Well I dont think this has been anywhere near business as usual, injuries or no injurues. PDBF was the first wtf is he on-moment for me from the monster. Then the next years Tour as a whole, took me back to Pharmastrong/Froomie memories. 2022&2023 was very suspicious too, but I was thinking, that well at least there's two of the aliens now. Then this year in whole has been the batsh*t craziest thing ever. If a rider had a very high alien like level even before and then you ad there something like 10% more in one winter and continue that from the start of the season to the end. Sure the training and nutrition was so bad before, that a change in that has made this all possible and we are witnessing a clean miracle season🤭
-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I suppose you could say there were some qualifying circumstances as to why his particular dominance was so unbelievable, that the stars aligned in his favor, that there was no competition at the Giro, that Remco and Jonas crashed badly in the run-up to the Giro, etc., etc. On the face of it, one could argue the point. However, upon further consideration, I really don't think what we got was just "business as usual." The reasons for this are several, beginning with the fact that he had a remarkable increase in power/efficiency that was evident from his first race to his most recent over a period that has spanned from March to October. In modern cycling this is simply unheard of, while, unlike in previous seasons, Pogacar showed no moment of défaillance at any point during that time. At the same time, despite being badly injured, both Vingegaard and Evenepoel put up their best performances at the Tour and still got crushed. Leaving aside last year's Tour, when Tadej had a rough ride getting to the start in good shape, he was so much better than at Tour 22 when he soundly lost to Vingegaard. Now, all things being equal talent wise, the fact that Pogacar so thoroughly beat Vingegaard this time, despite the latter putting out his best numbers, indicates that Giannetti-Maxtin increased the dosage without compunction. Worlds was an appalling demonstration of setting no limits with such mischief and duplicity. Coming from them, the schemers behind Ricco and Piepoli, now funded by petrol dollars, really is too much for some to take (including myself). And then he wins 6 stages in both Giro and Tour, not only this, but the fashion in which he has won throughout the season with long distance attacks. And now Worlds and then Emilia. Again, this is unheard of in the modern era or the past, for that matter. He rubs it in everyone's faces. If they don't dial it down, I swear there will be no reason to follow the races he's in from here on out.
Last edited:
The "leave some for the others" comment would drink water if this wasn't a professional sport. Do you see Barcelona/Real Madrid/Man City gift wins because they already wrapped up the championship? Does Djokovic gift slams because he already won like 20 of them? Does Verstappen lead for 60 laps and then just lets others pass him, because he already won 18 races? Of course not. But in cycling you somehow should because...because it might hurt someone feelings lol.
he he; i am sure it has nothing to do with sky sucking; were social media in UK also fed up with sky dominance.... its rhetorical question
You cant compare Sky's dominance to Pogacar, Sky was only really the TDF, Pogacar is every dam race to a level we've not seen.
The media in the UK would often ask questions regarding their performances and legitimacy of them.
It's not about that, it's about making allies in the peloton. If you don't do it, it means you don't want/need allies, which of course can rub people the wrong way. It's only logical.
Those other sports you mention are not relevant comparisons because the dynamics are completely different, you can just win on your own whereas in cycling you're always competing against people who might combine their forces. When Verstappen has to worry about Norris and Leclerc taking turns in the chase group, going faster than they would be if they went solo, that's when the cycling comparison will make sense.
- Genetic Enhancement: CRISPR could be used to edit genes associated with traits like strength, endurance, and cognitive abilities. For example, scientists have explored modifying genes related to muscle growth and metabolism.
- Ethical Concerns: Using CRISPR for performance enhancement raises significant ethical issues, particularly regarding fairness in sports, the potential for coercion, and the risks of unintended consequences. Regulatory bodies like the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) are likely to have strict rules against genetic modifications for competitive advantages.
- The ability to trace CRISPR modifications in athletes through testing is complex and still being studied. Here are some key points regarding the traceability of CRISPR and its implications for sports:
Text above is chatGPT.
- Ethical Concerns: Using CRISPR for performance enhancement raises significant ethical issues, particularly regarding fairness in sports, the potential for coercion, and the risks of unintended consequences. Regulatory bodies like the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) are likely to have strict rules against genetic modifications for competitive advantages.
- The ability to trace CRISPR modifications in athletes through testing is complex and still being studied. Here are some key points regarding the traceability of CRISPR and its implications for sports:
- Types of Genetic Modifications: CRISPR can be used to make various types of changes to an athlete's DNA, such as knocking out a gene, inserting a new gene, or altering the expression of existing genes. The specific changes made will affect how easily they can be detected.
- Detection Challenges:
- Mosaicism: If CRISPR is applied after an athlete's cells have developed, the edited cells may exist alongside unedited cells (mosaicism). This can make detection more challenging, as not all cells will show the genetic modification.
- Transient Changes: Some CRISPR modifications may be temporary or reversible, which could complicate detection if the athlete stops using the technology.
- Testing Technology: Current genetic testing methods primarily focus on detecting doping agents or substances rather than direct genetic modifications. Advanced techniques, like whole-genome sequencing, might be needed to identify specific CRISPR edits.
- Potential Markers: If CRISPR were used to introduce foreign genes or make specific edits, scientists could theoretically develop tests to detect these markers. However, this would require ongoing research and the development of robust testing protocols.
- Ethical and Regulatory Response: As awareness of CRISPR and its potential use in sports grows, regulatory bodies like WADA would likely invest in research to create testing methods. They may also define specific guidelines on what constitutes unfair advantage through genetic enhancement.
- Consequences of Detection: If genetic modifications were detected, athletes could face significant penalties, including bans from competition. This could create a strong deterrent against the use of CRISPR for performance enhancement.
Text above is chatGPT.
and this is a clear sign of doping based on cycling history, right....
The higher lactate threshold and clearance were excuses that Armstrong's camp made back in the 00s. It doesn't mean of course that it's false but I'd guess that pretty much every elite endurance athlete have a (much) higher than average lactate threshold.
If only they were a bit more original to their excuses at least...
This makes more sense than most other explanations imo, I don’t know anything else about it other than the above though.
what exactly should they say ? what excuse would clinic investigators believe, it doesnt matter what they say some people have already decided; athlete to good, clearly doping, probably the only sport in the world "fans" are reacting like this.
Not an expert on anything but I think motors is more likely than genetic engineering. I'd say the most likely is pushing more traditional methods and maybe some new tweaks (like monoxide) further than others because UAE are protected by money armor and less timid regarding rider health etc.
Less likely but sadly not unthinkable are motors. Genetic fumbling seems more scifi to me than both these explanations.
Listen, you clearly don't get it, cycling doesn't work that way. I shall spell this out for you. If Pogacar under Giannetti-Matxin puts a string of seasons together like this one, the other teams will get pi$$ed. You get my meaning? Since they know how the game is played and the sponsors will stop wanting to invest in losers. What will happen is either they (Giannetti-Matxin) dial it back a bit, to give the others some breathing space and a piece of the pie, or Pogacar gets brought down. In the first case they will say he won the Tour at 21, thus the aging effect set in early, or the competition got better (meaning he was doped over the top, so we had to calm it down). Mark my words.
Last edited:
No one is forcing you to read this topic if you don't like the reactions we are having.
why not ? since Seinfeld is not more this is a good alternative
The racing sucks and it’s directly attributable to what can only realistically be a destructive amount of doping. The sport has become unwatchable this year for anyone not religiously devoted to this one rider.
You have followed the sport for the last 30, 40 years, no? Had you, you would have no doubts or if you have and still have faith, then I have a used car to sell you (or a nice pair of glasses). It's a great deal!
Last edited:
That is possible. But, at the same time, one should not underestimate the intellectual level (or, rather, lack thereof) of the current crop of new fans of the instagram/tik-tok generation. As for other riders losing interest in the whole thing if the circus goes too far, one also should not underestimate the power of money. An average person these days will put up with a lot if paid a little extra. The vast majority of the pro peloton goes without any significant wins their whole career anyway.
That is certainly the case. It is cheap sci-fi. There is even a disclaimer provided: that complicated looking text about "CRISPR" is said to be AI generated, i.e. produced by an entity with no brain at all. Of course, there exists an abstract possibility of producing positive genetic changes and making a person stronger, faster longer lived... Just like there exist an abstract possibility of organizing a successful manned mission to Mars, for instance. Moreover, both of these will be done some day. But not today and not tomorrow. The modern science and technology is not even close yet.
As to that monoxide, it is well known to be a rather nasty poison. If you breathe enough of it, you W/kg production will promptly go to zero and stay there for good. It is now carefully touted by the apologists as a cheap version of attitude training of sorts. The simple-minded idea behind it is essentially the good old "what does not kill us makes us stronger". In my view, this is just yet another smoke screen for those who do not quite believe in the narrative of "normal training" and "good varied nutrition" that the poor Teddy was finally provided this year. They should also check bearings in his wheels. I bet they will be found to be super tight and, if properly adjusted, will give him another 10%. Maybe next year.
In my experience, these days, if there is a phenomenon allowing different explanations so that one is obviously technically feasible but may seem to be unlikely "societally" (too blatant, too outrageous etc.) and the other would be more societally acceptable but does not appear to be quite as technically feasible (or the technical feasibility thereof seems relatively murky and doubtful ), one should always lean to the former. One could call this approach the "presumption of lack of miracles" of sorts. I always found it to be more reliable than others.
Yeah, but the vast majority of pro cyclists get paid to help their leaders win. If their leaders don't win anymore then the sponsors pull out or drastically lower wages. It's the market baby. If over a prolonged period one leader is a hog (through "piggy eating up the slop" or devouring new slop), then sooner or later the competition and the union gets infuriated, then hostile. We haven't quite gotten to that point yet, but, if he keeps this up, the tables will inevitably turn on him. It's like tax invasion. You can't be a pig or else, sooner or later, they come after you.
Last edited:
This is the best thread ever, because we are talking about the biggest cheater of all time.
I can speak wherever i want on this thread about this sneaky guy, so this is the best thread ever, and clinic is awesome.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Latest posts
-
-
Which rider is going to announce their 2025 schedule first?- Latest: Samu Cuenca
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram