Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Extinction]

Lo

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.

Look at the speeds (it's impossible to ride them in the "post-EPO" era), look at the history of omertà and then still believe in the theory of a "few bad apples" fairy tale. That doesn't change in a few years, if it ever does, but keeps getting more sophisticated and entrenched with higher investments. You'll find all the epistemology you need to follow there, or keep the blinders on.

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

Lo

Look at the speeds (it's impossible to ride them in the "post-EPO" era), look at the history of omertà and then still believe in the theory of a "few bad apples" fairy tale. That doesn't change in a few years, if it ever does, but keeps getting more sophisticated and entrenched with higher investments. You'll find all the epistemology you need to follow there, or keep the blinders on.

Riding faster than in the 90s is hardly shocking, is it? Such is the progress of sports. The fact it took 30 years to reach the same level shows how crazy that era was. For me, the thing that's most difficult to understand is the difference from 2019, across the board. But there's plenty of incremental gains and partial explanations that, in sum, might explain it. In any case, it seems silly to exclude it completely based on nothing but a vague sense that it should not be possible.

The "blinders" thing is tiresome rhetoric. If you have access to some dangerous "truth" that all us other sheep are ignoring, please share. Otherwise, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I think I'm just as open to your theory as you are to my doubts.

 

[proffate]

Riding faster than in the 90s is hardly shocking, is it? Such is the progress of sports.

Uh, what? Why should human vo2 max (or strength, or speed) continue to increase over the decades? Humans are not iphones.

 

[Nick2413]

The "blinders" thing is tiresome rhetoric. If you have access to some dangerous "truth" that all us other sheep are ignoring, please share. Otherwise, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I think I'm just as open to your theory as you are to my doubts.

From a legal perspective sure the riders are innocent until proven guilty (and I support that), but in a realistic sense the burden of proof rests on you as you’re the one making assertions that are completely at odds with the history of the sport and everything we know about human physiology.

 

[hulkgogan]

Riding faster than in the 90s is hardly shocking, is it? Such is the progress of sports. The fact it took 30 years to reach the same level shows how crazy that era was. For me, the thing that's most difficult to understand is the difference from 2019, across the board. But there's plenty of incremental gains and partial explanations that, in sum, might explain it. In any case, it seems silly to exclude it completely based on nothing but a vague sense that it should not be possible.

The "blinders" thing is tiresome rhetoric. If you have access to some dangerous "truth" that all us other sheep are ignoring, please share. Otherwise, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I think I'm just as open to your theory as you are to my doubts.

I think it's enlightening to quote Ross Tucker way back in 2010.

"And this leaves me, anyway, with the thought, or hypothesis, that performance in the 2009 and 2010 Tours have been curtailed. The 6.3W/kg finishing climbs of the 90’s and 2000’s would have seen Contador and Schleck finishing minutes down on a climb like the Tourmalet. In other words, those EPO/blood doping era riders would be to Contador what Contador currently is to Gesink, Menchov, Sanchez. Is the standard of cycling that much lower? I don’t think so, and my thought is that so far, we’re seeing an overall suppression of doping in the Tour"

"Yes, I think so. The implication of 7 W/kg for any length of time is significant. Given that we have some indication of Lance Armstrong’s cycling efficiency from the research done on him by Ed Coyle, it’s possible to estimate the oxygen cost of riding at 7W/kg. Coyle found that back in 1999, Armstrong’s efficiency was 23.1%. Using this measurement, 7W/kg would "cost" about 86 ml/kg/min of oxygen. Now, if a cyclist can sustain that for even 30 minutes, then they’ve got a massive engine, the likes of which have never been seen, not even close. An estimate for VO2max here is somewhere between 96 and 101 ml/kg/min. The analogy is that if a state-of-the-art supercar suddenly found itself riding alongside a Toyota Prius, you’d wonder what was under the hood of that Prius! Even if you raise the efficiency, you’re left with highly unusual physiology."

Ross Tucker - NYVelocity

Sports Scientist talks climbing speeds The Science of Sport blog has been one of the leaders in charting climbing speeds and power over the history of the Tour. This year,... Read more »

nyvelocity.com

I'd also point out the Watt Police guys, the guys who do the graphs for Lanterne Rouge have said that Pog has improved his power by 10% this year. I don't even know how that is even possible without blowing up the blood passport. Hence all the motor doping angst.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAtiKfoHf0E&t=1153s


In the comments.

So it's not like the red flags aren't there. Speculating about good guys in cycling, and whether conspiracies can hold, it's immaterial in the face of the evidence in front of you. If a Sasquatch knocks at your door, there no point telling him he doesn't exist.

 

[Divergence]

Let us, for a moment, assume everybody is clean. What would the incentive be for anybody not named Pog to reach for illicit substances in order to increase his competitiveness? I would assume someone would. And that might trigger a chain reaction. Therefore, it seems to me, game theoretically people are doping.
This is just one line of reasoning but I cannot find much wrong with it bar these two:
1. The riders are honest incorruptible people. There is some credence to this theory but it is well known that there are people who are still getting caught, so we know that not everybody is such a person. If there are less than honest people in the very top crop of the riders is the question.
2. The testing is too good so nobody dares. This is not very likely because the best people are rarely going to waste their intellect and ability to make a good living by working for WADA to develop ironclad tests. More likely, the best people in this area are working for pharmaceutical companies or some other sorts of institutes which care to make new potent drugs and which pay substantially more.

On the other hand, what the new user @Rule #9 apostle wrote is also a valid line or reasoning...

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

Uh, what? Why should human vo2 max (or strength, or speed) continue to increase over the decades? Humans are not iphones.

Come on now. Training, technology, nutrition, talent pool, financial support to mention a few. This is pretty basic across all sports. In cycling I would add indoor training, democratizaion of training knowledge to younger athletes, and a major jump in access to data and structuring of training through powermeters. That the 75 kg climbers in the 90s were beating that is sick.

Not sure how this can explain the speed increase from 2019 though

 

[Extinction]

Riding faster than in the 90s is hardly shocking, is it? Such is the progress of sports. The fact it took 30 years to reach the same level shows how crazy that era was. For me, the thing that's most difficult to understand is the difference from 2019, across the board. But there's plenty of incremental gains and partial explanations that, in sum, might explain it. In any case, it seems silly to exclude it completely based on nothing but a vague sense that it should not be possible.

The "blinders" thing is tiresome rhetoric. If you have access to some dangerous "truth" that all us other sheep are ignoring, please share. Otherwise, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I think I'm just as open to your theory as you are to my doubts.

My dear Watson, the speeds never came down, they even got faster after the 90s.

Riding faster than in the 90s is hardly shocking, is it? Such is the progress of sports. The fact it took 30 years to reach the same level shows how crazy that era was. For me, the thing that's most difficult to understand is the difference from 2019, across the board. But there's plenty of incremental gains and partial explanations that, in sum, might explain it. In any case, it seems silly to exclude it completely based on nothing but a vague sense that it should not be possible.

The "blinders" thing is tiresome rhetoric. If you have access to some dangerous "truth" that all us other sheep are ignoring, please share. Otherwise, you have your opinion, I have mine, and I think I'm just as open to your theory as you are to my doubts.

Tour de France records and statistics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

At only the Tour, however, the speeds have gotten incrementally faster or remained constant since the dirty 90s/Armstrong era and it's the same with the classics. Try again old boy. 😂

You completely discount how powerful doping actually is, 10% on EPO alone by most estimates. And now you think they've compensated for that on training and nutrition alone, with the bikes weighing the same, to then go significantly faster? What alternative world do you live in?

 

[E_F_]

Is the standard of cycling that much lower? I don’t think so, and my thought is that so far, we’re seeing an overall suppression of doping in the Tour

And yet they were still doping back then... Makes ya think!

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

I think it's enlightening to quote Ross Tucker way back in 2010.

"And this leaves me, anyway, with the thought, or hypothesis, that performance in the 2009 and 2010 Tours have been curtailed. The 6.3W/kg finishing climbs of the 90’s and 2000’s would have seen Contador and Schleck finishing minutes down on a climb like the Tourmalet. In other words, those EPO/blood doping era riders would be to Contador what Contador currently is to Gesink, Menchov, Sanchez. Is the standard of cycling that much lower? I don’t think so, and my thought is that so far, we’re seeing an overall suppression of doping in the Tour"

"Yes, I think so. The implication of 7 W/kg for any length of time is significant. Given that we have some indication of Lance Armstrong’s cycling efficiency from the research done on him by Ed Coyle, it’s possible to estimate the oxygen cost of riding at 7W/kg. Coyle found that back in 1999, Armstrong’s efficiency was 23.1%. Using this measurement, 7W/kg would "cost" about 86 ml/kg/min of oxygen. Now, if a cyclist can sustain that for even 30 minutes, then they’ve got a massive engine, the likes of which have never been seen, not even close. An estimate for VO2max here is somewhere between 96 and 101 ml/kg/min. The analogy is that if a state-of-the-art supercar suddenly found itself riding alongside a Toyota Prius, you’d wonder what was under the hood of that Prius! Even if you raise the efficiency, you’re left with highly unusual physiology."

Ross Tucker - NYVelocity

Sports Scientist talks climbing speeds The Science of Sport blog has been one of the leaders in charting climbing speeds and power over the history of the Tour. This year,... Read more »

nyvelocity.com

I'd also point out the Watt Police guys, the guys who do the graphs for Lanterne Rouge have said that Pog has improved his power by 10% this year. I don't even know how that is even possible without blowing up the blood passport. Hence all the motor doping angst.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAtiKfoHf0E&t=1153s


In the comments.

So it's not like the red flags aren't there. Speculating about good guys in cycling, and whether conspiracies can hold, it's immaterial in the face of the evidence in front of you. If a Sasquatch knocks at your door, there no point telling him he doesn't exist.

Ross Tuckers comments are from 15 years ago. And we know that performance dipped massively. Which of course is great, because it means the methods of the 00s disappeared. However cycling looks really different now than then. At all levels. And performances are increasing across the board. What is the basis for saying that there would be no way of reaching such levels with a better understanding of training and physiology not based solely on epo?

Pogs improvements are crazy. But in elite sports unicorns ( ) do exist. Thats why it seems unreasonable to exclude that its at all possible that hes not doping based purely on performance. I also think his development history makes it possible that he is simply the most talented cyclist yet. (In fact, at this level, even if he were cheating that could still be the case...)

 

[E_F_]

And performances are increasing across the board.

Pogs improvements are crazy. But in elite sports unicorns ( ) do exist.

Which one is it?

 

[AnotherArmChair]

Well I believe in human evolution in sport and outliers . I would love to believe in Pog 100% even if it is boring watching him win this year . The reason I would rather he was clean than doped is I love the sport and want it to thrive
But not even I believe in the speed of human evolution we have seen between 2023 and 2024 in Mr Pog

I dont know anyone in the peloton who dopes but I would bet my last penny on the fact that there are some. The ones that get caught are at the end of a contract and late in their career and are holding on to make abit more money or the ones from 3rd division teams ..ie without big team support

I am very good friends with someone who rode at a high level in the peloton. This rider and alot of his mates were clean but they had many conversations on who they thought were not. You'd be surprised at some of the names they discussed, some in their own teams. But they had no proof . So what do you do ? Armstrong was hiding in plain sight and so many knew and no one said anything until they had an axe to grind. Everyone talked about the Omerta but look at it like this riders have very short contracts and may one day soon be looking for a team and may want the patronage of the winning champion. Cycling is steeped in patronage behaviour and so you shop XX to the UCI are you assured they can do anything with out a positive test or indeed will do anything with a positive test ..where is your proof and maybe just maybe you bring a whole load of grief down on yourself and for what ...in less than 2 years you could be out of a job and the guy you think is doping could be riding the Tour in yellow

I remember the UCI were to or indeed set up a confidential phone line for shopping dopers ...did anyone actually use it ever ?

Also I wonder what is happening with cycling blood passports ? Have they evolved ? ....You never hear anything now from the UCI

 

[Extinction]

Come on now. Training, technology, nutrition, talent pool, financial support to mention a few. This is pretty basic across all sports. In cycling I would add indoor training, democratizaion of training knowledge to younger athletes, and a major jump in access to data and structuring of training through powermeters. That the 75 kg climbers in the 90s were beating that is sick.

Not sure how this can explain the speed increase from 2019 though

You do know Ockam's Razor, right? Enough with your sophisms.

 

[Extinction]

I remember the UCI were to or indeed set up a confidential phone line for shopping dopers ...did anyone actually use it ever ?

The pros don't talk about doping (omertà) , but only the ones who were almost good enough (and I'm highly suspicious of the ones that do only accusing others). This is no insignificant thing, because they were the clients of the same doctor's (or their affiliates) known to have doped the pro peloton. I knew a bunch of guys that went to this or that doctor to "look after themselves", who were the same doctors that got condemned for doping much bigger fish. It's a constantly evolving culture that isn't discussed once you ascend to the highest ranks.

PS: And most cyclists who arrive at a high level are, or are forced to become, a thoroughly unscrupulous lot. It's in the nature of things.

 

[Oldermanish]

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.

Never said it was level, dude. They all have the toys but, due to injuries and however much cover the UAE sponsorship provides; UAE has prospered more. If you prefer I be an absolute zealot about how much or little a team is going dark you've lost my perspective.
As for what is tolerable; all professional sports are driven by profit. You can't watch any of them and not have some twitch of suspicion. Once golf went to the clinic there can't be many purists out there. Some, but not many.

 

[Oldermanish]

The pros don't talk about doping (omertà) , but only the ones who were almost good enough (and I'm highly suspicious of the ones that do only accusing others). This is no insignificant thing, because they were the clients of the same doctor's (or their affiliates) known to have doped the pro peloton. I knew a bunch of guys that went to this or that doctor to "look after themselves", who were the same doctors that got condemned for doping much bigger fish. It's a constantly evolving culture that isn't discussed once you ascend to the highest ranks.

PS: And most cyclists who arrive at a high level are, or are forced to become, a thoroughly unscrupulous lot. It's in the nature of things.

The bolded part is what makes the sport so difficult to take seriously. I've known a few good enough to make it that simply left because they didn't want to fight the attitude within their team and sport in general. Those few were smart/educated enough to have other options, though. I respect them greatly and have witnessed beat downs given to doped pros by very talented clean riders. I can't say that's a recent experience.

 

[Extinction]

Never said it was level, dude. They all have the toys but, due to injuries and however much cover the UAE sponsorship provides; UAE has prospered more. If you prefer I be an absolute zealot about how much or little a team is going dark you've lost my perspective.
As for what is tolerable; all professional sports are driven by profit. You can't watch any of them and not have some twitch of suspicion. Once golf went to the clinic there can't be many purists out there. Some, but not many.

The only qualm I have with this, is that UAE clearly found a way to up the ante this season. Because, crashes not withstanding, Pog simply went balistic. If everything were "normal", Vingegaard, for example, who put up his best numbers at the Tour, should have pushed Pogacar to the limit. Instead the Slovenian just cruised on home. Same at Worlds and Lombardia, it was a brutal masacre. Tolerability is largely subjective and depends on who you find mocking us truly insupportable.

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

You do know Ockam's Razor, right?

That would just mean reducing everything to the simplest possible explanation right? An easy way to jump to the wrong conclusions

 

[Extinction]

That would just mean reducing everything to the simplest possible explanation right? An easy way to jump to the wrong conclusions

Or getting bogged down in the mumbo jumbo of over-thought BS, just to delude yourself and fein intelligence.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

That would just mean reducing everything to the simplest possible explanation right? An easy way to jump to the wrong conclusions

No, Occams Razor is rather about the appropriate complexity and you can put it this way for example: No plurality without necessity. So it's about reducing the theory to only that which is necessarily part of the explanation, and do without anything that is superfluous. That does not mean the simplest possible explanation, but the most necessary one if you think about it.

 

[bNator]

From a legal perspective sure the riders are innocent until proven guilty (and I support that), but in a realistic sense the burden of proof rests on you as you’re the one making assertions that are completely at odds with the history of the sport and everything we know about human physiology.

What?! The burden of proof is on the one defendant? What are you, IRS? 😁

It’s you who are pointing fingers that should come up with something better than “too good to be true” if you want everyone on board with your take…

 

[houtdffan]

does anything actually think that Saunier-Duval is not going to Saunier-Duval?

THIS IS THE TEAM OF RICCO!!!!! Need we say any more?

 

[Rule #9 apostle]

No, Occams Razor is rather about the appropriate complexity and you can put it this way for example: No plurality without necessity. So it's about to reducing the theory only that which is necessary part of the explanation, and do without anything that is superfluous. That does not mean the simplest possible explanation, but the most necessary one if you think about it.

Thanks for the explanation. So from my point of view, extraordinary talent would be the most basic necessary condition to explain the performances I guess? And then add whatever else is necessary on top of that, not excluding doping of course

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Thanks for the explanation. So from my point of view, extraordinary talent would be the most basic necessary condition to explain the performances I guess? And then add whatever else is necessary on top of that, not excluding doping of course

Well you should start with the problem that needs explanation (explanandum), not with a preffered means of explanation (explanans). Otherwise you might end up producing circular arguments that presuppose what you want to demonstrate.
So what we need an explanation for is Pogacars relative and absolute performance on a bike. Pogacars performance in relation to historic performances and to the performances of his peers are what made us aware of the problem to begin with. Than a wide field of factors opens up, one of which probably will be extraordinary talent, just because that is true of most professional athletes in any discipline. In order to show that "extraordinary talent" is a reasonable sufficient explanation of Pogacars performance, you'd have to show how all sorts of factors are explainable in that regard. And this is where for most of us, me included, talent just does not explain all sorts jumps in his performance let alone the power he produces. And that's not because we wan't to believe that is so based on "too much dominance" or "our favourite rider doesn't win!", but because there is historic precedent for widespread doping which makes one wary of miracles. Miracles like 7watts/kg over an hour. What needs to be explained is how things that were thought to be scientifically impossible without doping, are now the norm.

 

[Oldermanish]

The only qualm I have with this, is that UAE clearly found a way to up the ante this season. Because, crashes not withstanding, Pog simply went balistic. If everything were "normal", Vingegaard, for example, who put up his best numbers at the Tour, should have pushed Pogacar to the limit. Instead the Slovenian just cruised on home. Same at Worlds and Lombardia, it was a brutal masacre. Tolerability is largely subjective and depends on who you find mocking us truly insupportable.

I don't think UAE stopped at Pogacar but let's be business risk-averse: do you think they'd support a team-wide program or merely provide adequate funding so each rider would be culpable for the consequences? My guess is the latter and a wink/nod confirmation to the coaching staff. Too much at stake for them as a sponsor. Not that the UAE contacts care about the indignities of getting caught cheating in government or business.