• 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 274 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
No one was eve selling a story that they have a superior lactate clearance or other nonsense and that was the explanation to their sudden dominance. And in fact those two dominated way more and earlier than Poggien did as a junior. I also dont believe they were clean either, Phelps especially was suspicious, even thou he has big hands and feel 🤭Bolt for me seems more like he might have been only on the same stuff than other sprinters. He had a clear advantage in height, yet his legs where still as fast as the shorter guys have and that is rare for a tall guy.
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...
 
- 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
In summary, while CRISPR modifications might not be easily detectable with current testing methods, advancements in genetic testing and increased scrutiny in sports could change this landscape. Ethical considerations and regulatory measures will play a crucial role in addressing the challenges posed by genetic enhancements in athletics.

Text above is chatGPT.
This makes more sense than most other explanations imo, I don’t know anything else about it other than the above though.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: noob and snipeheem
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...
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.
 
- 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
In summary, while CRISPR modifications might not be easily detectable with current testing methods, advancements in genetic testing and increased scrutiny in sports could change this landscape. Ethical considerations and regulatory measures will play a crucial role in addressing the challenges posed by genetic enhancements in athletics.

Text above is chatGPT.
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.
 
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.
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:
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stablo
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.
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.
 
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.
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:
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.
Do you also consider xenon a smokescreen, a simple-minded idea?

I don't think apologists tout a banned agent [S2.1.2: Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activating agents] such as carbon-monoxide as the answer.
 
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 this 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.
I agree to what you are saying and consider this scenario fairly likely at this point. I am just not quite sure that such "sponsor mutiny" is inevitable. First, sponsors can surely be incentivized by the overall system to endure the circus a bit longer. Second, just think about how many riders -- even team leaders -- actually do get big wins, and for how many teams -- and respective sponsors -- just placings, stages etc. are enough to stay interested. Take Pinot, for example, the rider I liked quite a lot, by the way. He was a centerpiece of his team for quite a long time and achieved some very good results. But how many of them were big wins? Lombardia, Tour podium and then some top 5's and 10's in grand tours. Three stages in TDF and a few more in Giro and Vuelta. The sponsors stayed relatively happy all that time and did not pull out. Now take the current circus scenario. The new Merckx (and even better, according to the old Eddy himself) is cannibalizing all the big wins (with something still left to Matt vdP, Remco and maybe a couple more lucky ones). The official narrative goes like: "What a time to be a cycling fan!", "We feel blessed to live now!" etc., i.e. just like now. So the relatively minor placings by "normal" riders take on a higher significance: "He took 5th in TDF in the great Pog era." etc. Sponsors might just be happy with that. We will see where the circus goes in the next couple of years.
 
I agree to what you are saying and consider this scenario fairly likely at this point. I am just not quite sure that such "sponsor mutiny" is inevitable. First, sponsors can surely be incentivized by the overall system to endure the circus a bit longer. Second, just think about how many riders -- even team leaders -- actually do get big wins, and for how many teams -- and respective sponsors -- just placings, stages etc. are enough to stay interested. Take Pinot, for example, the rider I liked quite a lot, by the way. He was a centerpiece of his team for quite a long time and achieved some very good results. But how many of them were big wins? Lombardia, Tour podium and then some top 5's and 10's in grand tours. Three stages in TDF and a few more in Giro and Vuelta. The sponsors stayed relatively happy all that time and did not pull out. Now take the current circus scenario. The new Merckx (and even better, according to the old Eddy himself) is cannibalizing all the big wins (with something still left to Matt vdP, Remco and maybe a couple more lucky ones). The official narrative goes like: "What a time to be a cycling fan!", "We feel blessed to live now!" etc., i.e. just like now. So the relatively minor placings by "normal" riders take on a higher significance: "He took 5th in TDF in the great Pog era." etc. Sponsors might just be happy with that. We will see where the circus goes in the next couple of years.
I love Pinot, who kisses his donkies, but he is French and satisfied that market by almost being the first viable contender for the Tour since alas Hinault. The great hope as it were. Yet this won't satisfy global financial expectations. The new mega-sponsors with no history in the sport just want the big prizes, otherwise they turn to sailing or whatever. The quaint historical compensations of lesser victories/placings are no longer relevant today. It's a viscious competitive beast, with doping the only constant. The Romans said if you want peace make war. In response to this, according to Tacitus, the Scottish chief Calgagus said of the Romans: " ...they make a desert and call it peace (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant)". Well if the present war being played out with Pogacar turns into a desert, there might not be anybody left to enjoy the peace, because the sport shall be dead. The teams feel this presure and know a rigged game cannot go beyond certain limits or else collapse.

PS: How many leaders can potentially claim all the monuments, primary stage races, all GTs and Worlds at once? These are the only races that matter to sponsors. If one rider today monopolizes them then why invest further? Wait till he retires or pull out in this fickle world of cycling? Only Merckx and Hinault were of this calibre in the past. Yet not even they dominated the competition as Pogacar did this year, and the level is much higher today. It doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
He obviously has to be more talented or he wouldnt be winning in this way or fashion.

He has improved each season and progressed each year. Thats way more believable then crushing everyone at a young age... which I think there are stories about that he actually did in Slovenia as a young kid.

Basing your whole argument around that he wasnt a talent because of fewer wins in juniors against riders from far greater cycling nations and richer backgrounds is not a solid ground to stand on.

He still achieved a lot of great things riding for small clubs in his native country and then developed and grew from finally getting the chance to ride bigger races and against tougher competition. He adapted fast through each season from the juniors to the U23s and in his first pro season, onwards, which actually speaks to the talent that was already there.

I find it way more weird that someone can just change sport and start to crush everybody within a short amount of time. It is not strange to me those guys doesnt live up to the hype and fails when becoming pros. It actually more rare that someone continues to crush, instead of someone who develops and grows into it from working at something all their life.
I´m sorry but have you noticed the progress that Pogacar made this winter? He didn´t just tart cycling, he was already 25 years, 2 times TDF winner, multiple monument winner and dominant no 1 in the world...no way it is a natural progression to improve your level around 10% and beating every other rider by a margin...
 
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.
The fact that almost all of the 2nd tier guys posted their best "numbers" suggests the technology, such as it is; is shared across the teams. Pogacar's version is certainly more potent. As for UAE's role in all of it IMO we all likely share the same opinion. Not good for the sport.
 
To some extent UAEs dominance this year was helped by the Visma's dismal luck. Van Aert crashed uncharacteristically too many times, Vingegaard nearly got himself killed and Kuss was badly affected by covid whereas many other key riders had serious crashes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93 and noob
To some extent UAEs dominance this year was helped by the Visma's dismal luck. Van Aert crashed uncharacteristically too many times, Vingegaard nearly got himself killed and Kuss was badly affected by covid whereas many other key riders had serious crashes.
But we ask ourselves, why does a nation like UAE invest so fragrantly in the sport at all? Is cycling popular in that country? Are there any real financial incentives for those invested to fund cycling, other then expanding capital portfolios? Who watches cycling in UAE? We know the answer, but we might get censored for pointing this out.
 
Some here continue to mock and scream with rage how Pogacar is cheating. They want to be relevant and looking someone to support their hate but somehow I have been thinking "how miserable are their life to just write constantly crappy posts? Is this way to decrease their frustration?"
No frustration, but only pointing out the absurd dominance makes Merckx look like a chump.
View: https://youtu.be/sziZ6PejrfM?si=lJDL6sZICtWyYVEM