Question Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 82 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
UAE and Bahrain. When was the last time Ala, Van Aert or Van der Poel did a 30km+ solo? They all make selections early but they are still in a group. Being in a group it allows them to save some energy. If they do a solo then it's a much shorter one, less than 20km like Van Aert in Omloop or Ala at WC RR. Pogacar broke the record for the biggest solo attack in Strade which means he soloed even more than guys like Cancellara.
WVA - mont ventoux (33km)
 
Jul 4, 2021
14
10
560
Pogacar is on some massively effective steroid cocktail. Everyone knows this. It's scientifically amazing how he's able to ride a bicycle as if it was a motorcycle, similar to how Ben Johnson exploded out of the starting gate in the Olympics to beat Carl Lewis in the Olympics. You watch it, and you're amazed at the power of drugs on human performance.

My question is, at what point does it make the races involving Pogacar become so ridiculously non-competitive that it negatively effects viewership, sponsorship, and the sport in general? For example, I no longer watch any mountain/GC stage that Pogacar is competing in, because he literally wins every one, and usually by a huge margin. I'm not wasting 4 hours of my life to watch a race where I know the winner ahead of time. At the rate he is doping for his age, he could continue this for 10 years.

I wasn't watching during the Armstrong doping years, but was it this ridiculous, where Armstrong never lost any GC stage, let alone a race? If so, did anyone watch it? And if they did, why?

And why would any team field a GC rider against Pogacar in any race? It's just a waste of time and money.

I'm at the point where I'm rapidly losing interest in cycling because it's so non-competitive due to Pogacar's doping. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
 
Reactions: topcat
Pogacar is on some massively effective steroid cocktail. Everyone knows this. It's scientifically amazing how he's able to ride a bicycle as if it was a motorcycle, similar to how Ben Johnson exploded out of the starting gate in the Olympics to beat Carl Lewis in the Olympics. You watch it, and you're amazed at the power of drugs on human performance.

My question is, at what point does it make the races involving Pogacar become so ridiculously non-competitive that it negatively effects viewership, sponsorship, and the sport in general? For example, I no longer watch any mountain/GC stage that Pogacar is competing in, because he literally wins every one, and usually by a huge margin. I'm not wasting 4 hours of my life to watch a race where I know the winner ahead of time. At the rate he is doping for his age, he could continue this for 10 years.

I wasn't watching during the Armstrong doping years, but was it this ridiculous, where Armstrong never lost any GC stage, let alone a race? If so, did anyone watch it? And if they did, why?

And why would any team field a GC rider against Pogacar in any race? It's just a waste of time and money.

I'm at the point where I'm rapidly losing interest in cycling because it's so non-competitive due to Pogacar's doping. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
So far I haven't given up completely, but the minute Pog attacks I switch off.

If I watch it's for the clinical aspects alone. Like as a criminal psychological documentary.

I gather UCI wants internationalisation of cycling at all costs. Just like any other sport. But seriously I don't understand how one can expect dictatorships to run fair play teams in general.

So far UAE seems completely focused on Pog howeve. Hence I look forward to the giro.
 
Reactions: Luthor
Pogacar is on some massively effective steroid cocktail. Everyone knows this. It's scientifically amazing how he's able to ride a bicycle as if it was a motorcycle, similar to how Ben Johnson exploded out of the starting gate in the Olympics to beat Carl Lewis in the Olympics. You watch it, and you're amazed at the power of drugs on human performance.

My question is, at what point does it make the races involving Pogacar become so ridiculously non-competitive that it negatively effects viewership, sponsorship, and the sport in general? For example, I no longer watch any mountain/GC stage that Pogacar is competing in, because he literally wins every one, and usually by a huge margin. I'm not wasting 4 hours of my life to watch a race where I know the winner ahead of time. At the rate he is doping for his age, he could continue this for 10 years.

I wasn't watching during the Armstrong doping years, but was it this ridiculous, where Armstrong never lost any GC stage, let alone a race? If so, did anyone watch it? And if they did, why?

And why would any team field a GC rider against Pogacar in any race? It's just a waste of time and money.

I'm at the point where I'm rapidly losing interest in cycling because it's so non-competitive due to Pogacar's doping. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
LOL. I understand your points. I didn't watch much during the nineties. None, zilch, nothing. Only updates. My geographic location and work requirements did not allow me to watch the Tour de France until 2001. In 2001 I was transferred and could watch the Tour again. But this time I could watch whole stages. I couldn't believe it. I have been a big fan in the 80's but nothing was shown in its entirety. So I watched all the Armstrong years. Competition was very boring except for 2003. If I were to do it again I would probably skip many stages. As for the Pogacar years are concerned, take for example those 2 mountain stages from the Tour last year and they were complete and utter garbage. Once he took off in Le Grand-Bornand the rest was so bad. This year looks to be the same. So no, having someone like this it must not be good for ASO or the UCI.

I understand domination. Maybe Froome and eventually Contador. But this is not something I have seen before in my life. This is even worse than Lance Armstrong because you get to see him winning every race that he enters. I really don't understand what is happening.
 
I think Almeida speaks about doping in this clip. I gotta need some Portuguese help with translation. They talk about Armstrong etc and I heard the word doping so couldn't put it in Almeida thread in the usual forum.
She mentioned that it’s been 9 years since Armstrong lost his wins, and asked Almeida what does he think about doping in cycling. He says that the “old days” with the doping era were really sad for cycling, and that many others that were also doped were never caught. He then says that he doesn’t think that anyone dopes today (although at a second time he says almost anyone..), and that it would be really stupid to do it, also because there’s always so much from sponsors involved (I’m assuming that here he is referring to bad pr, etc).
 
Reactions: noob
The difference today, are the World Tour teams and the sponsors no longer tolerate doping like they did in the past. Some PCT teams do still sign ex-dopers falling out of World Tour after they've serve their ban, but I think Almeida is basically saying you would be crazy to dope today as your career is over if you do get caught, the risks to your livelihood are so much greater today. Anyone can survive for 2 years serving a ban and then returning to the top level again like in the past, today it's over. I think that is a big driver and push factor for performance to be found without doping too and why the sport is so much more professional today than Armstrong's time.
 
The difference today, are the World Tour teams and the sponsors no longer tolerate doping like they did in the past. Some PCT teams do still sign ex-dopers falling out of World Tour after they've serve their ban, but I think Almeida is basically saying you would be crazy to dope today as your career is over if you do get caught, the risks to your livelihood are so much greater today. Anyone can survive for 2 years serving a ban and then returning to the top level again like in the past, today it's over. I think that is a big driver and push factor for performance to be found without doping too and why the sport is so much more professional today than Armstrong's time.
So why is Valverde still riding for Movistar, why is Simon Yates still in the peloton, and why would Trek sign Contador in 2017?

It's much easier not to sign busted riders when no riders of significance are busted anymore.
 
Reactions: Ghirmay4Ever
Mar 14, 2022
1
0
10
I followed this threat for a long time. I think there are three topic who all are infiltrated in the view of Pogacar's suspicious.
I bring 3 topics up in front: 1:Slovenia, 2: Colnago and 3: UAE. 4: Being good all year

1: Slovenia nature, mountains looks quite the same as Austria. The tourist industry in the country have a interest in having good professional cyclist to brand the beautiful mountains side in Slovenia, to the amateur cyclist who wants to go on "cycling" vacation. If you search on Youtube, you will see advertising with Pogacar riding in the Slovenia's mountain, and Roglic and Pogacar battle on Slovenia history. Economic is the country pretty rich compare to others "Balkan/Tito) countries. Maybe Slovenia just are the new "old" Colombia, but why haven't we seen any good cyclist in Croatia, Romania and Hungary (Only Attila Valter), and we haven't mentioned Polanc and Mohoric. Two solid riders. All this facts alone made it a bit suspicious.

2: If you go to Colnago's webpage and scroll down, you will find pictures of a number of UAE riders who won recently. They made a deal to give them there bikes. And Pog' and Mcnulty are there posters boy. I find it hard to see that are very old and prestige brand like Colnago would doing business with a Team, who doped there riders or maybe doing motordoping - sometimes it seem a bit to easy to Pog or Mcnulty then they attacks. It would a scandal if we found out that there a doping in the team and Colnago would loose a lot of money and goodwill. The fact that Colnago are co sponsors to UAE give them actually some kind of credibility to the good side. I seems strange if they know the Team is doing doping program.

3: The sport is being more and more global, it's doesn't take much time to see. UAE, Bahrain are both in the top 5 in the ranking. The middle east countries is sponsored billions in sport, to legitimate that they suppress guest work in their countries, who living in same conditions like the family in parasite. Weird allegory i see. I seen them going really far to have maybe seven to ten good year in the cycling industry.
The other suspicious link is Mauro Gianetti who was sports director on Saunier Duval and Lampre: Piepoli, Ricco, José Cobo. In a interview from 2008 the Stephane Heolut was being quoted about Gianetti: "Doping is a so ingrained part of some Sports Directors, that they doesn't can imagined any other way". Mauro are actually not a part of the staff if you look on Procycling, but maybe he just are in the background.
In an interview who the reporter asking about the Gianetti past Pogacar is quoted saying in july 2021: ” If I need to say something, it was in the past. When I met Mauro, he was really great to me, and he is a super good person. I believe what is in the past is in the past, and this new cycling is a way more beautiful sport than before. I can only speak for myself.” I think the combination of general manager who have a suspicious past and a team UAE, who are in the sport for the goodwill are a bad combination UAE in general would go pretty far for results.
And in 2022 it seems to me - that you all have mentioned that a lot more riders are picking: Ayoso, Mcnulty, Covi. Solid good young guys, but wins from far out. And why are Ackermann, Gaviria, Bennet, Hodeg under performed. Maybe because it more difficult to doped if you're a sprinter.

4: I make no sense that you as a cyclist can be good the whole year. Normally you can peak 2-3 times. Pog' should be in good shape in 2 months from end february to end april. It's a long time. Normally you shape will drop after one month's or so - if you not are Valverde the Faun of modern cycling sport. His next form top is Tour de France and then Vuelta (who the skeleton Froome win both, but was underperfom in the spring 2017). His last form top would be Il Lombardia. It make some kind of sense. But if he perfom well an have a more suspicious win ratio this year it make no sense at all.

I know that the threat already have discuss a lot of the topics. And im sorry i didn't write well, and from Denmark, and funny enough i don't believe in Asgreen either.

And i think Pogacar can win the Milano San Remo, Liege Bastogne Liege and Fleche Wallone (because Hirshi is underperformed)
 
So why is Valverde still riding for Movistar, why is Simon Yates still in the peloton, and why would Trek sign Contador in 2017?

It's much easier not to sign busted riders when no riders of significance are busted anymore.
Well Valverde returned to the peloton when it was still acceptable for teams to do that, same as Contador was. they returned to the highest level because the risk for them in Armstrong's era was low, worst case 2 years, over half of that usually taken up in an appeal anyway and then return to same level and pay grade. Yates was clearly not an act of doping. UCI accepted fully, it was an omission on the form iirc.

This graph from cyclism-dopage has always intrigued me. Timing of EPO Test + WADA existence + BioPassport v rate of average speed increse in Tour v number of ex-dopers in that pelotons average speed all correlates by date, but of course could be caused by other extenral factors too not in the data. Interesting though, simply from a # ex dopers in peloton statistic over the years.
 
Last edited:
How does entrants with history of doping equates to actual doping in the peloton? there is absolutely no correlation there. It would be like saying in the 90's that because there are no positives there is no doping. But not knowing that there was a drug for which there was no test.
 
LOL. I understand your points. I didn't watch much during the nineties. None, zilch, nothing. Only updates. My geographic location and work requirements did not allow me to watch the Tour de France until 2001. In 2001 I was transferred and could watch the Tour again. But this time I could watch whole stages. I couldn't believe it. I have been a big fan in the 80's but nothing was shown in its entirety. So I watched all the Armstrong years. Competition was very boring except for 2003. If I were to do it again I would probably skip many stages. As for the Pogacar years are concerned, take for example those 2 mountain stages from the Tour last year and they were complete and utter garbage. Once he took off in Le Grand-Bornand the rest was so bad. This year looks to be the same. So no, having someone like this it must not be good for ASO or the UCI.

I understand domination. Maybe Froome and eventually Contador. But this is not something I have seen before in my life. This is even worse than Lance Armstrong because you get to see him winning every race that he enters. I really don't understand what is happening.
I think having a massively dominant athlete is exactly what the masses love the most, just look at any sport that has a single dominant athlete and it always ends up making the sport a huge amount of money and relevance. For serious fans like us it’s the opposite but that’s not how the main 90% of the population works.
 
The difference today, are the World Tour teams and the sponsors no longer tolerate doping like they did in the past. Some PCT teams do still sign ex-dopers falling out of World Tour after they've serve their ban, but I think Almeida is basically saying you would be crazy to dope today as your career is over if you do get caught, the risks to your livelihood are so much greater today. Anyone can survive for 2 years serving a ban and then returning to the top level again like in the past, today it's over. I think that is a big driver and push factor for performance to be found without doping too and why the sport is so much more professional today than Armstrong's time.
All World Tour teams have proven dopers and cheaters in their staff. If they dont have exdoper riders is because nobody tests positive these days.
 
Well Valverde returned to the peloton when it was still acceptable for teams to do that, same as Contador was. they returned to the highest level because the risk for them in Armstrong's era was low, worst case 2 years, over half of that usually taken up in an appeal anyway and then return to same level and pay grade. Yates was clearly not an act of doping. UCI accepted fully, it was an omission on the form iirc.

This graph from cyclism-dopage has always intrigued me. Timing of EPO Test + WADA existence + BioPassport v rate of average speed increse in Tour v number of ex-dopers in that pelotons average speed all correlates by date, but of course could be caused by other extenral factors too not in the data. Interesting though, simply from a # ex dopers in peloton statistic over the years.
I mean that graph looks a lot more like proof that people are just not being caught for their doping rather than there being less doping now. Equipment and training upgrades alone shouldn’t allow riders to still get faster over time which is what this graph is suggesting.
 

acm

Mar 15, 2022
107
187
530
I followed this threat for a long time. I think there are three topic who all are infiltrated in the view of Pogacar's suspicious.
I bring 3 topics up in front: 1:Slovenia, 2: Colnago and 3: UAE. 4: Being good all year

1: Slovenia nature, mountains looks quite the same as Austria. The tourist industry in the country have a interest in having good professional cyclist to brand the beautiful mountains side in Slovenia, to the amateur cyclist who wants to go on "cycling" vacation. If you search on Youtube, you will see advertising with Pogacar riding in the Slovenia's mountain, and Roglic and Pogacar battle on Slovenia history. Economic is the country pretty rich compare to others "Balkan/Tito) countries. Maybe Slovenia just are the new "old" Colombia, but why haven't we seen any good cyclist in Croatia, Romania and Hungary (Only Attila Valter), and we haven't mentioned Polanc and Mohoric. Two solid riders. All this facts alone made it a bit suspicious.
If you knew the real situation in Slovenia, you would not write this. The tourism industry is only taking advantage of the current fame of Pogačar and Roglič. Tourism industry did nothing for their success. The situation in slovenian cycling in general is exactly the opposite, as Roglič and Pogačar show. There is a huge gap behind Tadej, things are not going well in slovenian cycling clubs, there is no money and no real system in the younger selections. Roglič and Pogačar are just exceptions and I think that all credit goes to TJV and UAE.
 
Reactions: noob and Red Rick
I mean that graph looks a lot more like proof that people are just not being caught for their doping rather than there being less doping now. Equipment and training upgrades alone shouldn’t allow riders to still get faster over time which is what this graph is suggesting.
So you think the known ~50% of dopers racing against Armstrong, also a doper means anti-doping was much more effective in the Armstrong era despite most of that era having no test for EPO, no bio passport and no WADA and UCI even being paid of by Armstrong? Maybe, but the graph is a delayed historical reflection of caught dopers. You would have to believe that anti-doping's effectiveness has become vastly less-effective as more anti-doping controls, methods and organisations created and so much so, today I think not even 1% of the peloton have a doping violation.
 
I mean that graph looks a lot more like proof that people are just not being caught for their doping rather than there being less doping now. Equipment and training upgrades alone shouldn’t allow riders to still get faster over time which is what this graph is suggesting.

The answer is in superior recruitment. The average speed isn't dictated by the winners, it's dictated by the peloton as a whole. Most of the time the winner is in the same group as the lanterne rouge. It's the rouleurs - breakaways and domestiques - that are responsible for the speed.
More and more juniors and under 23s have accumulated a portfolio of power data which teams look at for recruitment. So they are signing those that can tap out the numbers rather than race winners from the junior/u23 ranks. The riders who can do the job required. And as a result the speed goes up.

Full TV coverage of stages has also had an impact
 
Reactions: Bronstein
I really don't understand why people are in denial. There is always been doping. One way or another. Do they get hurt emotionally? are the invested in the sport? do they work for the UCI? I don't understand.
People want to believe.

Also, sportsmen with superpowers have always provided a mixture of fascination & "entertainment", i.e. becoming the focal point of the entire spectacle & often the reason "why" people turn their tv on to see the event (or actually go & watch at the side of the road with regards to cycling).

Pog isn't the first either, but it must be said the level of his dominance & performances all year long are quite shocking. My eyes popped at Strade for example when he just "rode off" with his finger in his nose (& his first challenger that day being Valverde was also a total LOL). I basically haven't seen anything like Pogacar from a GC guy in my lifetime. And the fact his boss is Mr Saunier Duval is just the icing on the WTF cake.

I might be part of the problem though because I literally cannot wait for Milan-San Remo, i.e. it seems crazy to even type "Pogacar is favorite" for that race but here we are. So I want to see what happens & just how far down the rabbit hole into suspension of disbelief this guy rides (he could win every monument within a few years).

Pog basically performs like Lance circa Alpe D'Huez 2001... seemingly every major race & practically no matter the terrain.
 
Reactions: noob and Escarabajo
it's not denial. it's waiting for real busts and positive cases to throw the first stone. and even after that, the bias and the likes-dislikes and the good boys-bad boys views will skew our reactions
If Johan Bruyneel was Tadej Pogacar's directeur sportif, people would be laughing their asses off when watching Pog's joy rides.

i.e. the real bust was already there, aka Mauro Gianetti.

I've become completely desensitised by all the obvious elephants in the room in pro cycling (& there are many, in most top teams), but I do scratch my head & go WTF at people who literally still actually defend an "all clean until proven otherwise" argument.

I'm sorry, but nope. Not with riders super performing under Riccardo Ricco's boss. For me the only question is how far each team pushes it & whether some teams get special dispensation to go further for whatever reasons (political, financial etc.).

The ridiculous truth is "if" Pogacar rides paniagua, he's one of the greatest athletic human specimens in recorded history. So people can do the maths, i.e. "Pog is a result of Gianetti & his dark arts" versus "Pog is a literal biological marvel"... (or maybe a bit of both).
 
The answer is in superior recruitment. The average speed isn't dictated by the winners, it's dictated by the peloton as a whole. Most of the time the winner is in the same group as the lanterne rouge. It's the rouleurs - breakaways and domestiques - that are responsible for the speed.
More and more juniors and under 23s have accumulated a portfolio of power data which teams look at for recruitment. So they are signing those that can tap out the numbers rather than race winners from the junior/u23 ranks. The riders who can do the job required. And as a result the speed goes up.

Full TV coverage of stages has also had an impact
You do make a good point. The races are much more aggressive than they had been in the past. The domestiques, rouleurs etc are responsible for that. That doesn't explain the dominance of Pogacar however. He is freakish. And yeah, I think the guys at the pointy end are all doping.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY