Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 296 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The only way higher cadence matters on a real climb, is because you have more power than those with lower cadences in the same gear (or range of gears). High cadence itself means nothing, it's all relative to the gear.
Are you explaining me that if riders A and B have the exact same transmission (pedal-to-wheel) ratio and one of them pedals with higher cadence, he goes faster? :)

When you are ready to have a real discussion: It's about the efficiency of your legs (and entire body for that matter). Are you more efficiently producing power at 85 of 65 rpm? Are you more efficiently producing power sitting down or out-of-saddle? It is clear that doing 85 rpm sitting down your internal efficiency is much bigger than doing 65 rpm out-of-saddle... And new bikes make the former possible. And I would imagine hands and torso positions play important role as well.
 
Are you explaining me that if riders A and B have the exact same transmission (pedal-to-wheel) ratio and one of them pedals with higher cadence, he goes faster? :)

When you are ready to have a real discussion: It's about the efficiency of your legs (and entire body for that matter). Are you more efficiently producing power at 85 of 65 rpm? Are you more efficiently producing power sitting down or out-of-saddle? It is clear that doing 85 rpm sitting down your internal efficiency is much bigger than doing 65 rpm out-of-saddle... And new bikes make the former possible. And I would imagine hands and torso positions play important role as well.
Were cadences back then all in the 60s? Armstrong was famous for high cadence so isn’t that the same era we’re talking about? Serious question.
 
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.
This is an excellent post btw.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Rechtschreibfehler
Jul 15, 2023
89
298
1,080
The recent performances of Adam Yates is a key indicator of something being seriously off. And not merely because his performance levels have skyrocketed since joining UAE. But because we also have someone who is pretty much genetically identical to his brother Simon. Indeed, Simon was considered the more talented sibling and in fact won a GC and challenged well in others. The contrast between the performances of them now couldn’t be more stark.

Additionally, those comparing the performances with the early EPO era and rationalising how today’s equal or better performances can be explained through better equipment, diet and training methods, overlook the fact that up until about 2019/20 cycling was a very different sport. The big teams controlled the pace keeping the peloton, or that part of the peloton that could keep up, at just below maximum sustainable effort. Attacks on climbs were tortured affairs and had to be managed. There was such a thing as going into the red. Entire tours were won by a few minutes, sometimes seconds.
 
Are you explaining me that if riders A and B have the exact same transmission (pedal-to-wheel) ratio and one of them pedals with higher cadence, he goes faster? :)

When you are ready to have a real discussion: It's about the efficiency of your legs (and entire body for that matter). Are you more efficiently producing power at 85 of 65 rpm? Are you more efficiently producing power sitting down or out-of-saddle? It is clear that doing 85 rpm sitting down your internal efficiency is much bigger than doing 65 rpm out-of-saddle... And new bikes make the former possible. And I would imagine hands and torso positions play important role as well.
If you are more efficient at 85 than 65 rpm means nothing on a 10 km climb, without knowing the power output. More efficiency at higher cadence, doesn't necessarilly compensate for more power at lower cadence.
 
Jul 19, 2024
98
234
580
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...? There is a certain degree of suspended disbelief when watching professional sports as what is seen is usually way above the capability of the viewer who choose to believe that this is actually possible by a human being naturally. At some point what is being viewed is so extraordinary that disbelief cannot be suspended any more.
Are you explaining me that if riders A and B have the exact same transmission (pedal-to-wheel) ratio and one of them pedals with higher cadence, he goes faster? :)

When you are ready to have a real discussion: It's about the efficiency of your legs (and entire body for that matter). Are you more efficiently producing power at 85 of 65 rpm? Are you more efficiently producing power sitting down or out-of-saddle? It is clear that doing 85 rpm sitting down your internal efficiency is much bigger than doing 65 rpm out-of-saddle... And new bikes make the former possible. And I would imagine hands and torso positions play important role as well.
Armstrong was spinning in excess of 100rpm, Froome likewise. New bikes have nothing to do with high cadences, it's the size of the cogs that dictates the cadence. Pros use custom made rings now and they were using custom made rings/cogs 20 years ago. The aero efficiency of modern bikes is mostly marketing spiel, the drag is coming from the rider not a 6 kilo, assortment of carbon tubes. Pog's bike doesn't even look that aero. And talking of aero-efficiency, Pantani was much smaller and was climbing in the drops so he was more aero-efficient than pretty much every current top pro
 
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! :innocent:

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.
Great post.
 

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
It's not that we've seen a huge increase of international Talent that would account for this have we?
Really, dude?! Is there no talent here apart from French, Italian, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, German? Okay....
Also even if it did, it would not account for the jumps in performance we've seen in the new, more international cycling.
Just look at an EPO era TdF start list or end of year rankings.

epo-sl.png

epo-rank.jpg

So you are really convinced that the best endurance athletes of the EPO era were all born in this small area + US. Okay...
best-epo.png


It's also a fact that within more international cycling, for a long time they were significantly, like miles, slower than the EPO times and then suddenly the entire reality of performance in cycling took a massive turn upwards.
It was the British Dark Ages, when even less talented british riders than in the EPO era magically started winning races under the british (linked) UCI presidency. And that was not really an 'international era'. Even the best/most successful rider (Sagan) of that era had a hard time finding a team to sign him. Just because he wasn't from a 'traditional' cycling nation. QS rejected him for that.
And no one made a lot of arguments about Bernal being unbelievable, because he wasn't. Meanwhile he is pushing the same, maybe better numbers, than for his Tour win, yet he is nowhere near winning another Tour, let alone another GT, atm.
The guy is stronger in his prime than he was at 22. Some fantastic insights.
 
Last edited:
P.S. By the way, brilliant piece of comedy a couple of days ago with Pogimon and Matthew of the Pole. Made me laugh for a good while.
Thank you! BTW I'm quite desperate to hear from the parties involved, in that eventful minute. Has there really been no comment from the UCI? No media coverage of the incident at all? Not one of the many journalists standing in the vicinity overheard any of the argument over the bike? Not even the man who documented Pogacar's seat tube?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Casual cyclist

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
The population of the US, UK, Germany, France and Italy is over half a billion people but suddenly having Slovenian cyclists (pop 2 mil and change) opened up the talent pool...
Quality > Quantity

Spain, Italy, France have a total of 3 GT victories in the past 10 years. The last one was 8 years ago. While in the EPO era, these three nations accounted for 70-80 percent of the GT starting lists. Have these countries suddenly forgotten how to ride a bike? Or do they just miss EPO?

It is safe to say that the GT start list at that time was not very competitive. Effectively, performance is also lower because of less talented riders.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ripper
Quality > Quantity

Spain, Italy, France have a total of 3 GT victories in the past 10 years. The last one was 8 years ago. While in the EPO era, these three nations accounted for 70-80 percent of the GT starting lists. Have these countries suddenly forgotten how to ride a bike? Or do they just miss EPO?

It is safe to say that the GT start list at that time was not very competitive. Effectively, performance is also lower because of less talented riders.
I can only count a few riders in the current Top 20 who aren’t from traditional cycling countries. Your argument would maybe make sense if all the sudden the sport were flipped upside down by eastern Africans like in running the last couple decades. That has not happened.
 
Really, dude?! Is there no talent here apart from French, Italian, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, German? Okay....

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote very closely. I did not say there was no increase of other talent, I even mentioned Bernal later in the post, the point of which you also choose not to understand.
My point was: does the increase in talent from larger parts of the world account for levels like in the EPO high days. And my guess was, not it doesn't. I also accounted for that you could ignore the old days and still, there would be performances that are suspect. We can go as far as the current riders to look at them and say: well there is something wrong here.

Just look at an EPO era TdF start list or end of year rankings.

epo-sl.png

epo-rank.jpg

So you are really convinced that the best endurance athletes of the EPO era were all born in this small area + US. Okay...
best-epo.png



It was the British Dark Ages, when even less talented british riders than in the EPO era magically started winning races under the british (linked) UCI presidency. And that was not really an 'international era'. Even the best/most successful rider (Sagan) of that era had a hard time finding a team to sign him. Just because he wasn't from a 'traditional' cycling nation. QS rejected him for that.

So when do we start the "international" era than, when the Froom years don't count?!? Not even when Bernal won the tour? So it should be easy to demonstrate that there's massive influx in talent from countries not from the area indicated in your post over the last years.
And btw. in no way am I making the point that it's not harder to get into pro cycling when you are not from the traditioal pro cycling countries, or used to be even harder. I'm btw. sure this is still an issue, and often enough cited when it comes to "explaning Pogacars junior results".

The guy is stronger in his prime than he was at 22. Some fantastic insights.

Maybe you're a little intoxicated while writing? That's very obviously not what that passage is about. The point is not that Bernal is stronger now than when he was 21. The point is that this won him the Tour back than, and now it's not competitive any more. So within your explanation his "downfall by getting better" needs to be accounted for by the increase in talent base as well. Which means it must have struck very very recently. It just doesn't strike me as very convincing that everybodies and their grandmothers neighbor are producing better numbers than ever because suddenly and all of a sudden, the talent base just made a huuuuuuge leap forward, plus the scouting, plus the achievability of becoming a pro in all sorts of places.

I'd like to see a bit more than a map that shows me what I already knew about where Procycling mostly happend in the last 100 years, to convince me that there's been such a drastic and sudden change in talent base. That's all. I have the feeling you don't even understand what I was arguing about, and resorted straight to yelling and data without showing any relationship whatsoever other than where they came from. That's not helpful for analysis.

I welcome the globalization of cycling, but I don't understand why, given what we know, it should account for the increase in level we've seen alone, or why it should make me uncritical of my favorite rider's performances.

If it's at all a hangover, it's one from having the dizzying experience of having seen this all before.
 
Jul 19, 2024
98
234
580
Quality > Quantity

Spain, Italy, France have a total of 3 GT victories in the past 10 years. The last one was 8 years ago. While in the EPO era, these three nations accounted for 70-80 percent of the GT starting lists. Have these countries suddenly forgotten how to ride a bike? Or do they just miss EPO?

It is safe to say that the GT start list at that time was not very competitive. Effectively, performance is also lower because of less talented riders.
What does it mean? That Slovenians are naturally more talented/suited for cycling? Does training on the slovenian Alps bestow superior physiological properties to cyclists?
To reverse your question. Are those new talents better at riding their bikes or do they come from countries with less stringent regulation (and enforcement of it) so they are the only ones that don't miss EPO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ripper
Really, dude?! Is there no talent here apart from French, Italian, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, German? Okay....

Just look at an EPO era TdF start list or end of year rankings.

epo-sl.png

epo-rank.jpg

So you are really convinced that the best endurance athletes of the EPO era were all born in this small area + US. Okay...
best-epo.png



It was the British Dark Ages, when even less talented british riders than in the EPO era magically started winning races under the british (linked) UCI presidency. And that was not really an 'international era'. Even the best/most successful rider (Sagan) of that era had a hard time finding a team to sign him. Just because he wasn't from a 'traditional' cycling nation. QS rejected him for that.

The guy is stronger in his prime than he was at 22. Some fantastic insights.
The geographical zone has a high density of competative cyclists, especially 20, 30, 40 years ago, perhaps still greater than anywhere on earth. The pool has grown geographically, but the number of racing cyclists from which to draw talent may not be significantly larger than when the sport was basically a continental phenomenon in the days of Merckx and Hinault.
 
Quality > Quantity

Spain, Italy, France have a total of 3 GT victories in the past 10 years. The last one was 8 years ago. While in the EPO era, these three nations accounted for 70-80 percent of the GT starting lists. Have these countries suddenly forgotten how to ride a bike? Or do they just miss EPO?

It is safe to say that the GT start list at that time was not very competitive. Effectively, performance is also lower because of less talented riders.
To the bolded, no and no, they just didn't keep up with budget inflation, got burned by the doping scandals and then saw the financial resourses and therefore edge in the arms race move "off-shore" as they say. Like Google, like altitude camps at Tenerife.
 
The population of the US, UK, Germany, France and Italy is over half a billion people but suddenly having Slovenian cyclists (pop 2 mil and change) opened up the talent pool...
The region and countries of Slovenia/Croatia are great sporting nations. Especially considering their small populations.

Throughout multiple sports.... Slovenia has or has had athletes like Doncic, Oblak, Kopitar, Maze, Majdic, Roglic, Pog, Ceh and many others. The next generation growing up during and after the war has been incredible.

Success, same or to an even more extent, is something that Croatia has had.

Maybe more countries should study how they been able to grow and achieve it. How they, both Slovenia and Croatia, are developing and nurturing athletes throughout so many different sports into some of the best in the world in their respective field. Both team and individual sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vudy and Cookster15
All of this, however, plus doping can account for the margin Tadej gave Pantani, given the Italian was doped to the gills. So the improvements you mentioned, in addition to a very sophisticated doping regime, can only explain the abyss that separates Pantani from Pogacar now. In the absence of doping, no way.
Come on, guys, even this much concession to the defenders (i.e. those in the "beauty beyond corruption" camp) is totally unnecessary and, in fact, misleading. If the difference between Pantani and Pog riding lies just in "aero" (and tires), there is no chance in hell it can account for the difference in speeds observed this year. I am not even bringing the stark contrast between their on the bike demeanor (Pantani straining and laboring as expected and Pog sailing along with an inane smile on his face, not a drop of sweat showing) into the comparison at the moment. As was pointed out many times in this discussion, the bulk of air resistance of a person on a bike lies in said person posture, i.e. his effective cross section presented to the wind. Now, Pantani was famous for climbing standing in the drops, his back almost parallel to the ground. The 'Pogi' fellow, on the other hand, is a veritable "coal miner" on the bike charging up climbs swiftly and effortlessly with his spine at 45 degrees or so to horizontal, thereby creating the proverbial "barn door" aerodynamics of pickup trucks. What I am trying to say here is that the folks still in the "profane and fearful" camp (i.e. the ones old-fashioned enough to still be interested in the one and only objective truth) should refrain from being easily swayed by these cheap "aero" related "explanations."

P.S. Speaking of "modern tires" (an excuse mentioned by the beauty lovers earlier), I became curious and made some quick estimations, using that rolling resistance dataset. Recalling that the numbers there are obtained at the speed of 28.8 km/h and load of 42.5 kg per tire and and making the corresponding adjustments, I obtained the total difference in rolling resistance in the 5-6 W range between top of the line tubulars and tubeless. That is no more than 1.5% of the total power output on such climbs. Since the overall power required to maintain speed is proportional to the power of speed that's between 2 and 3, this much power difference would result in speed increase well in sub 1% range which on 40min climb amounts to about 20s at best.
 
Last edited:
I don't think its helpful to point at Slovenia - or doping cases in the traditional cycling nations. I too were amazed at Slovenia's rise from obscurity since Primoz Roglic got the ball rolling. But perhaps we can argue why this is at all relevant? Google moved offshore because of tax reasons. Got zero equivalence to Pogacar or Giannetti (Swiss).

This might be worth a read:
 

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
I can only count a few riders in the current Top 20 who aren’t from traditional cycling countries. Your argument would maybe make sense if all the sudden the sport were flipped upside down by eastern Africans like in running the last couple decades. That has not happened.
What is your 'top 20'? 6 French, 6 Italian, 6 Spanish, 1 Belgian and 1 Dutch rider or what?

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote very closely. I did not say there was no increase of other talent, I even mentioned Bernal later in the post, the point of which you also choose not to understand.
My point was: does the increase in talent from larger parts of the world account for levels like in the EPO high days. And my guess was, not it doesn't. I also accounted for that you could ignore the old days and still, there would be performances that are suspect. We can go as far as the current riders to look at them and say: well there is something wrong here.



So when do we start the "international" era than, when the Froom years don't count?!? Not even when Bernal won the tour? So it should be easy to demonstrate that there's massive influx in talent from countries not from the area indicated in your post over the last years.
And btw. in no way am I making the point that it's not harder to get into pro cycling when you are not from the traditioal pro cycling countries, or used to be even harder. I'm btw. sure this is still an issue, and often enough cited when it comes to "explaning Pogacars junior results".



Maybe you're a little intoxicated while writing? That's very obviously not what that passage is about. The point is not that Bernal is stronger now than when he was 21. The point is that this won him the Tour back than, and now it's not competitive any more. So within your explanation his "downfall by getting better" needs to be accounted for by the increase in talent base as well. Which means it must have struck very very recently. It just doesn't strike me as very convincing that everybodies and their grandmothers neighbor are producing better numbers than ever because suddenly and all of a sudden, the talent base just made a huuuuuuge leap forward, plus the scouting, plus the achievability of becoming a pro in all sorts of places.

I'd like to see a bit more than a map that shows me what I already knew about where Procycling mostly happend in the last 100 years, to convince me that there's been such a drastic and sudden change in talent base. That's all. I have the feeling you don't even understand what I was arguing about, and resorted straight to yelling and data without showing any relationship whatsoever other than where they came from. That's not helpful for analysis.

I welcome the globalization of cycling, but I don't understand why, given what we know, it should account for the increase in level we've seen alone, or why it should make me uncritical of my favorite rider's performances.

If it's at all a hangover, it's one from having the dizzying experience of having seen this all before.

So what's your point then? Those guys were the pinnacle of human evolution in the age of EPO?

Why would be Sky era 'international'. All that happened was that the EPO guys were replaced by even dodgier brits.

Bernal is a good talent, but is it hard for you to believe that over the years even greater talents have come along who can beat the likes of Kruijswijk, Buchmann, Alaphilippe by an even bigger margin?

Why not check the statistics yourself if you are so curious about the data?! Random EPO era 1999 active WT riders nationality - https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics.php?season=1999&level=1&sekse=1&filter=Filter&p=nations

In 1999, more than 60% of the riders were ITA, FRA, ESP.
85% are ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA

This year - https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics.php?season=2024&level=1&sekse=1&filter=Filter&p=nations
ITA, FRA, ESP = 30%
ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA = 60%

I think this is a massive change in 25 years + the emerging nations that are adding more and more riders to WT teams have a much better quality/quantity ratio than FRA,ESP,ITA.

What does it mean? That Slovenians are naturally more talented/suited for cycling? Does training on the slovenian Alps bestow superior physiological properties to cyclists?
To reverse your question. Are those new talents better at riding their bikes or do they come from countries with less stringent regulation (and enforcement of it) so they are the only ones that don't miss EPO.

The last time I checked, these countries were dominated with EPO: ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA
 
Thank you! BTW I'm quite desperate to hear from the parties involved, in that eventful minute. Has there really been no comment from the UCI? No media coverage of the incident at all? Not one of the many journalists standing in the vicinity overheard any of the argument over the bike? Not even the man who documented Pogacar's seat tube?
Something tells me we won't hear anything about it from any of the "official" channels.
 
Do we know who Pogacar's doctor is? The top guys have normally their own medical staff, so anyone know?
Found this. He switched from a doctor with a very dodgy past as his coach to Javier Sola as his "trainer" for 2024.


It seems that Tadej Pogacar changed his trainer this year. After a long collaboration with Inigo San Millan, a doctor that worked in the past for teams like ONCE, Saunier Duval and Astana, the Slovenian rider chose another coach for 2024 season
 
Last edited:
Jul 19, 2024
98
234
580
What is your 'top 20'? 6 French, 6 Italian, 6 Spanish, 1 Belgian and 1 Dutch rider or what?



So what's your point then? Those guys were the pinnacle of human evolution in the age of EPO?

Why would be Sky era 'international'. All that happened was that the EPO guys were replaced by even dodgier brits.

Bernal is a good talent, but is it hard for you to believe that over the years even greater talents have come along who can beat the likes of Kruijswijk, Buchmann, Alaphilippe by an even bigger margin?

Why not check the statistics yourself if you are so curious about the data?! Random EPO era 1999 active WT riders nationality - https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics.php?season=1999&level=1&sekse=1&filter=Filter&p=nations

In 1999, more than 60% of the riders were ITA, FRA, ESP.
85% are ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA

This year - https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics.php?season=2024&level=1&sekse=1&filter=Filter&p=nations
ITA, FRA, ESP = 30%
ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA = 60%

I think this is a massive change in 25 years + the emerging nations that are adding more and more riders to WT teams have a much better quality/quantity ratio than FRA,ESP,ITA.



The last time I checked, these countries were dominated with EPO: ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA
So what's your point? Training in the crisp , Slovenian, mountainous air turns you into an EPO beating phenom. Must be all that CO.
[[content deleted]]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what's your point then? Those guys were the pinnacle of human evolution in the age of EPO?

Why would be Sky era 'international'. All that happened was that the EPO guys were replaced by even dodgier brits.

Bernal is a good talent, but is it hard for you to believe that over the years even greater talents have come along who can beat the likes of Kruijswijk, Buchmann, Alaphilippe by an even bigger margin?

Why not check the statistics yourself if you are so curious about the data?! Random EPO era 1999 active WT riders nationality - https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics.php?season=1999&level=1&sekse=1&filter=Filter&p=nations

In 1999, more than 60% of the riders were ITA, FRA, ESP.
85% are ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA

This year - https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics.php?season=2024&level=1&sekse=1&filter=Filter&p=nations
ITA, FRA, ESP = 30%
ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED, GER, SWI, USA = 60%

I think this is a massive change in 25 years + the emerging nations that are adding more and more riders to WT teams have a much better quality/quantity ratio than FRA,ESP,ITA.

You gotta provide the statistics, because you are making the claim. I don't because I don't necessarily have the time to provide what you left out but should have provided.

The other bolded: you are not following your own argument very well here I fear. Of course it's a big change over 25+ years, but the timefrace in question to explain the changes we are "complaining" about is much shorter. Also you should be wary that WT Level, which pcs spits out for every season, with the WT that exists since 2011. I also was not necessarily claiming that Sky era was international, but it lasted untill 5 years ago, so we are talking about a developement of 5 years and not 25. That's by following your own argument that the influx in talent through the globalization of cycling explains the changes. So the drastic change from 2020 onwards needs to be explained by such a change in that time frame. If you do that, you'll see that the change isn't nearly as drastic between 2019 and 2024. The number of active riders from ITA, FRA, ESP, BEL, NED increases from 190 to 277 even. The number of riders from outside these nations in the Top 20 decreased from 228 to 210. So to me, if I counted correctly, the exact opposite has occurred and the main land (of cycling) is more dominant than when Bernal won.

But might I ask: you do know what we are actually talking about here, you're not just making an accusation based on an ad hoc theory?