Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Cookster15]

Do you guys think that motor doping is actually being used? I just refuse to believe it.

I doubt it. But I will fess up and say its getting worrisome since the Tour. The manner of his worlds win and now Lombardia are simply crazy. He just pulled off the double. Then the triple crown and is going on with it. And he still looks so fresh after races and seems to be winning with ease its quite ridiculous.

Claiming he was empty after the Giro now seems very hard to accept. He might have been "dead" when he collapsed on Loze last year but I am yet to see him truly suffer in a race or stage this season - maybe stage 11 in the Tour when Vingegaard out sprinted him?

OTOH, Pogacar was so young when he came under Gianetti and he truly announced himself as the 2nd youngest ever winner of the Tour in 2020 at 21. So natural progression might explain why he is even stronger now at 26. But the lack of suffering? Even Miguel Indurain in his prime during the heights (depths?) of the EPO era grimaced.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Aesthetics is a subjective philosophical truth , de gustibus non disputandem est, however, a certain virtue exists between an anatomical study by Leonardo da Vinci and my stick figure (while the ancient Greeks believed mathematical proportions resulting in harmony and symmetry constituted objective beauty). Apart from this, a factum happens, as in either Pogacar is doped or isn't, irrespective of if the tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it.

Still, it's a rather complex factum, if someone is doped or not. It's much closer to a truth that is dependent on someone hearing the tree, than say if it's a fact weather someone was on the moon or not, because doping is relative to our norms. Even if we try to give an ontological characteristic to doping, which we do as it pressuposes some - however fuzzy - notion of the natural. But that being said: there's an operating legal understanding of doping and ethical and moral ones, so we are not in the blue and I think the fuzzy ontological notion, that doping is what gives you an "unnatural advantage" is actually concrete enough in living cultures of evaluation to be worked with.
The question remain open and interesting though what idea(s) of nature we actually presuppose and what tells us about our selfs, or what we want "true sport" to be like and why.

 

[Extinction]

I doubt it. But I will fess up and say its getting worrisome since the Tour. The manner of his worlds win and now Lombardia are simply crazy. He just pulled off the double. Then the triple crown and is going on with it. And he still looks so fresh after races and seems to be winning with ease its quite ridiculous.

Claiming he was empty after the Giro now seems very hard to accept. He might have been "dead" when he collapsed on Loze last year but I am yet to see him truly suffer in a race or stage this season - maybe stage 11 in the Tour when Vingegaard out sprinted him?

OTOH, Pogacar was so young when he came under Gianetti and he truly announced himself as the 2nd youngest ever winner of the Tour in 2020 at 21. So natural progression might explain why he is even stronger now at 26. But the lack of suffering? Even Miguel Indurain in his prime during the heights (depths?) of the EPO era grimaced.

😂

 

[Extinction]

Still, it's a rather complex factum, if someone is doped or not. It's much closer to a truth that is dependent on someone hearing the tree, than say if it's a fact weather someone was on the moon or not, because doping is relative to our norms. Even if we try to give an ontological characteristic to doping, which we do as it pressuposes some - however fuzzy - notion of the natural. But that being said: there's an operating legal understanding of doping and ethical and moral ones, so we are not in the blue and I think the fuzzy ontological notion, that doping is what gives you an "unnatural advantage" is actually concrete enough in living cultures of evaluation to be worked with.
The question remain open and interesting though what idea(s) of nature we actually presuppose and what tells us about our selfs, or what we want "true sport" to be like and why.

No, it's simple, does he take performance enhancing drugs or have a mechanical enhancement? That is the question, my dear Watson. Ontology has nothing more to do with it as me saying the sky Is green with purple polka-dots. Not even the maintain classification has such.😂

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

No, it's simple, does he take performance enhancing drugs or have a mechanical enhancement? That is the question, my dear Watson.

I wasn't arguing that it's hard to know or that it's up to mere interpretation. Rather the opposite actually. Of course that's the question that it boils down to, but it's still a 'complex' fact because you need all sorts of concept's to constitute it. And with which concepts we do that and why is stil linteresting. I don't see why now. At least to me it is.

Ontology has nothing more to do with it as me saying the sky Is green with purple polka-dots. Not even the maintain classification has such.😂

I don't really know what part of my post you are relating this to, so I'll just say: sure ontology has something to do with it. The existence of a substance is characterized by it being "performance enhancing", it furthermore is supposed to not to be used because it interferes with the natural 'being' of the cyclist. And also if you view 'ontology' as a basic inventory of types of stuff that can exist, than well this also happenes in Anti-Doping, you even have a list of banned substances, that have a common characteristic, in being "performance enhancing".

 

[Casual cyclist]

I'm a bit lost here, in what way is this a Heideggarian clonclusion or notion of truth. That it is postmodern, I might be inclined to agree with on certain aspects.
But the claim in itself that "there is no objective truth" does not necessarily make it postmodernist. Most concepts of truth nowadays are either literalistically naturalistic representationalist, or they are relativistic (not to be confusion with relational) insofar as they posit some absolute truth to exist, but to be given to us only in subjective deformations, so absolute but not objectively accessible. (I am not arguing for either here, I think they are both naive and paradoxical). There's also often a notion that truth is what we can (successfully) agree on, and so figurates as a basis for further truth, given a proper regime of implementation. All of this spoken very roughly of course. Liew seems to go into a different direction in that he evokes beauty as a guiding principle for truth in sports (if I may intepret him this way). So it's an aesthetical idea of truth, which usually belongs into art. And with art I guess the question really is how to put a demarcation line between seeming and being. But this does not seem to me to express what actually is revealed through the experience of sports, or competitions. So where beauty as such does not demand reality, I think the Idea of competetive sports does demand reality of performances, and reality meaning naturally possible.

First of all, would you agree that this Jonathan fellow said enough on whether he himself believes in that "clean talented rider" narrative by likening the show we witnessed this year to pro wrestling? I thought that was pretty clear. Then he said that it did not matter 'cause it is basically nothing more than a show (and not a sporting competition in the traditional sense) that should be judged on the criterion of "beauty" (apparently, the kind of "beauty" that makes people on this forum cringe). I thought that was pretty clear as well -- and very postmodernistic.

As to that philosophical (anti-philosophical, rather) goon Heidegger, I just mentioned him as a prominent 20th century existentialist who took part in the destruction of the traditional philosophy (that culminated in Hegel's "The Science of Logic" if one wants to speak of purely academic philosophy) understood as theory of rational thought (or, equivalently, that of unity in manifoldness). The other "school" of anti-philosophical philosophy "terminators" was that of positivism (Russel, Wittgenstein, the Vienna circle etc.). Existentialism then pretty much grew into postmodern in the second half of 20th century and the original "naive" logical positivism was corrected somewhat and turned into "post-positivism" (with clowns like Popper as its classics).

 

[GuntherL1]

I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to riders like Pogacar who have a rounded programme throughout the year - riding in the one-day races - rather then spending long periods out of competition. I feel this is something that the most suspect riders (Ving, Indurain etc) do not do - and Armstrong of course,

Seriously? Do you understand that Pogacars Giro and TdF were more dominant than Armstrongs best TdF ever?

 

[Cookster15]

system distributed along the length of the lower half of the seat tube

Distributed? How does that work, how many watts boost and does such a system even exist? Some kind of magnetic assistance? Magnetic assistance will require Iron, steel, nickel or cobalt - all very heavy.

 

[QuickZulu]

When the year started I was still leaning on this guy being on something that the rest of the peloton had similar access to. Then he pulled that 80KM solo at Strade, followed by one of the most dominant one-week WT stage race performances ever (Catalunya). At that stage I definitely knew that he was on something completely different, but little did I know just how the rest of the season would unfold😂😂

 

[Casual cyclist]

Distributed? How does that work, how many watts boost and does such a system even exist? Some kind of magnetic assistance? Magnetic assistance will require Iron, steel, nickel or cobalt - all very heavy.

So does any electric motor. Still, a brushless motor capable of producing 300W of power weighs less than a pound. Carbon bikes can be made so light that some of them require extra weight just to make UCI limit. So that should not be a problem. How exactly does such system work? In principle, in the same way as any electric motor, utilizing the good old Faraday law. What exactly are the parameters of the system likely utilized by UAE this year? As soon as they fill me in, I'll dutifully share it on these pages.

 

[Peyroteo94]

[[deleted material had been quoted]]
Pogacar is doped to the gills but coming here saying he is worse than LA? Are we serious? And I'm not talking about doping, I'm talking about personality. I was a huge fan of LA but he humiliated a lot of people and reading here Pogacar is worse than him, it's not okay.

 

[Cookster15]

So does any electric motor. Still, a brushless motor capable of producing 300W of power weighs less than a pound. Carbon bikes can be made so light that some of them require extra weight just to make UCI limit. So that should not be a problem. How exactly does such system work? In principle, in the same way as any electric motor, utilizing the good old Faraday law. What exactly are the parameters of the system likely utilized by UAE this year? As soon as they fill me in, I'll dutifully share it on these pages.

Nah, I still don't believe you can hide a motor system generating significant boost. If true that would already have been tried in Formula 1 with far bigger budgets than even UAE (Formula 1 team budgets are restricted to $US 135mil). UAE's budget is €55 million to €60 million.

 

[Froome]

To just deppreciate a rider? Of course not. And no, we don't have different opinions, Pogacar is doped to the gills but coming here saying he is worse than LA? Are we serious? And I'm not talking about doping, I'm talking about personality. I was a huge fan of LA but he humiliated a lot of people and reading here Pogacar is worse than him, it's not okay.

Nevertheless LA was more humble inside the bike. He just cared about the Tour, and during the Tour after having a good gap he let the breakaways and the french riders win stages.

This guy is arrogant and have a big ego inside the bike, in the sense, he doesn't even care to disguise what is happening. He could yesterday attack just in the last 15 km and win by just 20/30 s to not get so many attention and difficult questions, but his ego can't let him doing that. How many times he didn't let the breakaway win stages in the Tour, when the GC was already in the pocket?!

He is arrogant and have a giant ego inside the bike. Outside the bike, he is not like LA, but i don't buy those tik toks and every clowning thing he does for the camera, because it's not natural, it's all part of UAE machine propaganda to make a good image of him, of a good boy.


Outside the bike, LA was obviously a jerk.

 

[Extinction]

I wasn't arguing that it's hard to know or that it's up to mere interpretation. Rather the opposite actually. Of course that's the question that it boils down to, but it's still a 'complex' fact because you need all sorts of concept's to constitute it. And with which concepts we do that and why is stil linteresting. I don't see why now. At least to me it is.



I don't really know what part of my post you are relating this to, so I'll just say: sure ontology has something to do with it. The existence of a substance is characterized by it being "performance enhancing", it furthermore is supposed to not to be used because it interferes with the natural 'being' of the cyclist. And also if you view 'ontology' as a basic inventory of types of stuff that can exist, than well this also happenes in Anti-Doping, you even have a list of banned substances, that have a common characteristic, in being "performance enhancing".

That which makes you go artificially faster is doping, however we want to put it on the plain of quantum physics.

 

[E_F_]

Nah, I still don't believe you can hide a motor system generating significant boost.

Why not?

 

[Cookster15]

Why not?

Because it can't be hidden and nothing posted here says they exist. It is only possible with UCI collusion. It would already be tried in Formula 1 if it was technically feasible.

 

[Nick2413]

I still think his non-participation in the Olympics is odd. It only comes around once every 4 years and we all know he could’ve won it. Plus it’s not like he dialed it down for the rest of the season to reduce suspicion, with what he did at WCRR and Lombardia. Whatever is being used, he doesn’t have a free pass with the IOC yet.

 

[Cookster15]

Outside the bike, LA was obviously a jerk.

He was a jerk on the bike too. Miss the Filippo Simeoni incident? I just don't see Pogacar as that kind of personality.

 

[Froome]

He was a jerk on the bike too. Miss the Filippo Simeoni incident? I just don't see Pogacar as that kind of personality.

I wasn't talking in those circumstances. I was talking about not rage the other teams, by not let breakaways happen, for example.

 

[houtdffan]

Pog rides for Saunier Duval
Vingo for the Bank Robbers
Remco for Mapei

OF COURSE THEY ARE ALL DOPING TO THE GILLS!

 

[E_F_]

Because it can't be hidden and nothing posted here says they exist. It is only possible with UCI collusion. It would already be tried in Formula 1 if it was technically feasible.

I fail to see why it's possible application in Formula 1 necessarily says anything about it's feasibility in cycling. There are plenty of reasons to think/know that such motor do exist. And I'll try again: How do you believe they would be detected?

 

[Casual cyclist]

Nah, I still don't believe you can hide a motor system generating significant boost. If true that would already have been tried in Formula 1 with far bigger budgets than even UAE (Formula 1 team budgets are restricted to $US 135mil). UAE's budget is €55 million to €60 million.

Are you serious about that? I mean, off-the-shelf road e-bikes that produce up to 500W of boost already look almost "normal". And a one-off custom system you can spend millions developing can't be made a bit smaller? You don't believe that but you do believe in an existence of chemical doping that can make a person produce 500W while in zone 2, chatting away, smile on the weasel-like face? Or do you think that sci-fi genetic doping is a more technically feasible (we are not talking about societal issues here, that it could destroy the sport etc.) solution than a mere brushless motor in one form or another?

P.S. As that celebrated Guardian sports writer already stated, the issue is not exactly what means Pog uses for forward propulsion. Rather, it is all about enjoyment of the show (if you can stomach it), the beauty of it and, of course, believing in miracles. Summarizing, just do not watch if you do not like it (and remain, according to the same writer, "profane and fearful") because many other people apparently do (and thereby choose "beauty beyond corruption, a hope beyond futility, a wonder beyond cynicism"), Thanks to the folks who found that article. To me, it pretty much says it all.

 

[TrekCyclist]

Because it can't be hidden and nothing posted here says they exist.

Whether a motor can be hidden, depends on how thoroughly one looks for it. If they have to hand in the bikes after the finish line, and a skilled mechanic can have a look - nothing can be hidden. Not sure, thats happening, though.
About the existance - there is a video where Tyler Hamilton gets one of these for a test ride. You just need 50W extra for 30 min at the end...which is less than 0,05 kWh.

 

[Cookster15]

Are you serious about that? I mean, off-the-shelf road e-bikes that produce up to 500W of boost already look almost "normal". And a one-off custom system you can spend millions developing can't be made a bit smaller? You don't believe that but you do believe in an existence of chemical doping that can make a person produce 500W while in zone 2, chatting away, smile on the weasel-like face? Or do you think that sci-fi genetic doping is a more technically feasible (we are not talking about societal issues here, that it could destroy the sport etc.) solution than a mere brushless motor in one form or another?

Trained mechanics can't find motors? UCI mechanics open the bottom brackets? I mentioned in other posts that only UCI collusion can allow that. Brushless motors are round. They can't be "distributed" as you put it. You are referring to possible magnetic assistance which I also doubt. As I also mentioned Formula 1 don't get away with such cheating and that sport has budgets that (still) dwarf anything that oil money invests in cycling. I am using Occum's razor here.

Edit: And no need to exaggerate about "500W while in zone 2, chatting away, smile on the weasel-like face". Nobody has suggested Indurain power level until now.

 

[Cookster15]

Whether a motor can be hidden, depends on how thoroughly one looks for it. If they have to hand in the bikes after the finish line, and a skilled mechanic can have a look - nothing can be hidden. Not sure, thats happening, though.
About the existance - there is a video where Tyler Hamilton gets one of these for a test ride. You just need 50W extra for 30 min at the end...which is less than 0,05 kWh.

That is what I suggested - possible UCI collusion.