• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 297 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
That lower cadence might not be much help in a multiple stage race, though. Realistically the higher-cadence climbers have both a style and fitness level specific to them. It's not for every rider as I think you mean to suggest. It's just supposed to be a more sustainable approach for multiple stages to minimize muscle fatigue.
 
So what's your point? Training in the crisp , Slovenian, mountainous air turns you into an EPO beating phenom. Must be all that CO.
[[deleted content]]
Never mind his point - what’s yours? That there’s a certain doping mechanism only available in Slovenia and two competitors from different teams are able to get it because they live close together? And all the big league countries you were talking about are unable to penetrate this mystery which only Slovenians are able to do? Ever heard of the concept of coincidence?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That lower cadence might not be much help in a multiple stage race, though. Realistically the higher-cadence climbers have both a style and fitness level specific to them. It's not for every rider as I think you mean to suggest. It's just supposed to be a more sustainable approach for multiple stages to minimize muscle fatigue.
Cadence from my experience falls into "style". There are those who fare well at a certain cadence/rhythm that are more efficient than Beethoven versus Bach. It's an art, you see? But who is superior Beethoven or Bach, at this level?
 
Last edited:
Damn Jonas has 10 watts less than Pogacar but i didnt see you at his clinic page much, i am shocked by this.Second place in Tour after that crash and not a lot post from you, its look like you normalize this or dont even care.
Apart from this, let's analyze things. Pog was hurt last year and still got second. Vingo was hurt this year and still got second. Even score, evidently. The difference, however, is that this year Vingo put up his best numbers, despite the crash, so we should imagine that a crashless Pog might have closed the gap from last year (even more if Vingo's numbers can be believed this year), but not dominated him beyond all probability. Pog gave, in other words, the best Vingegaard the deficit accrued last year plus dividends. And I'm playing monopoly, a thoroughly repugnant game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: snipeheem
Cadence from my experience falls into "style". There are those who fare well at a certain cadence/rhythm that are more efficient than Beethoven versus Bach. It's an art, you see? But who is superior Beethoven or Bach, at this level?
Agreed 100% In TTs it was spin into the wind and crush big gears on the tailwind leg; mindful of keeping a somewhat proximate cadence.
Climbing....I hate spinning and like the occasional bigger gear boost out of the saddle; then spin awhile. I couldn't imitate a Roglic cadence unless it was super steep and had the gearing for it. Then it would be a short imitation at best. Old habits die hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Extinction
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.


And yet the countries who are best at the Olympics where success is measure per capita or adjusted using probability models are as follows.....Croatia nor Slovenia are not on these lists ? And yet we should study them ???

Which countries exceeded expectations?
Use the dropdown to compare gold and total medal counts to other metrics, including the probability model ('goldilocks model') designed by academics to take differences in population into account. Last updated 12 August 2024
Ranking: Medals per 100bn GDPMedals per 10m peopleProbability modelExpected medalsWeighted medals


Country ▼Gold medals ▼Total medals ▼Probability model ▼
Australia185341.648
France166432.659
Great Britain146532.415
Netherlands153426.403
United States4012622.682

The nations exceeding expectations based on capita​

Medals per population

Image caption,
The USA finished 47th when measuring medals by a size of population measure
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 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! :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.

You accuse cycling fans who believe in doping as lacking critical thinking ( in a very condescending manner btw) and yet you say "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.". How is this any better in critical thinking ? Who says it will come out well in the end or who wants to admire a show ? Critical thinking is believing that doping is as big a possibility as non doping which your posts leans very definitely away from and thus has the approval of Pogacar fans on here.


"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" It would seem you know nothing of the history of cycling , over many decades of the sport. How many years did Armstrong dominate without whistle blowers or other GT winners

. "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" There is where you are wrong. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence of wrong doing and thus should not be dismissed as a leap of faith, . Many contributors have pointed to the history of the sport where wrong doing was covered up for years and years , where omerta existed and where behind the scenes even today there are many reasons including the omerta, patronage and science of testing and control lagging behind as to why doping is a valid possibility , that should be explored without ridicule .What have people to guide their 'lack of believe" in sudden leaps in performance ( Pog from 2023 to 2024 for one ) other than abnormal performance and disquiet on comparisons with other riders.

" 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!" What is misanthropic about believing in doping which has given the history of cycling , a greater probability of existing in the peloton at least for some riders than not existing . Of course your efforts to balance your arguments with at least a nod to the possibility of doping rings hollow if you are enjoying cycling Messiahs in blissful ignorance and you feel the need to silence the doubters with ridicule . You views are very clear through the waffle you don't harbour the belief for one minute that Pog may be using enhancing methods as it doesn't suit your needs for him to be a clean champion. Pluuuuuuusssseee hold up the looking glass .
 
Agreed 100% In TTs it was spin into the wind and crush big gears on the tailwind leg; mindful of keeping a somewhat proximate cadence.
Climbing....I hate spinning and like the occasional bigger gear boost out of the saddle; then spin awhile. I couldn't imitate a Roglic cadence unless it was super steep and had the gearing for it. Then it would be a short imitation at best. Old habits die hard.
7 watts per kg at 100 rpm is the same as 7 watts per kg at 80 rpm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldermanish
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?
What happened?
 

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
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.

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?
I mean... dude. A lot of things happened around 2020.
  • The emergence of high-level talent: Pog, Vingegaard, Remco..
    • Do I believe that their performance is enhanced by doping? Likely​
    • Do I believe that they are more doped than riders from 25 years ago? I doubt it​
  • So if their performance is more or less similar to the PED era, I think their natural talent is better than the top riders of 25 years ago.​
  • More significantly, I think in general the whole peloton is much more talented now than 25 years ago. For example, the talent level from the 20 top riders to the top 200 is much higher now than 25 years ago. With the field becoming much more international and these places no longer being occupied by an overwhelmingly three-nation.​
This was my original point.

Importantly, the corrupt british UCI president was no longer in power around 2020. In my opinion, with the arrival of shady sports washing british money, a lot of dirty things have happened in cycling.

Just look at Froome. He was 26, not only hasn't won a race, he hasn't even come close to winning even the smallest ones. He literally became a GT GOAT overnight. Who believes this kind of stuff?

To me Pog is a billion times more believable than the british GT wins, no matter how much more spectacular Pog's wins are. I see this era as a healing of nature after the corrupt british. Instead of thinking the guys are now dirtier than Armstrong or Pantani.
 
Jul 19, 2024
62
149
380
I mean... dude. A lot of things happened around 2020.
  • The emergence of high-level talent: Pog, Vingegaard, Remco..
    • Do I believe that their performance is enhanced by doping? Likely​
    • Do I believe that they are more doped than riders from 25 years ago? I doubt it​
  • So if their performance is more or less similar to the PED era, I think their natural talent is better than the top riders of 25 years ago.​
  • More significantly, I think in general the whole peloton is much more talented now than 25 years ago. For example, the talent level from the 20 top riders to the top 200 is much higher now than 25 years ago. With the field becoming much more international and these places no longer being occupied by an overwhelmingly three-nation.​
This was my original point.

Importantly, the corrupt british UCI president was no longer in power around 2020. In my opinion, with the arrival of shady sports washing british money, a lot of dirty things have happened in cycling.

Just look at Froome. He was 26, not only hasn't won a race, he hasn't even come close to winning even the smallest ones. He literally became a GT GOAT overnight. Who believes this kind of stuff?

To me Pog is a billion times more believable than the british GT wins, no matter how much more spectacular Pog's wins are. I see this era as a healing of nature after the corrupt british. Instead of thinking the guys are now dirtier than Armstrong or Pantani.
It might be the language barrier but suggesting that someone is more "talented" on account of their nationality is problematic.
You could attempt to explain why someone from a particular country may do better than the average but basing this on the country alone without any other context or background information is baseless and borderline racism. Plus of the 3 cyclists that base your argument on, two, Remco and Vingegaard are from well established cycling nations. Pogacar is the outlier here. The fact that he comes from Slovenia is meaningless unless you can show why would someone from Slovenia have an inherent genetic (or epigenetic) advantage to their competitors.

Edit: I am not accusing you of racism, I am saying that you are not framing your argument correctly and you should be more specific and provide evidence instead of rider numbers per nationality
 
Last edited:

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
I wouldn't be so sure about the actual one beeing more reliable. 2 cents.
There is probably no clean person in such a high position. But you haven't seen Cofidis win the TdF with a random French rider. Which, by default, is better than Cookson, who used his position to let the british win and line his own pockets or those of his relatives (his son works for INEOS/Sky). Lappartient is just using cycling as a stepping stone for a higher political position in sport.

It might be the language barrier but suggesting that someone is more "talented" on account of their nationality is problematic.
You could attempt to explain why someone from a particular country may do better than the average but basing this on the country alone without any other context or background information is baseless and borderline racism. Plus of the 3 cyclists that base your argument on, two, Remco and Vingegaard are from well established cycling nations. Pogacar is the outlier here. The fact that he comes from Slovenia is meaningless unless you can show why would someone from Slovenia have an inherent genetic (or epigenetic) advantage to their competitors.

Edit: I am not accusing you of racism, I am saying that you are not framing your argument correctly and you should be more specific and provide evidence instead of rider numbers per nationality

Could you move away from Slovenia? I don't care about Slovenia, I don't care that Pog is from Slovenia. He could be from Mongolia. That's not the point.

My point is that cycling is now much more international and much more accessible and easier to get into the pros, not just from traditional countries. Which I think increases the talent level and raises the quality of the cycling field. Is it really that difficult to understand?

Also Denmark had some good riders in the past but they were never represented in the field in large numbers like the countries mentioned above (ITA,ESP,FRA,NED,BEL,SWI,GER). Their golden age is now, both in terms of results and in terms of quality and quantity of competitors among the pros.
 
What happened?
Apropos; A bit of analysis of the Slovenian antics after the finish at the WCRR:

After MvdP's group crosses the line we see a distinctly dry-looking Pogster celebrating in a huddle of Team Slovenia guys, a handsome wizened looking fella hugs him and taps him on the shoulder to point him to where he has to go, while Pogi, who is honing in on a man with a massive rucksack, pays him no heed. Rucksack-man, who lets go of the Pogmobile, opens a water bottle and hands it to he who is Poggers, soon resulting in a distinctly wet appearance. Just before the metamorphosis commences we're greeted with the sudden appearance of a gentleman with UCI-logos on his clothes rather than those of NiceHash who grabs a paternal hold of the Pogical shoulders gets startled by the waterfall and, for a time, chooses to uphold social norms. Meanwhile rucksack-man hugs another staffer who was making sure the bike didn't fall to the ground, and gets a firm grip on said vehicle once more.

Following a brief look at a panting Matthew of the Pole's desperate attempt to lie down on his bike, we see that Father UCI has once again found his way to the back of Pog, which he carresses and pushes along to official duties awaiting. Pog-Man hands rucksack-man his helmet and sunnies and the entourage goes on it's merry way.

Once the action, which has once again been disrupted by MvdP - this time using his top tube to split his bum-cheeks and ball-sack respectively - the Pogimon suddenly goes barging through a wall of press photographers, and runs away from his UCI daddy towards his famed non-Olympian girlfriend, and as he embraces her he is also embraced by cameras.

On the perimeter of this manifestation of love and fame we find the devoted squire of this tale, rucksack-man, desperately seeking his beloved knight with wanton disregard for the well-bred carbon steed entrusted to his care. A new rough, unloving agent of the UCI has seized this opportunity to seize the bike. Seized by fear a private, sporting a Slovenian flag patch on his shoulder, who has come into possesion of the helmet and visor of Sir Pogacelot, scrambles around the stocky thief to regain control of the bike. A heated argument between the two ensues, the seemingly rather disinterested man, who had been holding the bike while filming the happy couple, points to the bike computer, gives his subordinate an order, resumes filming for a while until he is seemingly dragged back into the discussion, which now mainly consists of the UCI representative shouting at the man who is now holding the bike. At the same time a seemingly even more disinterested member of the press corp holding his phone up, hand in pocket, looking down notices the commotion, turns to the bike, crouches and sticks his phone right into the seat tube.

Back in the eye of the storm the UCI-Father has found his way back to his Prodigal Son and pushes him along once more. Now rucksack-man makes his trumphant return and stretches his arm across to Urska, thus seperating athlete from governing body. This is not appreciated, and rucksack-man is told as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raest and Cassirer
I mean... dude. A lot of things happened around 2020.
  • The emergence of high-level talent: Pog, Vingegaard, Remco..
    • Do I believe that their performance is enhanced by doping? Likely​
    • Do I believe that they are more doped than riders from 25 years ago? I doubt it​
  • So if their performance is more or less similar to the PED era, I think their natural talent is better than the top riders of 25 years ago.​
  • More significantly, I think in general the whole peloton is much more talented now than 25 years ago. For example, the talent level from the 20 top riders to the top 200 is much higher now than 25 years ago. With the field becoming much more international and these places no longer being occupied by an overwhelmingly three-nation.​
This was my original point.

Importantly, the corrupt british UCI president was no longer in power around 2020. In my opinion, with the arrival of shady sports washing british money, a lot of dirty things have happened in cycling.

Just look at Froome. He was 26, not only hasn't won a race, he hasn't even come close to winning even the smallest ones. He literally became a GT GOAT overnight. Who believes this kind of stuff?

To me Pog is a billion times more believable than the british GT wins, no matter how much more spectacular Pog's wins are. I see this era as a healing of nature after the corrupt british. Instead of thinking the guys are now dirtier than Armstrong or Pantani.

See I understood your original point. I am just arguing it has it's limits.
First of all: the comparison to 25 years ago (which wasn't even the top top era of EPO mind you) is only partially interesting when it comes to the question how believable the current scene is. Precisely because there are sharp distinctions. Pre/Post 2020, last years to this year and wild performances developement in the Tour between stages e.g.. That all includes the current Generation.

When it comes to who is more doped, I don't think "more" is really the interesting thing in question, but how efficient the stuff is that you take. If by more you mean more or less equally effective, I don't see on what grounds you'd arrive at such a conclusion other than comparing it to the heydeys of EPO performances. If you make the comparison it looks like whatever is happening now is more effective than what was used back than, whatever it is. Might just be progress and experience with substances.

Your first argument is that the talent is simply so much higher now, because the field is more international. Yet when looking at the last 5, not 25 years, there isn't much more internationalization. I counted it (hopefully correct), as can be read in the post you quoted. So for the recent development your argument does not seem to work very well.

Also if we look at the 25 year period of time, you make it sound like there were devine interventions that suddenly made changes to accessibility in general and in more countries as well. But in reality this was a gradual process. so the changes are bound to be somewhat steady not all over the place.

Another point is that you just assume there is better talent now, and not just more. But why should the round about maximum of what human bodies potentially as such change over such a short period of time? Also if you want to compare talent, I don't see how you're gonna do that at all without having a look at performances, in this case power output. And if you do look at the accessible data and estimations, what you'll find is that there was way less power before and after EPO was involved. Until just a few years ago. So this has to be accounted for you know, and to claim it's because a few super humans descended upon the Peloton just seems close to a magical explanation to me. Because your only argument for this is that the talent base changed and therefore the maximum performance potential of individuals riders also changed. But why would it? Why would I get much much much superior talent out of a simply larger, maybe better filtered, pool and not just simply more. I mean I agree that there's most likely more talent now in the pro peloton than there was before, but I have no clue whatsoever why the ceiling of human performances should just massively change upwards. You're argument makes sense for much less developed sports, that are at their beginnings (see Darts e.g. right now). Not so much cycling. It's been around for a long long time as a professional sport. Smaller base, but professional, it's not that humanity lived in the stone ages a few decades ago.
 
Last edited:
I mean... dude. A lot of things happened around 2020.
  • The emergence of high-level talent: Pog, Vingegaard, Remco..
    • Do I believe that their performance is enhanced by doping? Likely​
    • Do I believe that they are more doped than riders from 25 years ago? I doubt it​
  • So if their performance is more or less similar to the PED era, I think their natural talent is better than the top riders of 25 years ago.​
  • More significantly, I think in general the whole peloton is much more talented now than 25 years ago. For example, the talent level from the 20 top riders to the top 200 is much higher now than 25 years ago. With the field becoming much more international and these places no longer being occupied by an overwhelmingly three-nation.​
This was my original point.

Importantly, the corrupt british UCI president was no longer in power around 2020. In my opinion, with the arrival of shady sports washing british money, a lot of dirty things have happened in cycling.

Just look at Froome. He was 26, not only hasn't won a race, he hasn't even come close to winning even the smallest ones. He literally became a GT GOAT overnight. Who believes this kind of stuff?

To me Pog is a billion times more believable than the british GT wins, no matter how much more spectacular Pog's wins are. I see this era as a healing of nature after the corrupt british. Instead of thinking the guys are now dirtier than Armstrong or Pantani.
I don't know, was Hinault, Fignon, Lemond really less talented? I've watched the 80s Core Classic recently and the top dogs didn't dominate the race as Tadej does the World Tour now. It was more human then. So what are we to believe? That in 40 years the human genome has sky-rocketed? I don't think so, not at this level.
 

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
Your first argument is that the talent is simply so much higher now, because the field is more international. Yet when looking at the last 5, not 25 years, there isn't much more internationalization. I counted it (hopefully correct), as can be read in the post you quoted. So for the recent development your argument does not seem to work very well.
Endurance athletes tend to peak after turning 25. So when a 19-20 year old comes into the pro ranks, he starts to get better every year and it takes him 5-6 years to reach peak performance. Don't you agree?
 

troll hunter

BANNED
Oct 17, 2024
40
30
130
I don't know, was Hinault, Fignon, Lemond really less talented? I've watched the 80s Core Classic recently and the top dogs didn't dominate the race as Tadej does the World Tour now. It was more human then. So what are we to believe? That in 40 years the human genome has sky-rocketed? I don't think so, not at this level.
Logic tells me if you have a wider pool of people to choose from and can identify talent more easily now than 25 years ago, you are likely to find better talent.