Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Blobs]

Without UCI collusion the silly motor theory doesn’t hold water.

True, but collusion is not that far fetched

 

[BullsFan22]

I agree, in fact Lance was getting more popular with the French after 2003, he showed in that TDF he was human and had to dig really deep to win and gave us one of the best ever editions of the TDF. 2004 was the year he went overboard, his ego, greed and fame went spiraled out of control, especially with the whole Simeoni fiasco. Had he had ridden the 2004 TDF conservatively like he did in 2005, and retired with 6 wins, he might have lasted longer before being caught. Winning number 7 really took the piss and Lance today says that he should've stopped after 2004. And the comeback was too much, and that was the end of the road.

Him coming back in 2008 was the mistake, not winning in 2005.

 

[SorelyBoy]

Without UCI collusion the silly motor theory doesn’t hold water.

Correct. And we all know such collusion has never happened in the past. Oh, hang on a minute…

 

[SorelyBoy]

Now you're being disingenious, changing ''peak'' to ''top'' form it means the same 🤦Do you think Pogacar has to be at his peak to win LBL? From watching the race it didn't look close to peak Pogacar. You will see peak Pogacar in the summer vs Vingegaard.

Help me out here. Are you claiming that, without precedent in all of cycling history, or even wider sporting history, a man can be so genetically superior (beyond all known understanding of medical or sporting science) as to be physically capable of beating or nearly beating all his opponents across a wide range of race types and terrains, for a sustained period without any significant loss of form or injury? That he has such a superior physique that in fact he doesn’t need to be in peak condition from race to race in order to easily beat what are otherwise groups of world class cyclists who have trained to peak for certain races before having to recover for a few months? That such a human being could appear to suffer no physical consequences from the extreme effort? And that this person would not need any kind of programme to help in doing this? That this is more likely than what all of scientific and historical evidence suggests is actually the case?

I’d say that was so unlikely that it was impossible. In fact I’d go further. That what’s happening now can’t merely be explained by our understanding of what traditional doping programmes deliver in terms of results. This is something else entirely.

 

[Raest]

I have the opposite impression. When looking at the comments on youtube highlight videos there are plenty of comments to the effect of "I never used to watch cycling outside of the Tour, but now I watch every race Pog races", which could also give the UCI an incentive to protect him, if he draws in the ratings.

Most of those videos have a few thousand views (if that). I've also noticed that the most upvoted comments tend to be those that point out the huge elephant in the room, though they are in the minority.

 

[pelotonIQ]

Help me out here. Are you claiming that, without precedent in all of cycling history, or even wider sporting history, a man can be so genetically superior (beyond all known understanding of medical or sporting science) as to be physically capable of beating or nearly beating all his opponents across a wide range of race types and terrains, for a sustained period without any significant loss of form or injury? That he has such a superior physique that in fact he doesn’t need to be in peak condition from race to race in order to easily beat what are otherwise groups of world class cyclists who have trained to peak for certain races before having to recover for a few months? That such a human being could appear to suffer no physical consequences from the extreme effort? And that this person would not need any kind of programme to help in doing this? That this is more likely than what all of scientific and historical evidence suggests is actually the case?

I’d say that was so unlikely that it was impossible. In fact I’d go further. That what’s happening now can’t merely be explained by our understanding of what traditional doping programmes deliver in terms of results. This is something else entirely.

There is no historical evidence of a rider like Pogacar, I welcome you to find me another rider from the recent past that has ridden and done what Pogacar has done, this suggets that Pogacar has a base and recovery level better than everyone else. Secondly, you have to explain what a 'clean' rider is for you. For me, someone 'clean' is someone that isn't using something banned i.e I condone methods in the grey-zone since they're not banned, for example, both Visma and UAE were using CO-rebreathers which later got banned and they stopped using them. I know it sucks to hear but in endurance sports 'potential' is heavily tied to genetics. There are conti-level riders out there busting their asses training, eating and sleeping right, even better than WT-riders yet they cant reach that next level.

 

[Divergence]

There is no historical evidence of a rider like Pogacar, I welcome you to find me another rider from the recent past that has ridden and done what Pogacar has done, this suggets that Pogacar has a base and recovery level better than everyone else. Secondly, you have to explain what a 'clean' rider is for you. For me, someone 'clean' is someone that isn't using something banned i.e I condone methods in the grey-zone since they're not banned, for example, both Visma and UAE were using CO-rebreathers which later got banned and they stopped using them. I know it sucks to hear but in endurance sports 'potential' is heavily tied to genetics. There are conti-level riders out there busting their asses training, eating and sleeping right, even better than WT-riders yet they cant reach that next level.

I agree with this, but I understand how people find it difficult to believe that there can exist such an outlier. It kinda goes against the gut feeling that at the top they all must have the same genetic aptitude. The reality is the more of an outlier something is, the bigger the distance to its nearest neighbor is.
I have often referred to some outliers where it is very difficult to suspect cheating. E.g., Fisher and Kasparov at chess and certainly Carlsen who is dominant across a vide variety of chess time controls and disciplines (Fisher Random). Another example are the best mathematicians in history such as Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Euler... Even if someone thought that it is possible to cheat at chess and hence the dominance of the players above, there in no way to cheat at math and yet we have people such as the ones above. It is ridiculous how much better they were than their contemporaries.
And, I guess so is Pog. Except for Rog who is going to win it all this year

 

[red_flanders]

Hey folks, I'm clearing out a lot of personal attacks in this thread.

Please, play the ball, not the man. Debate posts, not people. If you find yourself using the words "you", "your", "bots", "fanboys", etc., you're almost certainly making it personal. Thank you.

 

[Raest]

I agree with this, but I understand how people find it difficult to believe that there can exist such an outlier. It kinda goes against the gut feeling that at the top they all must have the same genetic aptitude. The reality is the more of an outlier something is, the bigger the distance to its nearest neighbor is.
I have often referred to some outlier where it is very difficult to suspect cheating. E.g., Fisher and Kasparov at chess and certainly Carlsen who is dominant across a vide variety of chess time controls and disciplines (Fisher Random). Another example are the best mathematicians in history such as Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Euler... Even is someone thought that it is possible to cheat at chess and hence the dominance of the players above there in no way to cheat at math and yet we have people such as the ones above. It is ridiculous how much better they were than their contemporaries. And, I guess so is Pog. Except for Rog who is going to win it all this year

The problem with that is that none of Pogacar's physiological metrics that have, anecdotally, circulated are unseen or unheard off. For example, his VO2 max is in the high 80s, low 90s (depending on his weight) which is elite but hardly a generational outlier.
There is zero evidence so far, to support that he is somehow so genetically superior to athletes like MvDP (who was bred for cycling) that he can beat them at whim.

 

[Divergence]

The problem with that is that none of Pogacar's physiological metrics that have, anecdotally, circulated are unseen or unheard off. For example, his VO2 max is in the high 80s, low 90s (depending on his weight) which is elite but hardly a generational outlier.
There is zero evidence so far, to support that he is somehow so genetically superior to athletes like MvDP (who was bred for cycling) that he can beat them at whim.

What you claim to be a problem is only so if we assume that all cycling performances can be explained via VO2 max. It is not at all clear that that is true. Furthermore, I would claim that it is very hard to believe that cycling aptitude could be explained vie this physiological parameter. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we cannot quantify one's genetic aptitude for cycling (certainly not today) and thus what I wrote above is still valid.

 

[HashRouge]

The problem with that is that none of Pogacar's physiological metrics that have, anecdotally, circulated are unseen or unheard off. For example, his VO2 max is in the high 80s, low 90s (depending on his weight) which is elite but hardly a generational outlier.
There is zero evidence so far, to support that he is somehow so genetically superior to athletes like MvDP (who was bred for cycling) that he can beat them at whim.

Let's be fair now, he doesn't beat MdvP on a whim. He beats him in races that favour him (like Flanders, which slightly favours Pogacar) and loses to him in races that favour van der Poel (Roubaix, San Remo). I'm very much open to the idea that he might be doping, but it does annoy me a bit when people make statements like that, which are categorically untrue.

 

[Red Rick]

The problem with that is that none of Pogacar's physiological metrics that have, anecdotally, circulated are unseen or unheard off. For example, his VO2 max is in the high 80s, low 90s (depending on his weight) which is elite but hardly a generational outlier.
There is zero evidence so far, to support that he is somehow so genetically superior to athletes like MvDP (who was bred for cycling) that he can beat them at whim.

The level of talent we're talking about it would also show itself at the junior level. But nothing in his junior career indicated any of this. He was good but not generational.

 

[E_F_]

The human mind is much, much, much, much, much, much, much more complicated than the simple physiological processes which govern endurance sports.

 

[Salvarani]

The level of talent we're talking about it would also show itself at the junior level. But nothing in his junior career indicated any of this. He was good but not generational.

He was riding for a small nation and he did have plenty of results. He was making great strides even though coming from humble beginnings. Body still developing and he was among the youngest. There is no way to know what he was capable of, but plenty of good signs was there.

 

[Divergence]

The level of talent we're talking about it would also show itself at the junior level. But nothing in his junior career indicated any of this. He was good but not generational.

This is not necessary. It can very well be that cycling capabilities do not develop linearly. What I mean is that it might be so that there is an inflection age after which a cyclist's capabilities rise with an exceptional rate (I am tempted to say exponentially ).

 

[Netserk]

Yeah, I'd expect junior performances to be less genetically loaded than adult performances.

 

[Raest]

This is not necessary. It can very well be that cycling capabilities do not develop linearly. What I mean is that it might be so that there is an inflection age after which a cyclist's capabilities rise with an exceptional rate (I am tempted to say exponentially ).

So he is superior athletically only you don't know how or how he developed to be that superior since there was nothing THAT special early on. Do you see the problem with your argument?

 

[Divergence]

So he is superior athletically only you don't know how or how he developed to be that superior since there was nothing THAT special early on. Do you see the problem with your argument?

No, I do not see the problem. Why do you assume that, in theory, we are able to pinpoint why and how someone is superior in a particular endeavor? Can you tell me how exactly Newton got to be Newton? I make no such assumption and even if, in theory, we would be able to accurately pinpoint a particular set of characteristics one might have to make him superior, we are certainly not at that stage of scientific development at the moment.

 

[the delgados]

What I think will happen is that the noise of dissent to him making the sport a mockery will rise. Suddenly the powers that be will tire of the cash payoffs and they will nail him. If you're going to win dirty you can't take the piss.

I wonder if the uci will nail some teams mates first as a warning?

"Suddenly the powers that be will tire of the cash payoffs...."

And I think I'm going to win the 2025 Tour de France.
The chances of the scenario you describe is unimaginable. No way the UCI is going to bite the hand that feeds them. Even if you take away the greed factor, orchestrating a revolt from within would be career-ending.
History shows that most, if not all, will be revealed in time. Who knows? Maybe a bunch of genetic Pogi's are being created in a hidden lab in the desert; but one thing is for sure: Whatever is happening won't come from paid employees.
And the sport will bounce back! It always does. Nothing like the invention of rice cakes and revolutionary aero bikes to take your mind off things.

 

[HashRouge]

So he is superior athletically only you don't know how or how he developed to be that superior since there was nothing THAT special early on. Do you see the problem with your argument?

I think they're just saying that some riders show their talent earlier than others, which to be fair doesn't sound unreasonable. It might be to do with their physical development as a teenager, since everyone matures differently, or could be to do with the different training regimes and levels of professionalism at junior teams. Of course, it could be that he didn't get onto a proper doping program until he was 17/18, but I don't think it's unfeasible that there are pretty normal explanations too.

 

[Raest]

No, I do not see the problem. Why do you assume that, in theory, we are able to pinpoint why and how someone is superior in a particular endeavor? Can you tell me how exactly Newton got to be Newton? I make no such assumption and even if, in theory, we would be able to accurately pinpoint a particular set of characteristics one might have to make him superior, we are certainly not at that stage of scientific development at the moment.

It's a textbook case of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You assume that he is somehow genetically superior because he excels without any evidence to support this supposed genetic superiority and when challenged on the fact (all available evidence suggests that he is NOT that genetically superior) you claim that he has some nebulous genetic advantage only you don't know what it is. But there must exist because he wins (all the bloody time).

Edit: Every time this argument was made it turned out that the athlete in question was just better at cheating than anybody else.

 

[Salvarani]

When I look at Pog first and second year as a junior.

I just get the impression he needed to adapt, grow and learned from the experience from facing better competition. Improved from those sensations going into his second year, where he had much better success.

Same story in the U21s. First year was a learning curve and then in the second year he improved a lot. Did well in minor pro races, before winning Tour de l'Avenir.

That seems pretty natural to me.

There are also countless stories about that he was a very small kid, who developed physically later, but being laps ahead of other kids in local races in the small nation of Slovenia.

If the real talent and genetics was there, it is not strange that he improved through each season described like above. Coming from a small cycling nation and not training as a professional yet... there was just a slight delay. He needed to physically develop and he improved from getting to race internationally. Riding harder races and facing better competition. He grew stronger, which we can see through every year of his development.

 

[Raest]

This is not necessary. It can very well be that cycling capabilities do not develop linearly. What I mean is that it might be so that there is an inflection age after which a cyclist's capabilities rise with an exceptional rate (I am tempted to say exponentially ).

But Carlsen, Gauss, Euler, etc. (to use your previous argument) were earmarked to excel from a very young age. They were outliers as kids and teenagers. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Divergence]

It's a textbook case of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You assume that he is somehow genetically superior because he excels without any evidence to support this supposed genetic superiority and when challenged on the fact (all available evidence suggests that he is NOT that genetically superior) you claim that he has some nebulous genetic advantage only you don't know what it is. But there must exist because he wins (all the bloody time).

Edit: Every time this argument was made it turned out that the athlete in question was just better at cheating than anybody else.

Well by that token you want to believe his cheating is vastly better than that of his rivals and you go with that assumption even though there is no evidence for it. It is kinda the same what you are doing with the difference that doping methods are fairly standardized and it is extremely improbable that Pog is the only one with the super sauce (if such a thing exists). What I am saying is that it is possible that such huge chasms in performance could be explained by having a better aptitude for the endeavor in question.

 

[Gianetti_Is_The_Goat]

Let's look at it logically.

We know a couple of things:
- Pog wasn't stellar until he signed for UAE in 2018.
- Mauro the Great has never played fair, not as a rider and not as a sports director and was called out by his own team's (!) press representative in 2008.
- He continued in the same way, as he was Menchovs and Cobo's sports director in 2011.
- In the era of 'specialization' and a global peloton, Pogacar dominates all season, on any terrain, in every discipline, something we have never see before. No, Valverde didn't even come close.
- UAE is basically a reboot of Lampre Merida which had numerous riders and staff convicted to actual jail sentences, one of them being Manuele Mori, who is now a member of... UAE.

For the believers I have the following questions,
- What are your most convincing arguments to argue in favour of Pogacar playing fair?
- What made Gianetti and Matxin suddenly ethically conscious?
- Why are people like Hauptmann and Mori part of UAE?