Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Nomad]

I think if the sport of cycling was traditionally one where less natural ability + being a super responder to dope outperformed more natural ability and the same dope and that was a measurable thing/fact/number/win, all teams involved through to Festina and Armstrong would have naturally evolved to signing only such super responders to gain an advantage, just like all teams doped to try and gain an advantage. They didn't though, or perhaps it all gets blurred through youth progression and a mistake is made that progression equals some form of credibility regardless of them doping probably throughout. So I'm not even sure you could claim Armstrong must have been a super responder when even Ferrari said they used very little doping compared to what was happening in the peloton or could be used, but you would then easily get caught like Ullrich, Pantani etc. Of course we can say Ullrich & Pantani were doped donkeys like Armstrong too, but that's generally not the story told in the clinic.

If the Hct upper safety limit (50%) was uniformly enforced, then riders in the Armstrong era would be capped on how much they could dope. And the riders with the lowest baseline Hcts could dope on a higher percentage basis than guys that had a higher baseline number. Armstrong supposedly had a baseline Hct in the high 30's (he has stated this many times in interviews), therefore if he doped right up to the limit, he's seeing a 25% + increase in his blood values. Plus there's his cocktail of HGH, testosterone, corticosteroids, etc, that most of his rivals were also using (probably not a "super responder" in the true sense but someone that had more leeway with his extremely low baseline crit).

It was a much different situation in the Wild West of the 90's where no upper safety limit existed for most of the decade & guys could dope to dangerously high blood levels. Take a look at Gewiss-Ballan's systematic doping program overseen by Ferrari. Released documents show Hct variations in 1994-95 with some of their top riders (e.g., Riis 41.1 - 56.3, Ugrumov 32.8 - 60.0, Berzin 41.7 - 53.0).

Gewiss–Ballan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Netserk]

So, let's get to the $64k question here: What's the consensus? Is van Aert clean (genetic freak) or suspected PEDs/motor? (inquiring minds want to know. Lol).

This guy is huge (6'3" 172 lbs) for a world-class cyclist let alone a guy that can climb big mountains. I look back at a guy built like van Aert - "Big Mig" (6'1" 170 lbs), who was one heck of a climber & 5xTour winner. But I suspect Indurain was probably using rocket fuel with its prevalence back in the Wild West of the 90's & his affiliation with a doping doctor back then.

Another rider built like van Aert & one of my favorites back in the day is Thor Hushovd (6'0" 174 lbs). But Thor was a sprinter/classics guy that couldn't climb worth beans. Lol

I vacillate back & forth on van Aert, IOW...I don't have a clue! That's why I'm asking for the expert opinion of others here.

How is that even a question. No, I'm also not unsure whether or not Chiappucci doped.

The world of cycling would have to be a very weird place for Van Aert to be clean. Just imagine how good a climber he'd be if he actually started doping.

 

[CleanCiclismo]

... are doping.


"Those teams must be clean because everyone joining them instantly becomes a monster."

Bizarre take.

Where did I say that they were clean? Jumbo literally had a doping positive rider in the last Giro. All I'm saying is that these teams are likely using something that isn't illegal, but it gives them some advantage to other teams. For example look at the french team Decathlon. They are flying this season and they didn't do anything different in their prep. The only difference is their new bikes. Which even competitors say gives them an advantage. Not a big one but big enough that they started winning races.

 

[samhocking]

If the Hct upper safety limit (50%) was uniformly enforced, then riders in the Armstrong era would be capped on how much they could dope. And the riders with the lowest baseline Hcts could dope on a higher percentage basis than guys that had a higher baseline number. Armstrong supposedly had a baseline Hct in the high 30's (he has stated this many times in interviews), therefore if he doped right up to the limit, he's seeing a 25% + increase in his blood values. Plus there's his cocktail of HGH, testosterone, corticosteroids, etc, that most of his rivals were also using (probably not a "super responder" in the true sense but someone that had more leeway with his extremely low baseline crit).

It was a much different situation in the Wild West of the 90's where no upper safety limit existed for most of the decade & guys could dope to dangerously high blood levels. Take a look at Gewiss-Ballan's systematic doping program overseen by Ferrari. Released documents show Hct variations in 1994-95 with some of their top riders (e.g., Riis 41.1 - 56.3, Ugrumov 32.8 - 60.0, Berzin 41.7 - 53.0).

Gewiss–Ballan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

OK, but the 50% limit was only really in place for 2 seasons of Armstrongs GT winning career. In 1997 he didn't compete, 1998 he was 4th in La Vuelta, 1999 won Tour, then the EPO test came in 2000 and he dominated the next 6 years while almost every rival around him got sanctioned for epo or blood. All I'm saying is, if such an advantage existed because you genetically had more room to respond to an epo gain, are we saying then that his main rivals of that time were never going to beat him as I would assume those arguing why Armstrong could dominate was because Pantani, Ullrich, Zulle, Escartin, Beloki, Contador were more naturally talented / disadvantaged by their own doping? As I said, it would be very simple in the age of risk-free EPO use pre 2000 for riders and/or teams to do the numbers and find other Armstrongs. I guess you could say Basso & Vino were borderline transformations on their day.
Or we could flip it to Froome if you think he was a similar doper transformation to Armstrong and more advantaged by doping genetically. Did all the rival teams get it really so wrong trying to beat him with Contador, Nibali, Quintana, Pinot & Bardet like they did Armstrong? Bardet & Pinot were almost as good as Froome on their day and I think many have the perception they were not doping at all but there was no rider like that in Armstrong's time, they all tested positive in a French IOC/WADA lab basically.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm confused here. Sagan would win cobbled Classics and the green jersey. He was fast, had power, and could win sprints and ride long distances over cobbles. He wasn't contesting hilly stages in the TdF. He was an an all-arounder of sorts, but nothing like Wout van Aert.

Sagan 2016 - wins Ronde, wins WC in Doha (flat/sprint) and the green jersey.
TdF points = 1
TdF mtns = 57
TdF GC = 95

van Aert 2022 - wins E3, Omloop and the green jersey
TdF points = 1
TdF mtns = 5
TdF GC = 21

These guys appeared to be similar riders at one point - tall, big, strong guys. Good on cobbles, great sprinters.

And then van Aert became a climber and could win any darn stage in the TdF. That was never happening with Sagan, nor Boonen.

For me, van Aert and Pogacar are doing something unique because they can win any race day on the calendar, no matter the parcours. And they're racing almost around the calendar!

I don't think you can make that argument for Boonen or Sagan. Versatile and talented, but neither of them went #5 in the TdF mountains.

Peter Sagan won this stage.

He's also been top 5 to Montée Laurent Jalabert, 6th to Mount Baldy, won a monster steep ramps stage of Tirreno-Adriatico.

Especially early in his career he could pull some ridiculous climbing antics out. He just didn't do it at Le Tour the way van Aert does, largely because he wasn't being used to domestique for people. He'd often climb very well on intermediate and mountain stages to pick up points in the intermediate sprint, then sit up knowing he wasn't going to win the stage. He also was not riding in a totally OP team, instead he was often riding against the most OP teams in the Classics.

Had Sagan won Roubaix earlier in his career and so shifted some of his goals around the monuments and classics, it could be a different story. He was, at his peak, every bit as ridiculous as van Aert.

 

[Netserk]

He was, at his peak, every bit as ridiculous as van Aert.

Not quite.

Van Aert took it to another level in the 2022 Tour.

 

[Red Rick]

Van Aert is considerably bigger than Sagan as well.

In my view the best fitting parallel to Van Aert is probably Cancellara, but Cancellara basically was a gruppetto specialist outside the 6 races a year he cared, but he did some pretty damn big climbing performances as well.

Crans Montana was pretty damn impressive by Cancellara as a climbing performance, even though it's not exactly a HC mountain.

Van Aert meanwhile I think gets way too much focus on Hautacam when his climbing at the Olympics or on Col d'Eze were actually way more suss to me.

Cancellara did some really big W/kg for an hour in ITTs I believe, so if he never them as huge in climbs it's probably down to fatigue restance/getting enough carbohydrates in. With the modern trend of better fatigue resistance, carb loading, and fresher performances after more kilojoules, I think Van Aert does track somewhat as a progression of Cancellara's archetype.

I would also add Stefan Kung as a rider who's somewhat similar, in that he's done top 10 in Tour de Suisse while being a bigger dude than Van Aert. Ganna also has some pretty good climbing performances, but they're limited to pure grinders and unipuerto profiles.

On the lighter side of the continuum, there is ofcourse Rohan Stelvio Dennis.

Not to say it's not dirty dodgy as ***, and comparing to Cancellara is dirty dodgy in itself, I'm just trying to make sense of it.

 

[Nick2413]

Peter Sagan won this stage.

He's also been top 5 to Montée Laurent Jalabert, 6th to Mount Baldy, won a monster steep ramps stage of Tirreno-Adriatico.

Especially early in his career he could pull some ridiculous climbing antics out. He just didn't do it at Le Tour the way van Aert does, largely because he wasn't being used to domestique for people. He'd often climb very well on intermediate and mountain stages to pick up points in the intermediate sprint, then sit up knowing he wasn't going to win the stage. He also was not riding in a totally OP team, instead he was often riding against the most OP teams in the Classics.

Had Sagan won Roubaix earlier in his career and so shifted some of his goals around the monuments and classics, it could be a different story. He was, at his peak, every bit as ridiculous as van Aert.

Just because you’re a huge Sagan fan doesn’t make him as ridiculous of a climber as Van Aert.

But actually, Van Aert is probably a bit more unexpected imo.

 

[Nomad]

OK, but the 50% limit was only really in place for 2 seasons of Armstrongs GT winning career. In 1997 he didn't compete, 1998 he was 4th in La Vuelta, 1999 won Tour, then the EPO test came in 2000 and he dominated the next 6 years while almost every rival around him got sanctioned for epo or blood. All I'm saying is, if such an advantage existed because you genetically had more room to respond to an epo gain, are we saying then that his main rivals of that time were never going to beat him as I would assume those arguing why Armstrong could dominate was because Pantani, Ullrich, Zulle, Escartin, Beloki, Contador were more naturally talented / disadvantaged by their own doping? As I said, it would be very simple in the age of risk-free EPO use pre 2000 for riders and/or teams to do the numbers and find other Armstrongs. I guess you could say Basso & Vino were borderline transformations on their day.
Or we could flip it to Froome if you think he was a similar doper transformation to Armstrong and more advantaged by doping genetically. Did all the rival teams get it really so wrong trying to beat him with Contador, Nibali, Quintana, Pinot & Bardet like they did Armstrong? Bardet & Pinot were almost as good as Froome on their day and I think many have the perception they were not doping at all but there was no rider like that in Armstrong's time, they all tested positive in a French IOC/WADA lab basically.

Good points. Armstrong explained in his recent interview with Peter Attia that Postal only used EPO IC for the 99 Tour. From 2000 on, he said Ferrari switched them to blood transfusions with 2 bags being used at the Tour - one each on the rest days (he said the team used EPO - OOC - for training).

Not all his rivals were testing positive for EPO, some had switched to blood transfusions with Fuentes & Operation Puerto. It was only when that ring was raided in 2006 that the participants were busted. And some of Armstrong's top domestiques who left Postal signed up with Fuentes for their blood doping endeavours (I don't know who Landis was blood doping with when he left Postal unless Phonak had their own in-house program?).

In the many interviews with LA that I watched he doesn't address any of those points. His mantra is that he received a "10%" boost vs a "1%" boost in performance when he transitioned from "low-octane" doping (e.g. anabolic steroids, corticosteroids, testosterone, GH, etc) to "high-octane" doping (i.e. EPO & transfusions), the only rival that he feared was Ullrich, and that he was very lucky he never crashed out of any Tour.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Van Aert is considerably bigger than Sagan as well.

In my view the best fitting parallel to Van Aert is probably Cancellara, but Cancellara basically was a gruppetto specialist outside the 6 races a year he cared, but he did some pretty damn big climbing performances as well.

Crans Montana was pretty damn impressive by Cancellara as a climbing performance, even though it's not exactly a HC mountain.

Van Aert meanwhile I think gets way too much focus on Hautacam when his climbing at the Olympics or on Col d'Eze were actually way more suss to me.

Cancellara did some really big W/kg for an hour in ITTs I believe, so if he never them as huge in climbs it's probably down to fatigue restance/getting enough carbohydrates in. With the modern trend of better fatigue resistance, carb loading, and fresher performances after more kilojoules, I think Van Aert does track somewhat as a progression of Cancellara's archetype.

I would also add Stefan Kung as a rider who's somewhat similar, in that he's done top 10 in Tour de Suisse while being a bigger dude than Van Aert. Ganna also has some pretty good climbing performances, but they're limited to pure grinders and unipuerto profiles.

On the lighter side of the continuum, there is ofcourse Rohan Stelvio Dennis.

Not to say it's not dirty dodgy as ***, and comparing to Cancellara is dirty dodgy in itself, I'm just trying to make sense of it.

The 2009 Tour de Suisse was literally designed with the sole goal of Cancellara winning, so he arrived there with the best climbing legs he ever had and the queen stage was won by legendary mountain goat Tony Martin.

Where would you rank van Aert relative to, say, George Hincapie?

On the plus side for Wout van Aert and one thing that stands in his favour is that as of yet he hasn't outright won the Tour de France.

 

[Red Rick]

The 2009 Tour de Suisse was literally designed with the sole goal of Cancellara winning, so he arrived there with the best climbing legs he ever had and the queen stage was won by legendary mountain goat Tony Martin.

Where would you rank van Aert relative to, say, George Hincapie?

Didn't say that TdS wasn't a farce. But he did get there with the climbing legs.

Hincapie? I don't know how much he did outside of winning Plat d'Adet from the break.

 

[Ripper]

Back on the Taddy topic.

This could be interesting

 

[GuntherL1]

Well, that was fun and credible.

 

[Ripper]

Well, that was fun and credible.

Absolutely! I think we can probably queue up all the regular excuses and excuse makers ...

 

[QueenStagiaire]

It‘s in line with his normal crazy time gains on other climbs but gaining 30 seconds looks crazier if you do it on a fancy bike

 

[Red Rick]

Yeah there was very little that was unexpected about this other than the ratio between his T1 and T2 split.

 

[ivanic]

How much longer will this ridiculous show last?

 

[Froome]

How much longer will this ridiculous show last?

There's nothing ridiculous about what happened today. Simply, he is a better rider than the others on this race.

 

[the delgados]

There's nothing ridiculous about what happened today. Simply, he is a better rider than the others on this race.

Uh, I dunno -- either winning or being in very close contention of winning four of seven stages is a bit much. Reminds me of when Armstrong was chastised by Dr. Ferarri for making it look too obvious.

 

[Froome]

Uh, I dunno -- either winning or being in very close contention of winning four of seven stages is a bit much. Reminds me of when Armstrong was chastised by Dr. Ferarri for making it look too obvious.

That's quite normal, especially when again the other top riders are not there to have some competition. I don't find outrageous the gaps he had to the others riders today.

 

[Cookster15]

Well, that was fun and credible.

Yeh, similar to a 60kg skeleton doing stage 16 of last year's TdF.

 

[the delgados]

That's quite normal, especially when again the other top riders are not there to have some competition. I don't find outrageous the gaps he had to the others riders today.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't make it sound like Pogacar was racing against amateurs.

 

[Froome]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't make it sound like Pogacar was racing against amateurs.

They are not amateurs, but the field is really weak. LPDBF TT was more impressive.

 

[the delgados]

They are not amateurs, but the field is really weak. LPDBF TT was more impressive.

I don't know what LPDBF TT is. Are you referring to the Gay Games? (I'm kidding.)
Maybe they should be riding the Giro instead of the deadwood left behind by Pogacar.

 

[Cookster15]

They are not amateurs, but the field is really weak. LPDBF TT was more impressive.

The GC field is weak. But arguably the best TT specialist in the world came 2nd. We will know exactly how hard Pogacar pushed himself today as this Giro unfolds. Next rendezvous: Prati di Tivo.

+the weak field is one reason why the double might be possible this year. The other is the relative dearth of climbing metres this Giro compared to previous years when a serious attempt on the double was made - eg Contador 2011 and 2015.