I have no hard evidence (no one does), but as someone who’s followed cycling for decades I’m increasingly convinced that some performances today simply don’t add up.
When riders start breaking records on climbs like Mont Ventoux or Plateau de Beille – climbs with limited aero benefit and long sustained power – we’re no longer in the realm of marginal gains. These are pure tests of physiology.
Yes, bikes are lighter and slightly stiffer. Yes, gear ratios are better optimized. But these are minor advantages on a 50+ minute climb at 6.5 w/kg or more. And while training, fueling, and nutrition have evolved – they haven’t transformed so drastically in the past 2–3 years to explain the kinds of performance leaps we’re seeing from some riders.
Take Tadej Pogačar as an example. In 2021, he was already the best stage racer in the world, sustaining ~6.5 W/kg on key climbs. Yet by 2024, he produced nearly 7.0 W/kg for close to 40 minutes on Plateau de Beille—an unprecedented leap of 7–8% at the absolute elite level. Such a gain in just 2–3 years is far beyond what can be reasonably explained by training, nutrition, or equipment alone.
What could possibly explain this? 3 possibilities (the one more likely than the other):
1. Genetic manipulation (e.g. PGC‑1α)
Upregulating PGC‑1α can increase both mitochondrial density and fast-twitch endurance – meaning better long efforts, better explosiveness, and faster recovery.
If such interventions are in play, they’re undetectable with current protocols.
And they would perfectly match the profile of a rider who dominates sprints, climbs, time trials, and recovers like a machine. PGC does look like an abbreviation of Pogacar, but that is purely coincidental (existed before).
2. AICAR and metabolic modulators
AICAR enhances fat metabolism, endurance, and mitochondrial output.
We now know it was possibly used by Team Sky as early as 2012, based on recent reports.
That changes the reference point: we’re not comparing with the doping era of the early 2000s, but with a system that may have continued well into the mid-2010s.
So when people say "but bikes, nutrition, and training improved...", the real comparison should be 2013–2015, not 2000.
3. Mechanical assistance (inductive / electromagnetic systems)
Miniaturized induction or electromagnetic wheel systems exist, are real, and are technically feasible in today’s pro bikes.
The UCI’s detection tools remain extremely limited:
- No internal dismantling of wheels
- No firmware or data analysis
- Thermal cameras and tablets can be evaded with smart materials and concealment
The fact that riders are “frequently tested” is comforting only on paper. If the tools are blind to the real threats... Frequency ≠ effectiveness.
As a cycling fan I expect believable performances, backed by logic, physiology, and technological transparency. When an athlete appears to defy multiple biological limits – day after day, Tour after Tour – without a coherent explanation, suspicion is not cynicism. It’s critical thinking.
If we truly want to protect clean riders (I applaud Oscar Onley for publishing his Watts) and keep the sport credible, we need to be honest about what can be done today, what can’t be detected, and what seems increasingly hard to explain.
If that makes me skeptical, so be it.