:30 vs 5:30) with better technique despite maybe having a V02 max of 50 vs your 60!

And with running, running is weird as also a lot of moving parts and not just about your cardiovascular fitness.

Whereas cycling of the three? The most direct in terms of cardio to output etc once have a bit of experience in the saddle.

And tbf if you are training at a decent level swimming (the world I know more on) then you are swimming like 40-50k a week at a minimum with only a day off and 4 hours in a pool a day too! Ofc less time in actual "competition" but still crazy loads.

Cycling is more "fun" and "varied" than both, with space to be really good at some things and more risk is ofc there... but it is also the "Purest" in terms of measuring how good your cardiovascular fitness is really without technique honed over years and years required. (aside from ofc on cobbles/gravel and downhill)

I used to swim, mainly breast stroke in competition, before becoming a cyclist, but I definitely would not be considered a good swimmer by competition standards. My guess is that you know a lot more about swimming than I do.

It is a very interesting sport. Selecting out early for technique and physiology, crazy loads of both distance and intensity/intervals, and at the very top of the sport, add in any technology and of course, doping. And over those formative years, so much risk of abuse.

Interesting stuff, albeit very off topic for the OP.

 

[Rou]

I'm wondering how so many people are questioning Pog's level this year and nobody's batting an eye on Matteo Jorgenson's evolution. So it's normal for Jorgenson to increase his level five times when he switched to a professional team with proper support and training while it's shocking that Pogacar is the strongest ever when he switched to a competent coach with focus on stage racing? What seems more ridiculous to you:
1. That a rider (Jorgenson) becomes a mountain destroyer while also being an ultimate tool on the flats, gravel etc...
or
2. Pogacar (the biggest talent since Merckx) crushes the peloton on the climbs.

 

[Nick2413]

I'm wondering how so many people are questioning Pog's level this year and nobody's batting an eye on Matteo Jorgenson's evolution. So it's normal for Jorgenson to increase his level five times when he switched to a professional team with proper support and training while it's shocking that Pogacar is the strongest ever when he switched to a competent coach with focus on stage racing? What seems more ridiculous to you:
1. That a rider (Jorgenson) becomes a mountain destroyer while also being an ultimate tool on the flats, gravel etc...
or
2. Pogacar (the biggest talent since Merckx) crushes the peloton on the climbs.

False dichotomy, nobody’s saying Jorgenson wasn’t outrageous. Pog’s transformation is more relevant though so it gets talked about more. And 5-10% is definitely a transformation.

 

[Salvarani]

False dichotomy, nobody’s saying Jorgenson wasn’t outrageous. Pog’s transformation is more relevant though so it gets talked about more. And 5-10% is definitely a transformation.

Thats about the same as Jorgenson has done in recent years, if not more.

He is gone from nowhere to dropping everybody but Vinge and Pog on PdB in less than two years.

 

[Saint Unix]

Pogacar (the biggest talent since Merckx)

Is he though? If UAE are as dirty as they smell he definitely isn't. He didn't show anything before joining that team that indicated that he'd get this good. Evenepoel is easily the biggest talent I've ever seen in cycling if we're going by results before joining a pro team.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Unless it is a silent ban, Pog skipping the Olympics over testing makes no sense. The Olympics is the biggest piss take ever when it comes to doping. Have we learned nothing from London 2012, Beijing 08 etc etc.

 

[Monoxidator]

Unless it is a silent ban, Pog skipping the Olympics over testing makes no sense. The Olympics is the biggest piss take ever when it comes to doping. Have we learned nothing from London 2012, Beijing 08 etc etc.

That makes sense, but the conspiracy theory is more fun to talk about on forums.

 

[Raest]

Tyler Hamilton tested positive for the first time in the Olympics, despite having ridden multiple tdfs on epo

 

[ppanther92]

Tyler Hamilton tested positive for the first time in the Olympics, despite having ridden multiple tdfs on epo

Meh, I really don’t think thats the reason. Especially if the main factor is indeed Carbon Monoxide. Really think its just Urska in the case of the Olympics.

 

[Nick2413]

That makes sense, but the conspiracy theory is more fun to talk about on forums.

Tbf everything about his performance this year is a conspiracy. It’s 50/50 doping related or just doesn’t see it as a race to bother with along with other stuff like Urska not being picked etc

 

[Extinction]

Tbf everything about his performance this year is a conspiracy. It’s 50/50 doping related or just doesn’t see it as a race to bother with along with other stuff like Urska not being picked etc

But the Olympics is the biggest stage on earth, strange then that the yellow jersey suddenly decides to forfait.

 

[pastronef]

But the Olympics is the biggest stage on earth, strange then that the yellow jersey suddenly decides to forfait.

for athletics, swimming, track cycling, diving, mtb, gymnastics and on and on.

not for road cycling

 

[Extinction]

for athletics, swimming, track cycling, diving, mtb, gymnastics and on and on.

not for road cycling

Not before 1996, since then it's become practically as big.

 

[Nick2413]

But the Olympics is the biggest stage on earth, strange then that the yellow jersey suddenly decides to forfait.

I agree it’s probably more doping related than anything else. Although this year doesn’t suit him as much as ‘21.

 

[awavey]

Not before 1996, since then it's become practically as big.

I don't know, I'd struggle to name the podium for most of the Olympic races since 96, except for the exceptional of note races, or surprises.

 

[Extinction]

I don't know, I'd struggle to name the podium for most of the Olympic races since 96, except for the exceptional of note races, or surprises.

When Bettini won and Nibali almost did, you got the greatness of the event.

 

[Brullnux]

When Bettini won and Nibali almost did, you got the greatness of the event.

Van Avermaet got himself a gold bike for like the rest of his career. Vino's gold was very funny, too, if only because Team GB was basically just Team Sky and they misjudged it so horribly.

 

[Rou]

I have to agree with Bryunel's opinion about the Olympics. The Olympics should be about the oldest and traditional sports which are not professional (athletics, swimming, archery and so on). I don't see any prestige about a professional sport in the Olympics (the exception is probably basketball). I rate an Olympic gold medal in cycling lower than about 15 different cycling races on the calendar. That's what baffles me: Why a rider on the caliber of Remco is wasting his time on the Olympic TT? He has much more potential than that.

 

[Salvarani]

I have to agree with Bryunel's opinion about the Olympics. The Olympics should be about the oldest and traditional sports which are not professional (athletics, swimming, archery and so on). I don't see any prestige about a professional sport in the Olympics (the exception is probably basketball). I rate an Olympic gold medal in cycling lower than about 15 different cycling races on the calendar. That's what baffles me: Why a rider on the caliber of Remco is wasting his time on the Olympic TT? He has much more potential than that.

There is also so many great cyclists, who arent at the event. That could or should be there for their countries. That could have been leaders or be able to win the race etc. You cant really pick four of the best riders from a country, because that wouldnt work, like you can do with other sports.

Like in most other sports it is just the very best because that have qualified through running a good time or jumped a certain distance.

Cycling isnt that straight-forward and the Olympics is a very "weird" race compared to a normal race.

The ITT is more straight-forward as an event, but at the same time a lot of great time trialists are missing that probably would have been "qualified" to be there.