Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[ppanther92]

Pogacar’s winning record stretches way back before he joined UAE. eg 2018 Tour de l‘Avenir.

Also UAE for the riders they have are not putting in too many great performances on a broad level at times. Last years Tour was the first with something like a consistently strong climbing support for Pogacar. Visma or formely Ineos/Sky seem way more streamlined and dominant in what they focus on. Or put differently - if Pogacar was only a result of an expensive doping program that only UAE can afford, they would certainly want a Pogacar #2 and a Pogacar #3, and better support for their Pogacars and so on, no? MSR for example was a huge fail on teamlevel again.

That said, since I am convinced doping is still a big part, and there is not only a difference in access but also response - it will never be a level-playing field.

On the other hand, one can also ask, to make it more philosophical, if winning the genetical lottery in terms of physical capacity is any more or any less pure luck than being a good responder to certain substances. Both cases are exogenous factors beyond the influence of oneself.

The most unfair thing is obviously the Armstrong type of case. Where one rider is protected by authorities and others are even specifically targeted if they come close to said rider. But I hope thats not the case this time.

 

[Blobs]

UAE budget is big, but that's because they pay a lot to the riders. As they have many quality riders. I don't doubt that 'clinic' stuff doesn't happen at the team, of course it does, just like all the WT teams. But I doubt that the Sheikh as one of the richest men in the world is involved in any 'clinic' stuff or has any day to day insight into the cycling team or the sport in general.

My feeling is that at the end of the year Gianetti always prints out the UCI ranking and shows it to the big boss saying 'hey folks, we have the best team, if you keep transferring money the UAE name will stay at the top of the list' or something silly like that.

If they have their own Ferrari guy, they might say they need 'X amount' transferred to him, which can't be on their books

Pogacar’s winning record stretches way back before he joined UAE. eg 2018 Tour de l‘Avenir.

I'm not sure what your point is. That doesn't contradict anything I've said

Also UAE for the riders they have are not putting in too many great performances on a broad level at times. Last years Tour was the first with something like a consistently strong climbing support for Pogacar. Visma or formely Ineos/Sky seem way more streamlined and dominant in what they focus on. Or put differently - if Pogacar was only a result of an expensive doping program that only UAE can afford, they would certainly want a Pogacar #2 and a Pogacar #3, and better support for their Pogacars and so on, no? MSR for example was a huge fail on teamlevel again.

That said, since I am convinced doping is still a big part, and there is not only a difference in access but also response - it will never be a level-playing field.

On the other hand, one can also ask, to make it more philosophical, if winning the genetical lottery in terms of physical capacity is any more or any less pure luck than being a good responder to certain substances. Both cases are exogenous factors beyond the influence of oneself.

The most unfair thing is obviously the Armstrong type of case. Where one rider is protected by authorities and others are even specifically targeted if they come close to said rider. But I hope thats not the case this time.

I'm sure Pog wants to be the undisputed leader. Having two other riders on his level would be terrible for team dynamics. You could have a Jumbo Vuelta-situation in every race, and soon the other two (or Pog himself) would want to leave the team, and the knowledge of what they're doing would spread to the rest of the peloton.

I don't think Lance would have liked to have other riders at his level in the team. The 2009 Tour is proof of that.

Edit: Also look at this stat:

What is the best team in 2024?

UAE Team Emirates has 6809 points so far, 2836 more than runner-up Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale Team. They are followed by Team Visma | Lease a Bike (3940) and Lidl - Trek (3792).

www.procyclingstats.com

They're doing quite well. Miles ahead of everyone else.

 

[Cookster15]

@Blobs :-

I'm not sure what your point is. That doesn't contradict anything I've said

I wasn't referring to your comments. I was referring to the OPs reasoning when this thread started. I also think you are misconstruing ppanther92's point about Pog not having strong supporting teammates for the mountains but he/she can correct you.

 

[Cookster15]

to make it more philosophical, if winning the genetical lottery in terms of physical capacity is any more or any less pure luck than being a good responder to certain substances.

Just wanted to mention that I strongly disagree with this view. Winning the genetic lottery in terms of physical capacity is clearly talent. To suggest being a super responder to doping is "talent" is just wrong.

 

[proffate]

Just wanted to mention that I strongly disagree with this view. Winning the genetic lottery in terms of physical capacity is clearly talent. To suggest being a super responder to doping is "talent" is just wrong.

It certainly is strange that we call innate aerobic capacity "talent" whereas we'd never say someone who's 6'10" was born with a "talent" for being tall.

 

[Netserk]

It certainly is strange that we call innate aerobic capacity "talent" whereas we'd never say someone who's 6'10" was born with a "talent" for being tall.

You don't become taller by using your tallness.

 

[Nick2413]

In a perfect world I’d prefer talent to be purely based on actionable things like work ethic, training, strategy etc but in reality it’s half and half. Even aerodynamics and body shape make “talented” cyclists. But for things that are not even supposed to be a part of the sport like doping, it’s be nice if “talent” didn’t play a role.

 

[proffate]

You don't become taller by using your tallness.

and you don't increase your genetically determined vo2 max ceiling by exercising like Greg Lemond

 

[Rob5091]

Oooh, the real Teddy? 'roid rage?!
https://cyclinguptodate.com/cycling...uments-that-giro-is-won-before-it-even-starts

“That's ***, and not nice. It is not respectful to the other riders. It's not all just about me and UAE Emirates," ...."In the media, as is often the case, it is ***."

 

[Extinction]

and you don't increase your genetically determined vo2 max ceiling by exercising like Greg Lemondt

However, nobody increases tallness through training, but cyclists can reach their highest potential vo2 max by exercising. One's height is thus simply a fact, a piece of unalterable data; whereas vo2 max isn't a constant and relies upon genetic predisposition and the will to train to reach highest potential level. In cases like Lemond for cycling, having such good genetics for an incredibly high vo2 max with rigorous training is usually called talent.

 

[proffate]

However, nobody increases tallness through training, but cyclists can reach their highest potential vo2 max by exercising. One's height is thus simply a fact, a piece of unalterable data; whereas vo2 max isn't a constant and relies upon genetic predisposition and the will to train to reach highest potential level. In cases like Lemond for cycling, having such good genetics for an incredibly high vo2 max with rigorous training is usually called talent.

yea, whatever, the point is that people only pay attention to things they can see with their eyes. They can see height, so it's a tangible, unalterable thing that exists. They can see someone riding 6 hours a day, so that's a thing that exists. They can't see a genetic predisposition for aerobic capacity, so it must be some je ne sais quoi we call "talent". But that "talent" is just as much something you're born with as height is.

(Note that the actions you take as a child, such as sleep and nutrition, do affect your adult height, so if you want to call this "training" then people do increase their tallness through training. And I'm pretty sure cyclists do encompass nutrition and sleep in their overall "training" plans.)

 

[Extinction]

yea, whatever, the point is that people only pay attention to things they can see with their eyes. They can see height, so it's a tangible, unalterable thing that exists. They can see someone riding 6 hours a day, so that's a thing that exists. They can't see a genetic predisposition for aerobic capacity, so it must be some je ne sais quoi we call "talent". But that "talent" is just as much something you're born with as height is.

(Note that the actions you take as a child, such as sleep and nutrition, do affect your adult height, so if you want to call this "training" then people do increase their tallness through training. And I'm pretty sure cyclists do encompass nutrition and sleep in their overall "training" plans.)

Well, you can see someone's height. This in and of itself doesn't usually constitute a particular talent, but you can't see genetic predisposition for vo2 max, which, if extremely high is in cycling called the essence of talent. Train your height? That's just called meeting normal dietary requirements. Beyond this, there's nothing you can do to grow taller except bs about it. So, no, you can't "train height" to gain centimeters, the way you can exercise to increase vo2 max. Leonardo da Vinci was born with an extraordinary predisposition for draftmanship, but he still had to become Verrocchio's apprentice and apply his talent to reach sublimity in art. By contrast, a lesser talent, even with the best artistic training and application, a Leonardo he does not become. The cycling equivalent is you can't make a donkey into a race horse.

 

[Rob5091]

The cycling equivalent is you can't make a donkey into a race horse.

It used to be argued here quite often during the Froome/Sky era that that was possible!

 

[Cookster15]

It certainly is strange that we call innate aerobic capacity "talent" whereas we'd never say someone who's 6'10" was born with a "talent" for being tall.

What has being tall got to do with aerobic capacity? If anything being tall is disadvantageous to cycling as that makes you heavier and hence a lower watts per kilo potential all else being equal. Being tall might help in TT as potentially you have a flatter, more aero back. But climbing its all about watts per kilo.

Of course aerobic capacity is talent in road cycling. And (relative) VO2 max as the most popular method of measuring endurance sport potential. VO2 max can't be improved much by training. Either you have it or not. Once you are lean you won't increase VO2 much further no matter how much you train. Your ceiling is determined by genetics.

Talent became clear to me nearly 30 years ago when I was doing triathlon. I finished a 90 minute training run building pace over the final 2km which took me to nearly my max heart rate (about 190). I was running with another guy who finished with me. We sat down on a brick wall to recover and watched our heart rates. After a minute mine was 140. His was 102. But I was training just as much as him and had been in the sport nearly a decade longer - he only started two years earlier. That is talent. No amount of training would get me to his level.

Response to doping methods is not a "talent".

 

[Blobs]

Response to doping methods is not a "talent".

In a sport where the top guys dope, the two are indistinguishable though.

 

[Scarponi]

Sunday ride

 

[Extinction]

I can testify that on the RAI Processo alla Tappa today, when asked by Stefano Rizzato after the stage (in the first interview without other journos) if he thought winning on this climb, given Pantani's legacy, was more special, Tadej seemed decidedly annoyed. His response was, with a crossed look and frustrated sigh (a rare moment of discomposure), "not really, I mean it doesn't affect me, everytime I race in Italy they're always pointing out to me every climb Pantani did, but it's not relevant to me". However, in the second interview before a crew of journalists, when Rizzato asked the same question, Pogacar gave quite a different response. While still saying he wasn't really thinking about it, he then mulling it over diplomatically added, "but for all the Italians for whom Pantani was inspiring, I guess so". To then add that, in so many words, he thought he "felt Pantani's pressence" on the climb! Hilarious. The Italian cycling journos seem to conveniently overlook that Pantani is associated with a "doped to the gills era", which today's non-Italian riders don't particularlly want to be associated with (for image purposes, not because there is no doping today obviously). The sycophant deference on the one hand, is thus balanced by the hipocrasy on the other. Ask Gianetti about Pantani, Pogi.

 

[noob]

Oh, now I think I finally understand why people are talking about "responding to" this and that doping. It's like with medication in general.

But then the "good responders" logically would also mean there will possibly be more side effects/risks. And the not so good responders with less side effects might in reality be better responders, since less side effects etc.

So how would it in reality be possible to make an amazing athlete simply out of how they respond to a drug? Especially not without risking their lives? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[Tim Cahill]

26 years ago to day the UCI got the teams together to warn about using Perfluorocarbons, after Giannetti used them in the Romandie prior and almost killed himself, ending up in intensive care.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

26 years ago to day the UCI got the teams together to warn about using Perfluorocarbons, after Giannetti used them in the Romandie prior and almost killed himself, ending up in intensive care.

Why don’t they celebrate this anniversary instead of reminding us of the before picture in a shampoo commercial dropping his chain.

 

[Extinction]

26 years ago to day the UCI got the teams together to warn about using Perfluorocarbons, after Giannetti used them in the Romandie prior and almost killed himself, ending up in intensive care.

Correct, and probably Gianetti told Pogi to be more diplomatic in the second interview.

 

[carolina]

Oh, now I think I finally understand why people are talking about "responding to" this and that doping. It's like with medication in general.

But then the "good responders" logically would also mean there will possibly be more side effects/risks. And the not so good responders with less side effects might in reality be better responders, since less side effects etc.

So how would it in reality be possible to make an amazing athlete simply out of how they respond to a drug? Especially not without risking their lives? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

A good responder could be someone that doesn't get to many side effects from the drugs while also responding well to them.

With the current anti-doping regulations, it's very unlikely someone would die from taking drugs. They wouldn't be able to use high doses without getting caught.

Also, if we look at sports without anti-doping control, like bodybuilding, the biggest risk factor is the very high weight combined with very bad cardiovascular health. During the last 3-4 years, several well known bodybuilders have died from heart attacks or heart related issues.

 

[Ripper]

26 years ago to day the UCI got the teams together to warn about using Perfluorocarbons, after Giannetti used them in the Romandie prior and almost killed himself, ending up in intensive care.

Not the best anniversary

Man, one thing I don't like is seeing Gianetti at races.

 

[Tim Cahill]

Not the best anniversary

Man, one thing I don't like is seeing Gianetti at races.

The riders are responsible of course but I always thought the people that prey on them and push them into it were worse

He reminds me of the warlock from Game of Thrones

 

[Nomad]

Also, if we look at sports without anti-doping control, like bodybuilding, the biggest risk factor is the very high weight combined with very bad cardiovascular health. During the last 3-4 years, several well known bodybuilders have died from heart attacks or heart related issues.

That's a great point. The modern era of professional bodybuilding is called the "mass monsters" (i.e. freak show. Lol). They take huge amounts of anabolic steroids, testosterone, growth hormones, IGF-1, anti-aromatization drugs, etc, spending thousands of dollars a month on their PED habit.

Contrast that with the Golden era bodybuilders in the 70's (e.g., Arnold, Lou Ferrigno, Frank Zane, Ken Waller, etc) who took relatively small amounts of a few steroids - they were actually in very good health (most of the Golden era guys are still alive today!).