Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Netserk]

Are you referring to the section below?

M1.2. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen. Including, but not limited to: Perfluorochemicals; efaproxiral (RSR13); voxelotor and modified haemoglobin products, e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes and microencapsulated haemoglobin products, excluding supplemental oxygen by inhalation.

No, to S2.1.2.

The following substances, and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s), are prohibited.

S2.1. ERYTHROPOIETINS (EPO) AND AGENTS AFFECTING ERYTHROPOIESIS
Including, but not limited to:

S2.1.2 Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activating agents, e.g. cobalt; daprodustat (GSK1278863); IOX2; molidustat (BAY 85-3934); roxadustat (FG-4592); vadadustat (AKB-6548); xenon.

 

[Cookster15]

He was acknowledged to be a talented but not otherwise remarkable rider in comparison to his peers

He was only 19 years old at that time.

 

[pelotonIQ]

One more time for the folks with exclusively humanitarian education (but you still have to be able to count money, right?). We are talking relative improvement, the so called percentages, for the mathematically uninitiated. Example: if the previous record in anything was equal to 1 hour, then 1% improvement would amount to... 60*0.01 =0.6 minutes or 36 seconds. If another record was equal to 10 hours, then the equally impressive improvement would amount to 10*0.01=0.1 hours, or 6 minutes. We have 36 seconds in the first instance and 6 minutes in the second. But they represent the same relative improvement and therefore are equally surprising/impressive. Now, if someone were to improve that first record of 1 hour by 6 minutes, that would be a whopping 10% and therefore much, much more surprising/impressive than the 6 minute improvement in the second instance.

And that is what your boy on the team you are so vigorously trying to defend is doing. Last year he (casually!) improved Pantani's climbing record on that famous TDF by about 10%, from 40min down about 4. This would be fully equivalent (sorry for the use of "scientific" words) to that Norwegian runner dropping about 45 seconds from the 3000m running record which, in reality, he improved only by 3.

Now I could ask you to give me a single rational reason as to why a relative improvement could possibly differ by an order of magnitude (sorry about one more "scientific" language bit) in different endurance sports, but I won't. Simply because there is no rational reasons like that.

A word of advice, if I may, as an older and more knowledgeable person: do yourself a favor, young man, and stop fighting for the lost cause. What you are trying to prove is quite simply rationally unprovable. Go to the main Pogo thread and revel in the joy of "watching history" while the show continues.

Keep these calculations strictly to cycling, you know it's flawed the moment you start comparing the gaps in short distance running to those in cycling. You dismissed Ingebrigtsens world records because he didn't run 15% faster than the previous record in a short distance running race. The percentages become smaller the shorter the distances are, how much faster did Usain Bolt run when he beat Powell's world record? by 2 centiseconds.

 

[Ripper]

Like I mentioned earlier, Visma and UAE used the CO-rebreather method before it eventually got banned. That is an example of something that was in the 'grey-zone' which means teams are using non banned methods to their advantage. What specific banned substance do you believe Pogi, Remco and Vinnie are taking?

I asked "what specific "grey zone" substances do you believe Pogi, Remco, and Vinnie are taking", and you have only listed re-breathing of CO. That is the only thing you think they are doing? This is interesting, because I don't think the CO issue was really a "grey" zone - if it had been proven they were doing this to improve performance (and not just as reported as a very brief testing process), then it would not have been grey, it would have been banned (@Netserk might confirm or disagree). But, it would be very, very hard to have proven this at the time. And of course, once methods are clearly identified, they are clearly listed as banned.

So you don't think there is misuse of TUEs such as corticosteroids? Medications for weight loss, anxiety, ADHD, or depression?

You see, you have been asking what folks specifically think Thadius and the UAE empire are taking. But unless there is direct insider knowledge or a particular test is positive, none of us "know". But I have a pretty decent sense of what is realistically possible, and Thadius really seems to do the impossible. Of course, we could choose to 'believe', but when has that story ended well @pelotonIQ?

I will say it says something that when pros who know better (e.g. Voeckler) start getting squirrely because there have been really no meaningful positives for a long time, and yet results are getting fairy tale land stupid.

I look at the numbers and style of acceleration and compare it to what I see local, national, and world class racers going in races where I am familiar with what is required. Transpose some of Pogi's antics, and it really takes the p*ss.

When the Tour comes around I will likely be on vacation and posting less Having said this, I anticipate other silly mutations to occur in human development!!

 

[pelotonIQ]

I asked "what specific "grey zone" substances do you believe Pogi, Remco, and Vinnie are taking", and you have only listed re-breathing of CO. That is the only thing you think they are doing? This is interesting, because I don't think the CO issue is a grey zone - if it had been proven they were doing this to improve performance (and not just as reported as a very brief testing process), then it would not have been grey, it would have been banned. But, it would be very, very hard to have proven this at the time. So you don't think misuse of TUEs such as corticosteroids? Medications for weight loss, anxiety, ADHD, or depression?

You have been asking what folks think Thadius and the UAE empire are taking.

I gave you examples of proven 'grey zones' methods that we know Visma and UAE were doing, I am waiting for you to answer my question of what banned substances you think Pogacar is taking. We cannot have this conversation if you're going to evade my question. I answered you. I am waiting for you to answer me.

 

[Ripper]

No, to S2.1.2.

The following substances, and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s), are prohibited.

S2.1. ERYTHROPOIETINS (EPO) AND AGENTS AFFECTING ERYTHROPOIESIS
Including, but not limited to:

S2.1.2 Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activating agents, e.g. cobalt; daprodustat (GSK1278863); IOX2; molidustat (BAY 85-3934); roxadustat (FG-4592); vadadustat (AKB-6548); xenon.

Doh!
Thanks!

 

[ivanic]

I started following cycling in 1989, and I remember the crazy stuff happening in the early 90s. I agree that for fans, it wasn't entirely clear how the Italians were suddenly so dominant. However, the Gewiss 1-2-3 and Ferrari's orange juice comment, both in 1994 I believe, made it quite apparent that "improved training methods" was a euphemism.

We might be in the early years of a new EPO, and maybe something will eventually leak out about it. I hope so and that it is pharmacological rather than motorized, because I'd like an explanation for the madness.

2020 = 1991, Val Louron (Greg Lemond ko)

Beille = Gewis 1-2-3 , 1994

so we can assume we are in the mid 90s. 1995?

in 1995 there were no tests for EPO.

It took 10 years to have anti-doping tests for EPO.
The question remains when the public learned about EPO.

Did fans know about EPO in 1995?



these performances will continue for years, someone has to speak up.

If you know something speak up, open a profile on X, write an anonymous email to a newspaper, do something.

 

[Ripper]

I gave you examples of proven 'grey zones' methods that we know Visma and UAE were doing, I am waiting for you to answer my question of what banned substances you think Pogacar is taking. We cannot gave this conversation if you're going to evade my question. I answered you. I am waiting for you to answer me.

I am wondering if there is a fundamental comprehension issue here.

I of course have no idea what anyone at UAE might be doing/taking. Perhaps that is frank enough for you?

I know the results are fantastical with Thadi. And that, in conjunction with all the other evidence we have that has been listed in this thread and others, makes me feel quite certain that things have become very silly again (and I thank goodness neither I nor my family are active in pro sports).

 

[Ripper]

2020 = 1991, Val Louron (Greg Lemond ko)

Beille = Gewis 1-2-3 , 1994

so we can assume we are in the mid 90s. 1995?

in 1995 there were no tests for EPO.

It took 10 years to have anti-doping tests for EPO.
The question remains when the public learned about EPO.

Did fans know about EPO in 1995?



these performances will continue for years, someone has to speak up.

If you know something speak up, open a profile on X, write an anonymous email to a newspaper, do something.

I recall that for me and many of my peers, by the mid-90's we knew something was up, but we had no idea WTF was actually being used.

And what is laughable (not in your post, but as part of history), is Armstrong was doping with EPO pre-cancer, but learned how to dope much better and came back a GT monster.

 

[Netserk]

I asked "what specific "grey zone" substances do you believe Pogi, Remco, and Vinnie are taking", and you have only listed re-breathing of CO. That is the only thing you think they are doing? This is interesting, because I don't think the CO issue was really a "grey" zone - if it had been proven they were doing this to improve performance (and not just as reported as a very brief testing process), then it would not have been grey, it would have been banned (@Netserk might confirm or disagree). But, it would be very, very hard to have proven this at the time. And of course, once methods are clearly identified, they are clearly listed as banned.

So you don't think there is misuse of TUEs such as corticosteroids? Medications for weight loss, anxiety, ADHD, or depression?

You see, you have been asking what folks specifically think Thadius and the UAE empire are taking. But unless there is direct insider knowledge or a particular test is positive, none of us "know". But I have a pretty decent sense of what is realistically possible, and Thadius really seems to do the impossible. Of course, we could choose to 'believe', but when has that story ended well @pelotonIQ?

I will say it says something that when pros who know better (e.g. Voeckler) start getting squirrely because there have been really no meaningful positives for a long time, and yet results are getting fairy tale land stupid.

I look at the numbers and style of acceleration and compare it to what I see local, national, and world class racers going in races where I am familiar with what is required. Transpose some of Pogi's antics, and it really takes the p*ss.

When the Tour comes around I will likely be on vacation and posting less Having said this, I anticipate other silly mutations to occur in human development!!

It's the grey zone myth. The rules are actually quite well-written, and there's very little space for "grey zone" substances and methods to actually enhance performance and to do so in a non-banned way. What is the suggested mechanism of rebreathing CO that enhances performance and which isn't banned?

It's of course an entirely different thing to enforce the rules and to be able to convict those who break them.

 

[pelotonIQ]

I am wondering if there is a fundamental comprehension issue here.

I of course have no idea what anyone at UAE might be doing/taking. Perhaps that is frank enough for you?

I know the results are fantastical with Thadi. And that, in conjunction with all the other evidence we have that has been listed in this thread and others, makes me feel quite certain that things have become very silly again (and I thank goodness neither I nor my family are active in pro sports).

What I am saying is that we have proof of UAE and Visma taking advantage of non-banned or yet to be banned methods/substances. CO-rebreathers are just the tip of the iceberg. The people accusing Pogacar of taking banned substances cannot explain what he is taking.

 

[Casual cyclist]

Keep these calculations strictly to cycling, you know it's flawed the moment you start comparing the gaps in short distance running to those in cycling. You dismissed Ingebrigtsens world records because he didn't run 15% faster than the previous record in a short distance running race. The percentages become smaller the shorter the distances are, how much faster did Usain Bolt run when he beat Powell's world record? by 2 centiseconds.

Simply put, they do not. The absolute improvements become smaller, and the relative ones should be in the same ballpark. Last time Bolt improved on his own record (from 9.69 to 9.58) it was almost exactly by 1%. Also Bolt is not in an endurance sport, so the comparisons here can be questioned somewhat. But as you can see, same ballpark of percentages even here. And, what is most important, nowhere are you going to see 10% jumps.

What is the main difference between endurance cycling and endurance running though and why are you so hellbent on "keeping calculations strictly to cycling"? You and I know the answer, don't we? The difference is the bike itself, a sophisticated piece of equipment that can be improved and also "improved" in many more ways than, say, running shoes. In particular, the voluminous carbon frames of today's road bikes can easily house motors and batteries. And they can give you a 10% jump in performance and beyond as everyone these days is well aware.

Nothing else can do that. It is that simple. Not even a full EPO doping program (since Pantani and Co already maxed that out). And much less any "grey-zone" semi-legal stuff.

 

[pelotonIQ]

Simply put, they do not. The absolute improvements become smaller, and the relative ones should be in the same ballpark. Last time Bolt improved on his own record (from 9.69 to 9.58) it was almost exactly by 1%. Also Bolt is not in an endurance sport, so the comparisons here can be questioned somewhat. But as you can see, same ballpark of percentages even here. And, what is most important, nowhere are you going to see 10% jumps.

What is the main difference between endurance cycling and endurance running though and why are you so hellbent on "keeping calculations strictly to cycling"? You and I know the answer, don't we? The difference is the bike itself, a sophisticated piece of equipment that can be improved and also "improved" in many more ways than, say, running shoes. In particular, the voluminous carbon frames of today's road bikes can easily house motors and batteries. And they can give you a 10% jump in performance and beyond as everyone these days is well aware.

Nothing else can do that. It is that simple. Not even a full EPO doping program (since Pantani and Co already maxed that out). And much less any "grey-zone" semi-legal stuff.

You're not going to see 10-15% improvements in short distance running and the way you compare the two different sports is flawed. The margins for big time improvements are bigger in cycling you cannot hold the same sports to the same standard when comparing. My point still stands that we are seeing world records being broken in other endurance sports.

 

[Casual cyclist]

You're not going to see 10-15% improvements in short distance running and the way you compare the two different sports is flawed.

"Short distance running", huh? That's your last trench? Implying, I take it, that such 10-15% improvements are rather commonplace in long distance running? I could ask for an example, but we both know how that would end, don't we?

The margins for big time improvements are bigger in cycling you cannot hold the same sports to the same standard when comparing.

Well, they are bigger now. From last year, to be more precise. But why are they so much bigger now? Isn't it the whole point? Your answer is : because cycling. Mine is also that, with just a bit more clarification: cycling is the only endurance sport allowing for a use of a motor assist. Isn't it?

My point still stands that we are seeing world records being broken in other endurance sports.

That seems to be coming from some manual. "If you have no arguments left, simply reiterate that your point still stands toward the end of your message". Also: "Keep them coming frequently. The combined usage of these two rules gives a casual reader an impression of you being correct against your opponents." Psychology 101 stuff.

 

[pelotonIQ]

"Short distance running", huh? That's your last trench? Implying, I take it, that such 10-15% improvements are rather commonplace in long distance running? I could ask for an example, but we both know how that would end, don't we?

Well, they are bigger now. From last year, to be more precise. But why are they so much bigger now? Isn't it the whole point? Your answer is : because cycling. Mine is also that, with just a bit more clarification: cycling is the only endurance sport allowing for a use of a motor assist. Isn't it?

That seems to be coming from some manual. "If you have no arguments left, simply reiterate that your point still stands toward the end of your message". Also: "Keep them coming frequently. The combined usage of these two rules gives a casual reader an impression of you being correct against your opponents." Psychology 101 stuff.

You're the one dismissing time improvements and new world records in all endurance sports because their record times have not improved 10-15% I'm telling you the way you're comparing times across various sports is flawed because the margin for bigger time gaps in shorter races is very small. In short distance running (you brought up Ingebrigtsen's 3km world record), every runner starts fresh but in cycling the climbs are usually at the end of the stage meaning riders are fatigued at various levels and in grand tours fatigue levels are even more varied. Your argument would have held a little more weight if cycling was raced the same way as running but it's not

 

[Casual cyclist]

You're the one dismissing time improvements in all endurance sports because they're not 10-15%

I am not dismissing them, just stating the obvious: they are sub 1% relative improvement. See, if Pogo were to improve on that Pantani time by 1% (i.e. by 30 seconds or so), we would conclude that he has to be doped on some similar stuff, like full-on EPO. But nothing would point to an external assist yet.

I'm telling you the way you're comparing times across various sports is flawed because the margin for bigger time gaps in shorter races is very small. In short distance running (you brought up Ingebrigtsen's 3km world record),

No. It was you who brought up his name, and I just followed your prompt. You are free to come up with a more staggering example (closer to that 10-15%) from any venue where motor usage is fundamentally impossible.

every runner starts fresh but in cycling the climbs are usually at the end of the stage meaning riders are fatigued at various levels.

That's right. And those levels can be greatly reduced by a motor use prior to the climb. There are more variables in cycling, true, like wind direction etc. But these variables are also present in, for example, marathon running. Plus, when we consider a record, not just typical performance of the era, that when those variables already added up in a favorable way which should make improving on that even harder, in anything. Unless, of course, an external assist enters the picture.

 

[topcat]

Here's one for you. Indurain tested positive for Salbutamol but they left him off because he had "asthma". (Asthma and the lung capacity of an ox). Now that's a very grey area. He was on EPO also amongst other drugs in the black area.
The CO-rebreather is not a grey area (if it improves performance, then it's banned).
What are these grey area drugs that give a performance boost equivalent to EPO combined with a motor? (It's not Ketones.)

 

[pelotonIQ]

I am not dismissing them, just stating the obvious: they are sub 1% relative improvement. See, if Pogo were to improve on that Pantani time by 1% (i.e. by 30 seconds or so), we would conclude that he has to be doped on some similar stuff, like full-on EPO. But nothing would point to an external assist yet.

Of course they're going to be 1% improvements in short distance endurance running, it's a short race where everyone starts fresh. Time gaps wont be wide. Running is also a sport where all you need is shoes and two feet i.e we have already reached the peak of running equipment. Whereas in cycling, equipment, fueling, training are still improving and the peak is yet to be reached. Pogacar was not even born when Pantani won his TdF, on what basis are you comparing the two. Cycling has evolved a long way since the days of Pantani.

No. It was you who brought up his name, and I just followed your prompt. You are free to come up with a more staggering example (closer to that 10-15%) from any venue where motor usage is fundamentally impossible.

I brought up his name to show that world records are being broken in other endurance sports and then you picked one of his world records running race to make your argument.

That's right. And those levels can be greatly reduced by a motor use prior to the climb. There are more variables in cycling, true, like wind direction etc. But these variables are also present in, for example, marathon running. Plus, when we consider a record, not just typical performance of the era, that when those variables already added up in a favorable way which should make improving on that even harder, in anything. Unless, of course, an external assist enters the picture.

You believe that Pogacar is motor-doping. We cannot discuss this because we will never find a middle ground on this. I think the motor-doping accusations are absurd.

 

[Casual cyclist]

Here's one for you. Indurain tested positive for Salbutamol but they left him off because he had "asthma". (Asthma and the lung capacity of an ox). Now that's a very grey area. He was on EPO also amongst other drugs in the black area.
The CO-rebreather is not a grey area (if it improves performance, then it's banned).
What are these grey area drugs that give a performance boost equivalent to EPO combined with a motor? (It's not Ketones.)

A big motor.

 

[Casual cyclist]

Of course they're going to be 1% improvements in short distance endurance running, it's a short race where everyone starts fresh. Time gaps wont be wide.

This is an argument of the form "this is so because so it is". When comparing running and cycling, one should also note that in cycling drafting is the big thing and the majority of time in every race is spent in a tight group, aka peloton. That does not work in running and contributes towards results being closer in cycling, if anything.

Running is also a sport where all you need is shoes and two feet i.e we have already reached the peak of running equipment. Whereas in cycling, equipment, fueling, training are still improving and the peak is yet to be reached.

That's what I was saying, wasn't it.? Cycling as opposed to running, skiing, skating etc, allows for the use of propulsion external to the rider. What exactly is fueling? If it is eating, then there is no difference between cycling and long distance running (like marathon and beyond). If it is batteries, then that's my point. Training? Implying that training in running is unnecessary, aren't we?

Pogacar was not even born when Pantani won his TdF, on what basis are you comparing the two. Cycling has evolved a long way since the days of Pantani.

Same can be said about any runner who broke a long standing record. Or do runners live for centuries and run until they are many decades old?

I brought up his name to show that world records are being broken in other endurance sports and then you picked one of his world records running race to make your argument.

You are free to pick any other record from any distance running or anything similar where the gain made was over 10%.

You believe that Pogacar is motor-doping. We cannot discuss this because we will never find a middle ground on this. I think the motor-doping accusations are absurd.

Why can't we discuss this? New rules set by you? Also, please do help yourself to the perusal of that vote result. 40% of participants here think that those "accusations" are far from absurd. Another 45% believe that Pogo is on some heavy duty doping program at least comparable with full-on EPO of old.

That brings us to the interesting question. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here where the majority consensus is very far from your "grey-zone" mantra? Seriously, what's wrong with going to the main Pogo thread and rejoicing in his "grey-zone" fueled accomplishments?

 

[cnort]

The riders get tested a lot but very few test positive - that does not imply corruption and or ineptitude in the testers, but it also does not give confidence of a clean peloton. It's an unfortunate consequence of circumstances.

It's important to bear in mind that a dope test is like many clinical diagnostic tests. Diagnostic test accuracy is characterised by true positives and true negatives (where the test gives the correct answer), and false positives and false negatives (where it gets it wrong). Few tests get it right all the time. If the test is a simple presence-absence, then in theory it could do well. However, many tests rely on some biomarker exceeding a threshold to trigger a positive.

If the test is for a cancer, say, then we don't want false negatives for obvious reasons. A false negative is a missed diagnosis that will lead to disease progression, delayed treatment and poorer outcomes - all bad news. A positive triggers further testing, such as biopsies, to confirm the diagnosis. So the test thresholds are designed to favour false positives over false negatives. Dope tests, on the other hand, do the opposite - they seek to minimize false positives, so the threshold for a positive is set very high - so high that it is near impossible to get it wrong. A false positive leads to a wrongful denial of income, disrepute, etc - so we necessarily get more false negatives instead. The other key point is that testing is on the one sample, so there is no ability to collect an additional sample. The bio-passport should help through longitudinal data, effectively giving more samples, but it still requires a high threshold to minimize the risk of false positives. You need to be a big outlier to get caught. I believe this was one of Ashenden's criticisms of the passport, that there were cases that he could confidently say had doped but didn't meet the official threshold.

So there are simple reasons why dope testing can't do a good job of catching cheats, just as some screening tests do a lousy job at detecting illness.

My sense is that with the 50% HCT rule in the 90s, that coaxed riders and teams to self-test regularly to make sure they wouldn't trigger positive tests. So the notion of 'keeping below the limit' possibly applies to a range of doping approaches. Occasionally the riders get it wrong, but not so badly that they can't weasel their way out of it.

So a lack of faith in dope testing is well founded and not cynicism, it's just a reality.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

"Short distance running", huh? That's your last trench? Implying, I take it, that such 10-15% improvements are rather commonplace in long distance running? I could ask for an example, but we both know how that would end, don't we?

While I agree that PdB performance is ridiculous indeed, however:
1) the previous record (Pantani's) is not even close to the best climbing performances of the 90's (so the relative w/kg improvement should be done vs best AdH or Hautacam rides) and then we would be talking about 2-4% range.

2) those mountain stages lasted many hours while your relative improvement refers only to 40 minutes, which isn't totally correct as fatigue accumulates also before the final MTF. There's a reason why gaps explode at the end of hard races and you get ridiculous relative differences for the final sections: gaps build "virtually" even when guys ride together (various levels of cumulative fatigue among the riders). Obviously such effect never happens in "sterile" track&field runs.

3) Other factors also influence cycling speeds i.e. weather conditions, pacing and maybe (?) also bike technology (compared to 30 years ago). PdB was a perfect storm in terms of pacing: Pogacar was paced hard by JV, who wanted to destroy him but instead delivered him record breaking pace.

 

[Blobs]

Motor-doping is ruled out, 0% chance since the bicycles are X-rayed and random strip-searched. If one get's caught, career immediately over. The days of hiding in hotel rooms doing blood transfusions are also over since the biological passports. We're left to microdosing EPO which doesn't make sense because Pogacar is putting better numbers than a doped up L.A so that points towards that he could be taking something in the grey-zone i.e non-banned or that is yet to be banned combined with his genetics, which there is proof of but since that isn't illegal or banned, the Pogacar accusers wont accept it.

Are you really arguing that since Lance used banned substances and Pogacar is way faster, Pogacar must not be using banned substances?

Do you believe that someone who is doping can only be beaten by using things in the "grey zone"?

That makes no sense

 

[Fos]

There is a simple way to prove he is doped.

What was his FTP last year? 430 watts if 66 kg right?

FTP is a fresh effort during 40 min/1 hour.

430/66=6.5 w/kg.


He did 6.85 w/kg during 40 min on Plateau de beille, after a hard stage, it wasn't a "fresh effort".


This is a fact right?

No one know FTP outside team/coaches (valid for every rider)

 

[pelotonIQ]

Are you really arguing that since Lance used banned substances and Pogacar is way faster, Pogacar must not be using banned substances?

Do you believe that someone who is doping can only be beaten by using things in the "grey zone"?

That makes no sense

'grey-zone' substances/methods cannot be ruled out, everything that gets banned was once a 'grey-zone' non-banned substance/method that was used for performance enhancing. The 'grey-zone' is not static, when methods get banned, new ones emerge. It is a perpetual 'arms race'.