Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[peterfin]

I would love to know what he is taking right now. He seems the only one to have a special doping program in UAE or he really is way more talented (e.g. better responder, copying better fatigue resistance, etc). AFAIK, LA and all his teammates were on the same doping program so this huge leap in Pogacar's performance is weird. I still believe we are back to EPO era but it is combined with something new on the menu. Climbing records are getting beaten very easily and science was advanced in the 90's/ early 00's

The data shows that it is not just Pogacar that got an "upgrade". Torres, Yates, Almeida, Sivakov, Ulissi ... They all made big jumps in performance this year. Check the performance history at Watts2win. Apart from Torres crazy climb, check out these: Adam Yates performance was very similar to Simon Yates maxing out at 80 but in 2024 it jumps to 85. For 5 years Sivakov had a score of about 70 and in 2024 it suddenly jumps to 80. Ulissi, a puncheur and not a climber, jumped from an average score of about 20 to 67.

 

[E_F_]

I’ve mentioned it already, but I think it just did not register sufficiently in most participants’ minds. So, I will try to say it again in a more focused way. “The Guardian” (one of the more prominent British/global media outlets) article by an award-winning sportswriter (Jonathan Liew) really tells any reasonably attentive reader all there is to know about this ‘Pogi miracle’. (Thanks to Rechtschreibfehler for bringing this article to my and everybody else’s attention.)

The article begins with a standard somewhat ornate description of how the WCRR progressed with an emphasis on Pog’s “suicidal” attack and Matty’s and Remmy’s corresponding evaluations of said attack as just that: suicidal. Then the author goes on recalling that equally suicidal (but not really, as we know) 80k solo in Strade earlier this year accompanying that by a standard wordy ‘blah-blah’ about “mind games”, “thespian flourish” and “spidey sense” which sounds a bit like an exercise in using SAT words in sentences.

But all that – along with the next paragraph mentioning the old Eddy’s and the young Remmy ‘s reactions to Pog’s “annus mirabilis”– is just an introduction that can be safely omitted by a reader keen on getting at the true meaning – the real core – of this remarkable article. And there it comes, with a small introduction of its own. The said introduction gently eases the reader into the punchline thereby masquerading the latter just enough to keep the general tone of the article not far from eulogical that seems to be the standard of the moment.

It goes as follows: “The story of cycling is a book that burns its believers on a serial scale, and so most dedicated followers exist in a kind of conditional incredulity: the more unbelievable it becomes, the more desperately we need to believe in it.” Put in simple terms, this just means that miracles like that have long been the norm in pro cycling, and really nothing that extraordinary has just happened. Those “unbelievable” (read: impossible for rational folks to believe in, so that some “desperation” is sorely needed for any belief to happen) rides we witnessed throughout this season should not make anyone all that worked up.

And the punchline itself – ready to meet the duly prepared reader – resides in the next paragraph that just straight-up likens the current version of pro cycling to …pro wrestling, the infamous WWE. The only difference between the two now, according to Liew, lies simply in the mode of the “artifice” development: in pro wrestling the audience submits to said artifice at the outset, and in pro cycling circa 2024, the artifice is “almost assembled piecemeal.” Why the difference, one may wonder. Well, at this point, it is not hard to guess: it is due simply to the relative newness of the pro cycling version of the show, compared to that of the pro wrestling one. The latter became what it is a long time ago. Everything else, according to the punchline paragraph of the article, is pretty much the same.

So, there we have it. Pro cycling now is a version of WWE and should be watched as such. Having said that much – and it is a lot to say, make no mistake – the author then gradually winds it down, again, to avoid straying too far from the required tone and to explain why such WWE-fication of pro cycling might not be such a bad thing after all.

First, he plays down the newness of the situation: “Doubtless there will be accusations and aspersions flung at him, as there have been all year, as they were at the last guy, and the next guy.” Yeah, it is nothing new: it’s been like that before, as the reference to the “last guy” unequivocally implies. Then the explanation of how the new show ought to be viewed is given. To begin with, one must stop trying “to reduce Pogacar to a soup of numbers and chemicals”, i.e. treating him like a traditional competitive athlete who is supposed to win or lose by use of his muscle power alone, preferably not enhanced in illegal ways (even though the latter almost always ends up being too much to ask). That would be, folks, “the narrowest and most boring way of appreciating him; the most boring way of appreciating sport.” Moreover, such “cynicism” is doomed to be “based on a bare minimum of hard facts” (i.e. those non-believing cynics better stop counting on ever obtaining any direct incriminating evidence – the system design is sufficiently tight for that).

And finally comes the conclusion accompanied by another bit of downplaying the main message: “Perhaps the reality is that around every great athlete grow two fictions: an elegant and an inelegant version.” Again, we see a reference to every great athlete (nothing new), but, at the same time, the above sentence starts with the hypothetical “perhaps”, i.e. it could well be that it is really nothing like that, and those “two fictions” is a new phenomenon, a transitional phase of sorts from a traditional sport with elements of a show to a pure show with a sporting theme. The first “fiction” is the traditionalist one, the way of thinking of the “old guard” of fans used to sporting competition on an equal footing. It is labeled “profane and fearful”, but, simply put, it is just misplaced by attempting to view an esthetic-centered show as a pure sporting competition. The second “fiction” is the intended one, pleasant and positive, embodying “a beauty beyond corruption, a hope beyond futility, a wonder beyond cynicism.” In a nutshell, one is expected to suspend any disbelief, sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

P.S. Why was cycling chosen to undergo such a transformation? Well, it is very popular in Europe, it takes place outside and thus can attract large numbers of live viewers, but, perhaps most importantly, it involves some relatively sophisticated technical equipment – the bikes themselves. And with the advent of brushless li-ion (or lipo) technology in the 90’s (and with the bikes’ internal volume growing considerably at the same time with the switch to carbon fiber) the temptation to “enhance” the show must have grown past the critical point.

Since our worldview will never correspond to reality (and even if it did, we wouldn't know that it did) we must embrace lies?

One of the so called "fictions" is not a fiction at all, but an honest attempt to find the truth.

There is no world beyond corruption, and as such a world beyond cynicism is a world in which cynicism and corruption have won - and a world of futility. What is phony beauty, hope, and wonder really worth? Are they worth turning into a donkey? Would I want a microchip in my brain that convinces me, that I'm happy and contented, that I've seen all of the world? No. I wouldn't want to somehow believe that Pogacar really does, what we're being told he does.

The thing is, though, before this year I watched even though it made me very sad that the whole thing was fishy - and therefore wasn't as entertaining as it could have been - because it did still entertain me, and I chose to suspend my disbelief and/or take it for what it was, because it was either that or nothing. Now I prefer nothing. It's not entertaining never mind beautiful.

 

[AnotherArmChair]

That Guardian article , like so many Guardian pieces, is full of bulls**t

For one thing it may have been written by a world renowned sports writer he clearly (like so many in sport) does not love cycling. In fact most mainstream journalists only ever distain to write about cycling when they want to draw attention to its nefarious background or suspected practices. The same journalists rarely if ever write on the shady world of rugby, tennis or horse racing ( to name a few) with such dedication. Rarely if ever are these sports, their stars and most of all their fans similarly chastised and they are never unceremoniously dropped into some smug piece on delusional

So according to this expert we must suffer cycling as equivalent to WWE and it should be watched as such or we must all be happy to have the wool pulled over our eyes and pretend as many ES commentator do that nothing untoward is going on and the riders are clean. To suggest this is to condemn cycling to a charade we are in on or one we are blind to. The problem with that is for one thing not all riders are cheating and part of the charade ,which was a requirement of WWE , where all participants knew the score. Secondly most fans want honest (as is possible) competition. Articles like that do cycling no favours

The third ways is we continue to question, to be cynical and to not accept everything at face value. Fight the fight of truth even if we never know the answer or never get a satisfying conclusion . And let the football and swimming fans sit with their head up their asses. And let Mr Jonathan Liew write about their delusional choices.

 

[Ripper]

I would love to know what he is taking right now. He seems the only one to have a special doping program in UAE or he really is way more talented (e.g. better responder, copying better fatigue resistance, etc). AFAIK, LA and all his teammates were on the same doping program so this huge leap in Pogacar's performance is weird. I still believe we are back to EPO era but it is combined with something new on the menu. Climbing records are getting beaten very easily and science was advanced in the 90's/ early 00's

The thing about Lance and team is that the rest of the team did not get the same access. Ferrari was lancie's main man. Sure, the team all greatly benefitted from Michele, but Armstrong had the edge. I believe this is summarized in a few places (here is a quick find on google: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/oct/11/lance-armstrong-drugs-us-postal-service).

The whole UAE thing just smells. The team is directly run by two extremely dirty and suspect individuals, and strongly bankrolled by an organization that is fairly deep into sportwashing and really, really wants to be number one - obviously that does not mean "100% guilty", but that alone, even without ridiculous performances, should be concern raising. With respect to their riders, many have seen a boost in their capacities, with some obviously really hitting the high notes, especially one of the thread's namesakes.

This is what is so troubling about equivocating doping with they are all doing it (not saying you are saying that, just more general ranting now). Doping is a very uneven playing field. Part science, part luck, and as is said in the movie Grosse Pointe Blank, a certain moral flexibility

 

[Ripper]

That Guardian article , like so many Guardian pieces, is full of bulls**t

For one thing it may have been written by a world renowned sports writer he clearly (like so many in sport) does not love cycling. In fact most mainstream journalists only ever distain to write about cycling when they want to draw attention to its nefarious background or suspected practices. The same journalists rarely if ever write on the shady world of rugby, tennis or horse racing ( to name a few) with such dedication. Rarely if ever are these sports, their stars and most of all their fans similarly chastised and they are never unceremoniously dropped into some smug piece on delusional

So according to this expert we must suffer cycling as equivalent to WWE and it should be watched as such or we must all be happy to have the wool pulled over our eyes and pretend as many ES commentator do that nothing untoward is going on and the riders are clean. To suggest this is to condemn cycling to a charade we are in on or one we are blind to. The problem with that is for one thing not all riders are cheating and part of the charade ,which was a requirement of WWE , where all participants knew the score. Secondly most fans want honest (as is possible) competition. Articles like that do cycling no favours

The third ways is we continue to question, to be cynical and to not accept everything at face value. Fight the fight of truth even if we never know the answer or never get a satisfying conclusion . And let the football and swimming fans sit with their head up their asses. And let Mr Jonathan Liew write about their delusional choices.

I read that article and I have to agree. It was complete crap. I mean, what a sad worldview to have - enjoy it or be depressed by questioning it. Erm, one can be highly skeptical of silliness and still love the sport with passion and enjoy it greatly. We are big boys and girls and can do both. I think the article was a journalistic cop out

 

[Oldermanish]

Watched the rather looong interview of Armstrong by Bill Maher. At approx 1:14:30 Armstrong says the drug (EPO) was quote "the rocket fuel that changed not only our sport, but all endurance sports", and further "a drug that is wildly beneficial" both for top end performance and rercovery giving an increase of "10%"; and now we are to believe Teddy is just so much faster on talent alone? With Gianetti-Matxin behind the scenes? Come on.

View: https://youtu.be/rlDKKez4q7o?si=8l09UgWYPxvhnFUq

We can believe that almost all of UAE's competition is lacking the depth, resources and cover of the UAE system to practice their respective programs. It's been a very, very disparate season for injuries. Visma fans can cry all they want and Remco's supporters may want to believe it's just down to Pogi's chemical edge. We can't be naive about one perspective and zealous about another. They are all playing on the same field. Quit whining and find the facts.

 

[dr.eve]

I would love to know what he is taking right now. He seems the only one to have a special doping program in UAE or he really is way more talented (e.g. better responder, copying better fatigue resistance, etc). AFAIK, LA and all his teammates were on the same doping program so this huge leap in Pogacar's performance is weird. I still believe we are back to EPO era but it is combined with something new on the menu. Climbing records are getting beaten very easily and science was advanced in the 90's/ early 00's

I agree. I myself do not believe in the feasibility of motor doping. I come from a drug development background and I see enough possibilities for sports people to enhance things with certain drugs, even with tests.

And let's be honest, if motor doping is on the table... even genetic doping should be on the table. The possibilities are endless, in theory that is.

I do not agree with you that a whole team should be in on it. If I would run a team and want to use doping in the team I would use it selectively. Why put a rider like Sjoerd Bax or Majka on doping when all they need to do is assist Pogi? (E.g. providing food and drinks, keeping out of wind) Having everyone on a doping program increases the risk of leaking and detection.

And here is also where Giannetti comes into play, has ample personal experience using doping as cyclist and manager. On top of that he can learn from all the other doping cases, also LA. He can adapt, not make the same mistakes again. Thinking about this, this makes it exactly ridiculous that he has this second or even 3rd chance in cycling (of course more people like him are still in the peloton).

 

[meat puppet]

One thing I do wonder is if there's peptides that upregulate the formation of mitochondria an other intracellular machinery for fat and carbohydrate metabolization how much effect that's gonna have on capacity to consume oxygen. From my understanding, diffusion goes passively it should be gradient based and therefor increasing use intracullarly you'll consume more oxygen even with the same red blood cell mass.

In general, some oxygen will return from
the working muscles to the heart even at max exercise. If more of that remainder could be used thanks to improvements at the level of o2 diffusing and utilizing tissues, surely it helps performance.

In exercise science lit, Peter Wagner and colleagues have for a long time argued that the central (cardiac output, blood) and peripheral (here: diffusion and utilisation of oxygen at the cellular level) interact and co-determine vo2max. The more conventional view has emphasised the central factors. Can't say who is right, how much the perspectives ultimately disagree, and so on, but Wagner's theory is nevertheless an interesting perspective that might add to your questions.

The context here is pros but if you think about it, muscular adaptations (more capillaries, mitochondria etc) are behind improved endurance performance in everyone, at least once you advance beyond the beginner stage where plasma volume expansion mostly drives things.

In practical terms eventually you will need great metabolic endurance to actually be able to challenge the heart and improve the central factors of vo2max; and of course a high vo2max is a requirement to have a high threshold or metabolic fitness. Etc.

As for how to game mitochondria via peptides I don't know.

 

[Extinction]

We can believe that almost all of UAE's competition is lacking the depth, resources and cover of the UAE system to practice their respective programs. It's been a very, very disparate season for injuries. Visma fans can cry all they want and Remco's supporters may want to believe it's just down to Pogi's chemical edge. We can't be naive about one perspective and zealous about another. They are all playing on the same field. Quit whining and find the facts.

Oh, boy, here we go again with their all playing on a "level playing field" again. Why don't you come up with a more structured counter-argument as to why an operation run by Gianetti-Maxtin, the gurus of Ricco, Piepoli and Cobo, financed by sports-washing petrol dollarls, has increased the level of their marquis rider to unfathonable heights of dominance this year? And I'm not naive to any perspective, just certain situations are more intolerable than others, as I have previously stated.

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

Oh, boy, here we go again with their all playing on a "level playing field" again. Why don't you come up with a more structured counter-argument as to why an operation run by Gianetti-Maxtin, the gurus of Ricco, Piepoli and Cobo, financed by sports-washing petrol dollarls, has increased the level of their marquis rider to unfathonable heights of dominance this year? And I'm not naive to any perspective, just certain situations are more intolerable than others, as I have previously stated.

Talking about naivety, I find the religious belief in doping being the one and only answer to anything exceptional in cycling quite naive. I get that it's a simple, black-and-white answer to things we don't understand, but from perusing this and other forums looking for any kind of hard evidence or indications of wrongdoing, it's quite striking how bare the cupboard is currently. Rather than a sign of superior critical thinking skills, the unflinching conviction about large-scale doping of so many cycling fans is a pure leap of faith.

Now, I hold an equally steadfast belief in the contrary. If doping were as endemic as some seem to believe, I find it quite incredible that no one in or around the sport has blown the whistle about it. Doping is a nice catch-all that we all hate. But that also goes for the many people engaged with the sport whose livelihoods are at stake. Don't try to tell me that the entire professional circuit, including journalists and all the passionate volunteers and fans of the sport, would accept cheating. If some major scheme involves one or more teams, new methods, and such, we will have some sort of sniff of it by now. Yet, at the moment, the only argument for doping seems to be that the performances are too good, without any science backing the claims about a hard limit to human performance on the bike or that we're surpassing it.

When it comes to a scheme by an individual team (i.e. UAE), the same thing goes. They have the most talented rider, and they can financially dope to basically buy half his rivals, all without the risks of doping. I don't understand why they would opt for a complex extra doping scheme. Riders talk, staff talk, they change teams, and in the end, this stuff always comes out somehow. The weight of risk and reward seems deeply skewed in the wrong direction, and as sports washing goes, it seems like exactly the thing you would not want your name on. That does not exclude riders doing stuff, but it does not seem plausible there's a large operation behind it.

A specific UAE scheme would also not explain the overall rising speed in the peloton, only specifically their dominance. Like in other sports, cycling is extremely unequal economically, and like in other sports, the distance between the best and the rest is increasing. This means that, realistically, UAE only has a couple of real competitors. JV is close to them but has had a disastrous season. Ineos is giving up. Who else would compete? I think the top teams buying up all the talent is a better explanation for their dominance this season, as with JV's dominance last year.

As for the man himself, Pog is obviously an outlier even if we accept rising speeds or UAE financial muscles. However, across sports, there are always outliers. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that's the case also in cycling, where until recently, the talent pool was basically Belgium, some French and Italian communes, + weird loners around the world. For one, I find Messi's imperious talent for football, far beyond any of the 100s of millions of global fanatics, far more impressive. As for his progression, he's been the best cyclist in the world since he was 21. If you had told me in 2020, he would be unbeatable at 26, and it would seem completely within the realms of possibility as a career progression. Not to speak of the well-known improvements in all aspects of his preparation. It seems that the kid who won the Tour was far from the finished product, and far from the well-groomed professional. Which is also a normal thing for a young guy in a not-optimised team. It was also commonly known that JV was miles ahead of UAE some years ago in terms of its setup and professionalism. It seems Pog won the tour twice based on pure raw talent, which is arguably even more incredible than the current iteration as a fully developed steed in a well-oiled machine of a team.

Ultimately, the same argument applies to him as to the team: I'm sure he looks for any possible way to improve, but he was already at the top, already the best rider with the biggest salary for the best and richest team. Why would he do something to risk all that when he had room for improvement to arrive at JV's level of preparation even without risking it by hatching up an illegal scheme?

When it comes down to it, as there's not the slightest proof that something is largely wrong in the peloton, a belief in large-scale doping is simply a personal leap of faith. You may choose to believe what the riders are doing is impossible, although I have yet to see anyone give any weighty arguments for why it would be beyond human capabilities. You may also believe that the level difference between Pog and the rest is impossible, but again, sport is full of outliers, and I don't think you would find many people claiming Pog is the most dominant sportsperson ever.

I understand why people believe Pog/Uae/Peloton are doping. Of course, it's within the realm of possibility. But we should also accept that it's just as possible that they are clean. Not doing either is plainly naive and grossly exaggerates the extent of our knowledge of the situation. Of course, it's a personal choice to decide which myth to believe in. For my own part, I prefer enjoying the show, admiring the athletes, and believing that it will all come out, one way or the other. It's not naive; it's just accepting the limits of our knowledge and accepting to live with that uncertainty as a part of life.

However, I do keep a very close eye on this thread, as I trust the more misanthropic contributors on this forum will quickly alert me if more substantial indications of wrongdoing rise to the surface. Thank you all for wading through the vale of performance-enhanced tears so that the rest of us can experience the era of the cycling Messias in blissful ignorance!

PS: Wow, talking about chemically enhanced performances, that cup of coffee must have increased my rant length by at least 20%. I trust the Forum Antidoping Agency will take action.

 

[Extinction]

Talking about naivety, I find the religious belief in doping being the one and only answer to anything exceptional in cycling quite naive. I get that it's a simple, black-and-white answer to things we don't understand, but from perusing this and other forums looking for any kind of hard evidence or indications of wrongdoing, it's quite striking how bare the cupboard is currently. Rather than a sign of superior critical thinking skills, the unflinching conviction about large-scale doping of so many cycling fans is a pure leap of faith.

Now, I hold an equally steadfast belief in the contrary. If doping were as endemic as some seem to believe, I find it quite incredible that no one in or around the sport has blown the whistle about it. Doping is a nice catch-all that we all hate. But that also goes for the many people engaged with the sport whose livelihoods are at stake. Don't try to tell me that the entire professional circuit, including journalists and all the passionate volunteers and fans of the sport, would accept cheating. If some major scheme involves one or more teams, new methods, and such, we will have some sort of sniff of it by now. Yet, at the moment, the only argument for doping seems to be that the performances are too good, without any science backing the claims about a hard limit to human performance on the bike or that we're surpassing it.

When it comes to a scheme by an individual team (i.e. UAE), the same thing goes. They have the most talented rider, and they can financially dope to basically buy half his rivals, all without the risks of doping. I don't understand why they would opt for a complex extra doping scheme. Riders talk, staff talk, they change teams, and in the end, this stuff always comes out somehow. The weight of risk and reward seems deeply skewed in the wrong direction, and as sports washing goes, it seems like exactly the thing you would not want your name on. That does not exclude riders doing stuff, but it does not seem plausible there's a large operation behind it.

A specific UAE scheme would also not explain the overall rising speed in the peloton, only specifically their dominance. Like in other sports, cycling is extremely unequal economically, and like in other sports, the distance between the best and the rest is increasing. This means that, realistically, UAE only has a couple of real competitors. JV is close to them but has had a disastrous season. Ineos is giving up. Who else would compete? I think the top teams buying up all the talent is a better explanation for their dominance this season, as with JV's dominance last year.

As for the man himself, Pog is obviously an outlier even if we accept rising speeds or UAE financial muscles. However, across sports, there are always outliers. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that's the case also in cycling, where until recently, the talent pool was basically Belgium, some French and Italian communes, + weird loners around the world. For one, I find Messi's imperious talent for football, far beyond any of the 100s of millions of global fanatics, far more impressive. As for his progression, he's been the best cyclist in the world since he was 21. If you had told me in 2020, he would be unbeatable at 26, and it would seem completely within the realms of possibility as a career progression. Not to speak of the well-known improvements in all aspects of his preparation. It seems that the kid who won the Tour was far from the finished product, and far from the well-groomed professional. Which is also a normal thing for a young guy in a not-optimised team. It was also commonly known that JV was miles ahead of UAE some years ago in terms of its setup and professionalism. It seems Pog won the tour twice based on pure raw talent, which is arguably even more incredible than the current iteration as a fully developed steed in a well-oiled machine of a team.

Ultimately, the same argument applies to him as to the team: I'm sure he looks for any possible way to improve, but he was already at the top, already the best rider with the biggest salary for the best and richest team. Why would he do something to risk all that when he had room for improvement to arrive at JV's level of preparation even without risking it by hatching up an illegal scheme?

When it comes down to it, as there's not the slightest proof that something is largely wrong in the peloton, a belief in large-scale doping is simply a personal leap of faith. You may choose to believe what the riders are doing is impossible, although I have yet to see anyone give any weighty arguments for why it would be beyond human capabilities. You may also believe that the level difference between Pog and the rest is impossible, but again, sport is full of outliers, and I don't think you would find many people claiming Pog is the most dominant sportsperson ever.

I understand why people believe Pog/Uae/Peloton are doping. Of course, it's within the realm of possibility. But we should also accept that it's just as possible that they are clean. Not doing either is plainly naive and grossly exaggerates the extent of our knowledge of the situation. Of course, it's a personal choice to decide which myth to believe in. For my own part, I prefer enjoying the show, admiring the athletes, and believing that it will all come out, one way or the other. It's not naive; it's just accepting the limits of our knowledge and accepting to live with that uncertainty as a part of life.

However, I do keep a very close eye on this thread, as I trust the more misanthropic contributors on this forum will quickly alert me if more substantial indications of wrongdoing rise to the surface. Thank you all for wading through the vale of performance-enhanced tears so that the rest of us can experience the era of the cycling Messias in blissful ignorance!

PS: Wow, talking about chemically enhanced performances, that cup of coffee must have increased my rant length by at least 20%. I trust the Forum Antidoping Agency will take action.

You clearly haven't been paying attention. 😂 I stopped believing in fairy tales back in 1995, upon my initiation to how cycling is played in Europe. Dottore Carlo Santuccione of Pescara was giving the boys EPO and vitamine, and the fog was cleared from my eyes. Suddenly it all made sense. For this reason I already called Armstrong out at the 98 Vuelta. Nobody back home would believe me and I was insulted as anti-American. Of course, I never got one apology when it all came out. So you can lecture me with all your wild and baseless theories. I don't care. Live with the blinders on, but spare us all the tedium. That's not how it works, still less in an operation run by Gianetti-Matxin. The sport has clearly not evolved on a virtuous path, but simply found better ways, and a likely complicit governing body, to cover it up while pretending to fight the phenomenon. Just take your first paragraph, it's exactly what the arrogantly clueless said (like the Lance brigade to me), until the various Festina Affairs, Operacion Puertos, Oprah shows, etc., and then folks still have the timerity to write such things. It's mind-boggling.

 

[bNator]

Since our worldview will never correspond to reality (and even if it did, we wouldn't know that it did) we must embrace lies?

One of the so called "fictions" is not a fiction at all, but an honest attempt to find the truth.

There is no world beyond corruption, and as such a world beyond cynicism is a world in which cynicism and corruption have won - and a world of futility. What is phony beauty, hope, and wonder really worth? Are they worth turning into a donkey? Would I want a microchip in my brain that convinces me, that I'm happy and contented, that I've seen all of the world? No. I wouldn't want to somehow believe that Pogacar really does, what we're being told he does.

The thing is, though, before this year I watched even though it made me very sad that the whole thing was fishy - and therefore wasn't as entertaining as it could have been - because it did still entertain me, and I chose to suspend my disbelief and/or take it for what it was, because it was either that or nothing. Now I prefer nothing. It's not entertaining never mind beautiful.

But in this case, your "struggle" is not so much to fight against corruption but to get your entertainment. What really seems to bug you is not that riders are doping but that they are doping to the point when it's less entertaining than it used to be.

 

[Nick2413]

Talking about naivety, I find the religious belief in doping being the one and only answer to anything exceptional in cycling quite naive. I get that it's a simple, black-and-white answer to things we don't understand, but from perusing this and other forums looking for any kind of hard evidence or indications of wrongdoing, it's quite striking how bare the cupboard is currently. Rather than a sign of superior critical thinking skills, the unflinching conviction about large-scale doping of so many cycling fans is a pure leap of faith.

Now, I hold an equally steadfast belief in the contrary. If doping were as endemic as some seem to believe, I find it quite incredible that no one in or around the sport has blown the whistle about it. Doping is a nice catch-all that we all hate. But that also goes for the many people engaged with the sport whose livelihoods are at stake. Don't try to tell me that the entire professional circuit, including journalists and all the passionate volunteers and fans of the sport, would accept cheating. If some major scheme involves one or more teams, new methods, and such, we will have some sort of sniff of it by now. Yet, at the moment, the only argument for doping seems to be that the performances are too good, without any science backing the claims about a hard limit to human performance on the bike or that we're surpassing it.

When it comes to a scheme by an individual team (i.e. UAE), the same thing goes. They have the most talented rider, and they can financially dope to basically buy half his rivals, all without the risks of doping. I don't understand why they would opt for a complex extra doping scheme. Riders talk, staff talk, they change teams, and in the end, this stuff always comes out somehow. The weight of risk and reward seems deeply skewed in the wrong direction, and as sports washing goes, it seems like exactly the thing you would not want your name on. That does not exclude riders doing stuff, but it does not seem plausible there's a large operation behind it.

A specific UAE scheme would also not explain the overall rising speed in the peloton, only specifically their dominance. Like in other sports, cycling is extremely unequal economically, and like in other sports, the distance between the best and the rest is increasing. This means that, realistically, UAE only has a couple of real competitors. JV is close to them but has had a disastrous season. Ineos is giving up. Who else would compete? I think the top teams buying up all the talent is a better explanation for their dominance this season, as with JV's dominance last year.

As for the man himself, Pog is obviously an outlier even if we accept rising speeds or UAE financial muscles. However, across sports, there are always outliers. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that's the case also in cycling, where until recently, the talent pool was basically Belgium, some French and Italian communes, + weird loners around the world. For one, I find Messi's imperious talent for football, far beyond any of the 100s of millions of global fanatics, far more impressive. As for his progression, he's been the best cyclist in the world since he was 21. If you had told me in 2020, he would be unbeatable at 26, and it would seem completely within the realms of possibility as a career progression. Not to speak of the well-known improvements in all aspects of his preparation. It seems that the kid who won the Tour was far from the finished product, and far from the well-groomed professional. Which is also a normal thing for a young guy in a not-optimised team. It was also commonly known that JV was miles ahead of UAE some years ago in terms of its setup and professionalism. It seems Pog won the tour twice based on pure raw talent, which is arguably even more incredible than the current iteration as a fully developed steed in a well-oiled machine of a team.

Ultimately, the same argument applies to him as to the team: I'm sure he looks for any possible way to improve, but he was already at the top, already the best rider with the biggest salary for the best and richest team. Why would he do something to risk all that when he had room for improvement to arrive at JV's level of preparation even without risking it by hatching up an illegal scheme?

When it comes down to it, as there's not the slightest proof that something is largely wrong in the peloton, a belief in large-scale doping is simply a personal leap of faith. You may choose to believe what the riders are doing is impossible, although I have yet to see anyone give any weighty arguments for why it would be beyond human capabilities. You may also believe that the level difference between Pog and the rest is impossible, but again, sport is full of outliers, and I don't think you would find many people claiming Pog is the most dominant sportsperson ever.

I understand why people believe Pog/Uae/Peloton are doping. Of course, it's within the realm of possibility. But we should also accept that it's just as possible that they are clean. Not doing either is plainly naive and grossly exaggerates the extent of our knowledge of the situation. Of course, it's a personal choice to decide which myth to believe in. For my own part, I prefer enjoying the show, admiring the athletes, and believing that it will all come out, one way or the other. It's not naive; it's just accepting the limits of our knowledge and accepting to live with that uncertainty as a part of life.

However, I do keep a very close eye on this thread, as I trust the more misanthropic contributors on this forum will quickly alert me if more substantial indications of wrongdoing rise to the surface. Thank you all for wading through the vale of performance-enhanced tears so that the rest of us can experience the era of the cycling Messias in blissful ignorance!

PS: Wow, talking about chemically enhanced performances, that cup of coffee must have increased my rant length by at least 20%. I trust the Forum Antidoping Agency will take action.

We are all believing in things we have no specific proof of, the difference is all of history and human physiology are not on your side.

 

[Gratemans]

But in this case, your "struggle" is not so much to fight against corruption but to get your entertainment. What really seems to bug you is not that riders are doping but that they are doping to the point when it's less entertaining than it used to be.

And what's wrong with that? At its core, sport is about just that: entertainment.

 

[Nick2413]

And what's wrong with that? At its core, sport is about just that: entertainment.

For me it’s impossible to enjoy a show that’s more about pharmaceutical enhancement than anything else. Genetics make it such that work ethic and training alone can’t completely level the playing field, but the more that doping is involved the more the needle will point to things produced in a lab determining the outcome.

 

[Extinction]

For me it’s impossible to enjoy a show that’s more about pharmaceutical enhancement than anything else. Genetics make it such that work ethic and training alone can’t completely level the playing field, but the more that doping is involved the more the needle will point to things produced in a lab determining the outcome.

Look at Froome today. That's all you need to know. He started to have to ride more or less clean and he became pathetic. All the other BS involving the accident, was just a diversion to obfuscate how his career had been forged in the laboratory, not by talent. Now we can see what actual talent can do when forged in a top notch laboratory, a Frankenstein, an alchemical Homunculus.

 

[Gratemans]

For me it’s impossible to enjoy a show that’s more about pharmaceutical enhancement than anything else. Genetics make it such that work ethic and training alone can’t completely level the playing field, but the more that doping is involved the more the needle will point to things produced in a lab determining the outcome.

Oh sure, but the limit of when you're still entertained is different for everyone.
I mean what's going on now surely robs me of my entertainment as well. But I also know the peloton never will be completely clean.
It makes me wonder where I draw the line myself exactly.

 

[Extinction]

Oh sure, but the limit of when you're still entertained is different for everyone.
I mean what's going on now surely robs me of my entertainment as well. But I also know the peloton never will be completely clean.
It makes me wonder where I draw the line myself exactly.

You know you've become an anti-fan when you watch in earnest to see how long it takes for someone to be taken down (or simply fade away).

 

[E_F_]

But in this case, your "struggle" is not so much to fight against corruption but to get your entertainment. What really seems to bug you is not that riders are doping but that they are doping to the point when it's less entertaining than it used to be.

My Struggle: I do think that doping is wrong. Period. I think it devalues sport by destroying its credibility. I also want to be entertained by sport. That requires close contests and unpredictability. This isn't cognitive dissonance - just an interplay of different kinds of value judgments.

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

We are all believing in things we have no specific proof of, the difference is all of history and human physiology are not on your side.

If all of history and human physiology were on your side, I would be stupid to doubt it for even a second. But from what I can tell, it's just your opinion

 

[Nick2413]

If all of history and human physiology were on your side, I would be stupid to doubt it for even a second. But from what I can tell, it's just your opinion

I also don’t have evidence unicorns don’t exist, maybe you are right.

 

[snipeheem]

My Struggle: I do think that doping is wrong. Period. I think it devalues sport by destroying its credibility. I also want to be entertained by sport. That requires close contests and unpredictability. This isn't cognitive dissonance - just an interplay of different kinds of value judgments.

To qoute Nate Diaz „everybody’s on steroids” that applies to 90% athletes on the planet.If u want to watch clean sports then i have a bad news for you , of course doping is wrong but nobody can do anything about it , maybe just dont watch the sport at all?

 

[E_F_]

To qoute Nate Diaz „everybody’s on steroids” that applies to 90% athletes on the planet.If u want to watch clean sports then i have a bad news for you , of course doping is wrong but nobody can do anything about it , maybe just dont watch the sport at all?

You really misunderstood me there...

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. 😂 I stopped believing in fairy tales back in 1995, upon my initiation to how cycling is played in Europe. Dottore Carlo Santuccione of Pescara was giving the boys EPO and vitamine, and the fog was cleared from my eyes. Suddenly it all made sense. For this reason I already called Armstrong out at the 98 Vuelta. Nobody back home would believe me and I was insulted as anti-American. Of course, I never got one apology when it all came out. So you can lecture me with all your wild and baseless theories. I don't care. Live with the blinders on, but spare us all the tedium. That's not how it works, still less in an operation run by Gianetti-Matxin. The sport has clearly not evolved on a virtuous path, but simply found better ways, and a likely complicit governing body, to cover it up while pretending to fight the phenomenon. Just take your first paragraph, it's exactly what the arrogantly clueless said (like the Lance brigade to me), until the various Festina Affairs, Operacion Puertos, Oprah shows, etc., and then folks still have the timerity to write such things. It's mind-boggling.

Absolutely crazy times. Thirty years ago, doping was ingrained in the sport, but attitudes are very different now.

All cycling fans have doubts, but it's a long way from that to being 100 confident they're all doing this big evil doping scheme when it's so hard to find even rumours about it from within the circuit. Would no one call it out? What about the guys not getting contracts, the talented riders refusing because of moral scruples, and everyone getting cold feet because of the immense consequences of getting caught? Or just simply all the people around the sport who condemn cheating. They must be running an incredibly tight ship.

Probably my wildest, most baseless theory is that many people in cycling are genuinely lovely people and hate the damage doping did to the sport. Following a lot of the media, the personal channels, the vlogs and pods or whatever, I truly think that lots of them are good guys. I don't believe a big conspiracy with many people in the know is possible anymore because doping has become such a no-go, and someone would call it out. I'm not excluding the occasional bad apple, though.

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

I also don’t have evidence unicorns don’t exist, maybe you are right.

I think we're on the wrong track here... I hate to break it to you but there's enough evidence that unicorns don't exist (Pointing to some degree of epistemological uncertainty does not mean rejecting positive knowledge altogether)