Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Divergence]

I'd prefer you'd post direct quotes before you tell your opinion, but it's your call.

I guess your employees would not mind listening to what you would prefer.

 

[red_flanders]

Money talks, bull-sheet walks. Trust fund does wonders. In any case, only a select few actually know what's going on at the top.

That's a very simple construct. Willing to buy it if there's any evidence to support it. History suggests money helps, but is certainly not the only path, and a lot of teams have a lot of money.

 

[Extinction]

That's a very simple construct. Willing to buy it if there's any evidence to support it. History suggests money helps, but is certainly not the only path, and a lot of teams have a lot of money.

Who has evidence? Who shot JFK? I don't know. But we all live in the "real" world. It's fun and kind of kinky, when you think about it.

 

[red_flanders]

Who has evidence? Who shot JFK? I don't know. But we all live in the "real" world. It's fun and kind of kinky, when you think about it.

Yep, we have what we know about the past, and that's about it. So I'm left with "I doubt it's that simple" but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[Extinction]

Yep, we have what we know about the past, and that's about it. So I'm left with "I doubt it's that simple" but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Convinced? Look, everbody draws their own conclusions. Whether or not that has any bearing on the nature of things, is an open question. Someone once said stoically, the effects of anger were much worse than that which caused it. Marcus Aurelius?

 

[aphronesis]

Money buys dope? Life isn’t like the 90s? Effects exceed and transform the techniques of their causes? What else?

 

[Ripper]

I hope this entire paragraph is satire. If not, it is pure and utter ignorance. There's really no in-between.

UAE press officer!

 

[Extinction]

Money buys dope? Life isn’t like the 90s? Effects exceed and transform the techniques of their causes? What else?

Just explain what you mean. I'm not even a moralist, but Gianetti's got to go, like Riis, like Bruyneel. The guy simply shouldn't be involved with the sport. Life isn't like the 90s? Nice try. It's far worse.

 

[Cookster15]

I bet they aren't watching the full 5 hour broadcast like us.

You may be right about fans switching off but popularity of cycling goes up and down. Maybe it went down during Merckyx, Indurain and Armstrong eras too?

But your quote I am interested to know who is "us"? How many fans actually sit through an entire day's racing? "Hardcore" fans would not be a large number in the total scheme of viewers and followers who make up the cycling market.

I have been following the sport for 33 years and have never sat through an entire stage - I don't think I ever watched a full replay either -5 to 6 hours? We have a car race in Australia which runs all day. I kind of watched that as a kid. But a bike race? I prefer the last 2 hours at most. Most European races finish at 1:30am here.

 

[Abedfo]

It's a brave man who sits through 5 hours of Carlton Kirby on a transitional Vuelta stage.

 

[Red Rick]

But sure, one team might hold an advantage for a couple years. See Visma, then UAE.

That's where UCI protection comes in. Team doctors on UCI medical panel, etc. Armstrong had positives covered up. It's all been done before.

 

[ashhutch1997]

That's where UCI protection comes in. Team doctors on UCI medical panel, etc. Armstrong had positives covered up. It's all been done before.

I think this is what's going on, I think Armstrong payed off the UCI to cover up a test, I could imagine UAE doing something similar.

 

[red_flanders]

That's where UCI protection comes in. Team doctors on UCI medical panel, etc. Armstrong had positives covered up. It's all been done before.

Sure. Yet it seems now everyone is protected to a degree. The sport seems to have lost interest in policing itself some time ago.

 

[hrotha]

I thought the story was that Armstrong didn't really pay off the UCI to cover up a positive, but rather that Armstrong was notified (as was the standard protocol at the time) of a weird test result that wouldn't really have gone anywhere as per the rules at the time but he thought it was an actual positive so he believed he was getting preferential treatment because he was The Greatest and he decided to pay off the UCI for no reason then brag about it to his underlings like an absolute moron

 

[kingjr]

I guess your employees would not mind listening to what you would prefer.

Is not just hearing what you want to hear too much to ask?

 

[Red Rick]

Sure. Yet it seems now everyone is protected to a degree. The sport seems to have lost interest in policing itself some time ago.

Protected is maybe overstating it in my view, but they're definitely not trying all that hard to find anything.

I try to just assume people in cycling are neither especially corrupt or especially incorruptable, and just try to have a holistic view of how it would work if everyone is just self interested mostly.

Cycling has experienced that when it tries to do a better job policing itself, it only gets a worse reputation. In addition, 'demand' for antidoping and questions about doping are much more determined by whether the dominant champoins are well liked or not rather than if they're completely ridiculous or not.

Pogacar ticked so many boxes in his first years that made him very appealing for many casual fans so they bought in completely, and now that it's gotten ridiculous to the nth degree to the nth degree, it's too late to take that emotional investment back.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Pogacar ticked so many boxes in his first years that made him very appealing for many casual fans so they bought in completely, and now that it's gotten ridiculous to the nth degree to the nth degree, it's too late to take that emotional investment back.

So you don't think Pogi is a good boy whose only marginal gain is porridge? Disappointing.

 

[Netserk]

Bottom line is this is the sport of cycling. You are not going to find any top pro who is squeaky clean. None. So sadly most of what gets discussed in the Clinic boils down to my doper is being beaten and I'm not happy.

Spoken like a Lance apologist.

Kimmage was a doper too, so it's impossible to say who was worse or did more harm between him and Armstrong.

 

[Red Rick]

So you don't think Pogi is a good boy whose only marginal gain is porridge? Disappointing.

This post alone makes today, Wednesday the 8th of October, 2025, a horrendous day to have eyes

 

[red_flanders]

Protected is maybe overstating it in my view, but they're definitely not trying all that hard to find anything.

I try to just assume people in cycling are neither especially corrupt or especially incorruptable, and just try to have a holistic view of how it would work if everyone is just self interested mostly.

Agree with all of that.

Cycling has experienced that when it tries to do a better job policing itself, it only gets a worse reputation. In addition, 'demand' for antidoping and questions about doping are much more determined by whether the dominant champoins are well liked or not rather than if they're completely ridiculous or not.

I dunno. I think it was more what you say about the reputation of the sport than any one champion being palatable or not. The Armstrong hangover. "We can't afford another one" kinda thing. Not sure it would have mattered too much who it was. Happened to be Sky. But sure, no real motivation there either, just not the same kind of detestable behavior across the boards.

 

[aphronesis]

There might be an argument that the Armstrong era capitalized and brought a level or degree of “professionalism” that was more than earlier decades. Consummated maybe. Sky obviously moved with that, and once it became endemic as the state of things, there’s not going to be a return to the ramshackle scandals of the past. As much as allowable.

 

[Rob5091]

Big bucks come into the sport, one guy "does a Landis" everyday of the week, and of course, nothing to see here!
I suppose until someone collapses mid-race, the show will roll on.

 

[aphronesis]

Just explain what you mean. I'm not even a moralist, but Gianetti's got to go, like Riis, like Bruyneel. The guy simply shouldn't be involved with the sport. Life isn't like the 90s? Nice try. It's far worse.

That’s debatable, but it wasn’t posed as disagreement. In terms of cycling as a possibility, probably so.

Edit, here, I’ll indulge you: Gianetti going is not a fix. Riis and Bruyneel (with his mostly wrong race analysis) seem to be carrying on.

 

[Extinction]

That’s debatable, but it wasn’t posed as disagreement. In terms of cycling as a possibility, probably so.

Edit, here, I’ll indulge you: Gianetti going is not a fix. Riis and Bruyneel (with his mostly wrong race analysis) seem to be carrying on.

Cycling as a possibility sure isn't going to happen with the entrenchment of omertà and old world ethos (however I may love the old world). And I'm well aware booting Gianetti won't change things, as was the case with Bruyneel and Riis. Mine is just useless protest, which, however, I shall tenaciously defend.

 

[Extinction]

There might be an argument that the Armstrong era capitalized and brought a level or degree of “professionalism” that was more than earlier decades. Consummated maybe. Sky obviously moved with that, and once it became endemic as the state of things, there’s not going to be a return to the ramshackle scandals of the past. As much as allowable.

Or simply cycling can't afford another major scandal and so market interests have taken over, amongst the federation and journos alike. The war on doping thus succombs to don't spit on the plate from which you eat. Taking access to professionalism as explaining the ridiculous feats of today, is only an excuse for them (the UCI and journalism) to justify not fighting against it.