Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[pelotonIQ]

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.

Which proves my point even further, the existence of drafting in cycling adds another layer of variable when it comes to fatigue levels between riders which could make for wider time gaps later when the riders approach a mountain climb. In short distance running there is barely any draft which means that everyone is more or less around the same fatigue level, making for smaller time gaps.

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?

Another strawman detected. When I said that ''equipment, fueling, training are improving'' it was in regards to your comparison of Pogacar and Pantani.
I'm not going to reply to your response to arguments I haven't made. Try again, without strawman.

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?

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

This is the 3rd time I repeat the same message. Running and cycling are two different sports. You demanding a running record to be beaten by 10-15% is nonsense compared to a climb at the end of a grueling race. Do you not see the difference between running and cycling? You're comparing a 3km flat run where everyone starts fresh to a TdF/Classic/Monument climb

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.

Do you want to force me to discuss motor-doping with you? Find someone else

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?

Are you saying that I'm not allowed to have an opinion just because you don't agree with me? I can atleast defend with my stance unlike others who claim Pogacar is doped up the gills but can't explain what he's taking or doing

 

[Raest]

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.

The Plateau de Beille was ridiculous not only for the time but for the fact that he averaged 6.85 6.96W/gk (edit: 6.85 was Vingo's output) over 40 min after 4 first category climbs, at Stage 15 of the Tour. As you said fatigure accumulates. Armstrong's lab best FTP, i.e. perfect conditions/rested was around 6.7 W/kg.

The rest is not a reply to your comment @Krysztof_O but some comments on the posts of the last 3 pages:
Based on what is known for human performance, what Pogacar (primarily) and other cyclists have been doing since Covid is not physiologically possible. Thinking that this quantum leap in performance with respect to the most heavily doped athletes in the history of any sport can be explained by re-breathers, asthma inhalers or other nebulous "grey-zone" methods is wishful thinking at best (I am going to keep the post civil and not describe the worst case scenario).

We don't have to know what said cyclists have been using, substance or otherwise, nor do we need to prove, it's not our vocation or responsibility. But we don't need to test the DNA of a duck to know that it's a duck when it looks and quacks like one.. We merely point out that it's a fing duck.
When/if a study comes out that shows how it's possible to surpass the performance gain of EPO using, for example, basil extract and it turns out that Pog has been using basil all this time then I will say "well done mate" and buy lots of basil. Till then I'll remain certain that he is using some form (or combination of multiple) of illegal enhancement which may or may not have been used in the past.

 

[SorelyBoy]

The Plateau de Beille was ridiculous not only for the time but for the fact that he averaged 6.85W/gk over 40 min after 4 first category climbs, at Stage 15 of the Tour. As you said fatigure accumulates. Armstrong's lab best FTP, i.e. perfect conditions/rested was around 6.7 W/kg.

The rest is not a reply to your comment @Krysztof_O but some comments on the posts of the last 3 pages:
Based on what is known for human performance, what Pogacar (primarily) and other cyclists have been doing since Covid is not physiologically possible. Thinking that this quantum leap in performance with respect to the most heavily doped athletes in the history of any sport can be explained by re-breathers, asthma inhalers or other nebulous "grey-zone" methods is wishful thinking at best (I am going to keep the post civil and not describe the worst case scenario).

We don't have to know what said cyclists have been using, substance or otherwise, nor do we need to prove, it's not our vocation or responsibility. But we don't need to test the DNA of a duck to know that it's a duck when it looks and quacks like one.. We merely point out that it's a fing duck.
When/if a study comes out that shows how it's possible to surpass the performance gain of EPO using, for example, basil extract and it turns out that Pog has been using basil all this time then I will say "well done mate" and buy lots of basil. Till then I'll remain certain that he is using some form (or combination of multiple) of illegal enhancement which may or may not have been used in the past.

Yep. Take Greg Lemond. Pretty good insight into these things wouldn’t you think? He quit cycling when he knew something was wrong with the peloton and he couldn’t compete. The intensity had gone through the roof and he was struggling to keep up with mere journeymen cyclists. He wasn’t sure what was going on initially, but he knew it was something nefarious and illegal. He didn’t think it was down to better equipment or training regimes, or better diets. None of that stuff would explain the step change in performances he and everyone else was seeing. LeMond stated, "Something had changed in cycling. The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me. At the time, the team I was on, Team Z, became more and more demanding, more and more concerned..." He stated he had been told in 1994 that he would need to blood dope in order to win again.
We’re now seeing something similar happen, with peloton speeds going north at a rate of knots since 2019, except this time we have a guy who takes entire pelotons and just smashes them like they’re the kids you see trying to keep up on the cycle lanes for a few hundred meters. And who rides week in and week out without ever suffering a bad day, or exhibiting any signs of exhaustion or dip in form. Across all type of races and terrains. This isn’t natural, and that we’re being asked to accept it as such is an utter farce.

 

[Ripper]

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.

+1000

 

[Raest]

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

It's a bad comparison on two fronts (at least)
1) the 3000 metres reace is not a pure endurance event, there is a significant energy contribution from anaerobic glycolysis throughout the race it's a lot more comparable to track cycling e.g. the individual pursuit. I am not aware of any pursuit cyclists winning mountain stages (or Ingebritsen having a go at 10 K or the marathon).
2) In running (and gait in general), there is a continuous and significant exchange between mechanical and elastic energy. Muscles generate mechanical energy, and a portion of that energy—estimates suggest up to 50% in some cases—is temporarily stored as elastic energy in tendons (and to a lesser extent in muscles) during the stretch-shortening cycle. This stored elastic energy is then released, contributing to mechanical work and improving movement efficiency.
However, cycling is impact-free (which is why it's good for older people duh ) and this exchange does not take place. Why is this important. Because it's facilitated to a significant degree by the surface on top of which athletes run as they contribute to the storage of elastic energy and return to mechanical. There is a deliberate drive by the IAAF (edit: and venues) to install track surfaces that maximise that exchange hence aiding the athletes and bringing down times.
The same effect is also enhanced by the shoe midsole and considerable capital has been spent to achieve that.
As I said. Bad comparison.

 

[Ripper]

I can atleast defend with my stance unlike others who claim Pogacar is doped up the gills but can't explain what he's taking or doing

I don't think your defense of "grey zone" methods (which is a made-up definition by the way, it's either legal or not legal), with one example that isn't even accurate, is really any better then the race performance evidence that is reported on in the thread.

🦆

EDIT - on second thought, I would say the defense of a nebulous and non-existent grey zone is worse than simply observing biomechanics and physiology at work.

 

[topcat]

It's a bad comparison on two fronts (at least)
1) the 3000 metres reace is not a pure endurance event, there is a significant energy contribution from anaerobic glycolysis throughout the race it's a lot more comparable to track cycling e.g. the individual pursuit. I am not aware of any pursuit cyclists winning mountain stages (or Ingebritsen having a go at 10 K or the marathon).
2) In running (and gait in general), there is a continuous and significant exchange between mechanical and elastic energy. Muscles generate mechanical energy, and a portion of that energy—estimates suggest up to 50% in some cases—is temporarily stored as elastic energy in tendons (and to a lesser extent in muscles) during the stretch-shortening cycle. This stored elastic energy is then released, contributing to mechanical work and improving movement efficiency.
However, cycling is impact-free (which is why it's good for older people duh ) and this exchange does not take place. Why is this important. Because it's facilitated to a significant degree by the surface on top of which athletes run as they contribute to the storage of elastic energy and return to mechanical. There is a deliberate drive by the IAAF (edit: and venues) to install track surfaces that maximise that exchange hence aiding the athletes and bringing down times.
The same effect is also enhanced by the shoe midsole and considerable capital has been spent to achieve that.
As I said. Bad comparison.

Ingebritsen has the Norwegian record in the 10k

 

[Raest]

Ingebritsen has the Norwegian record in the 10k

70 s slower than the WR though...

 

[cnort]

I don't think your defense of "grey zone" methods (which is a made-up definition by the way, it's either legal or not legal)

Is the grey zone not stuff that is technically allowed to some extent but is not entirely in the spirit of clean sport? I'll wager a good few TUEs fall into that category.

I think of it as the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance - one is criminal and the other is mean spirited. If the defence is "but I didn't break any law", then the person is in the dubious grey zone.

I'd be confident that the majority of successful professional cyclists capitalise fully on the grey zone - it would remiss of them not to.

 

[topcat]

70 s slower than the WR though...

The endurance aspect of 10k/marathon running is relevant. Very recently, top class runners have tested positive for testosterone and epo.

 

[pelotonIQ]

I don't think your defense of "grey zone" methods (which is a made-up definition by the way, it's either legal or not legal), with one example that isn't even accurate, is really any better then the race performance evidence that is reported on in the thread.

🦆

EDIT - on second thought, I would say the defense of a nebulous and non-existent grey zone is worse than simply observing biomechanics and physiology at work.

Says the guy who's defense consists of evading every single question When I defend my stance I bring examples and don't shy away from answering questions, you should try it too.

With the absence of answers I'll assume that you have no answers to what Pogacar is taking and that your only ''proof'' (if we even can call that proof) to claim him being a cheater is that he beat one of Armstrong's KOM or like that other guy said, that he is motor-doping

 

[Red Rick]

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.

Fatigue in the top 3 of GC is is a bit overrated because they artificially tend to slow down to the pace of like the 15th best climber in the race, and when a lot of climbs are literally done at 85% of threshold for the top 2 or so they are really a lot fresher than many would like to believe.

There's a pretty good reason Pogacar and Vingegaard never even dropped higher performances in unipuerto stages, and the simplest reason is they weren't even that tired when they started PdB.

I also think a flat section between the final 2 climbs really helps with recovery before the final climb, especially if it even goes false flat downhill a little bit.

Also, new asphalt as propagandized by @Mayomaniac, and way underestimated drafting as propagandized by @Red Rick (seriously why are the highest estimates always on 7% climbs) - also likely play a role. Finally, PdB is a climb that IIRC often has a tailwind and often has high W/kg estimates despite race situations suggesting otherwise.

So in summary, I'd think the 6.88 W/kg estimate is pretty likely to be too high, but that doesn't take away much from the fact that the performance was some alien-on-crack ***.

 

[Ripper]

Says the guy who's defense consists of evading every single question When I defend my stance I bring examples and don't shy away from answering questions, you should try it too.

With the absence of answers I'll assume that you have no answers to what Pogacar is taking and that your only ''proof'' (if we even can call that proof) to claim him being a cheater is that he beat one of Armstrong's KOM or like that other guy said, that he is motor-doping

Are you trolling? I think anybody who reviews my responses can see that I have not evaded a question. Have another look, one of my responses is about as frank as it can be.

I have also not really been dwelling on a particular American or on the motor aspect. I have spoken about the evidence I can see in terms of biomechanics, and also it has been brought up on numerous occasions in this thread and others about human physiology and what can be reasonably expected (and not). I think you are trying to ignore that though, and I don't think I need to restate what other people have stated.

I believe the only example you have brought forward is the possibility that the big teams illegally used carbon monoxide rebreathing as a performance enhancer (which is, by the way, not grey, but actually a banned method/use). I would agree, it is likely they at least tried this out. So, at least you agree that Pogi is doping

 

[Ripper]

Is the grey zone not stuff that is technically allowed to some extent but is not entirely in the spirit of clean sport? I'll wager a good few TUEs fall into that category.

I think of it as the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance - one is criminal and the other is mean spirited. If the defence is "but I didn't break any law", then the person is in the dubious grey zone.

I'd be confident that the majority of successful professional cyclists capitalise fully on the grey zone - it would remiss of them not to.

I basically agree!

However, when it comes to doping infractions, I like to keep it black or white (just like WADA 🤪 ). I totally understand that some people will put ethically or morally questionable methods that aren't technically illegal in the grey zone. But to me, if it's not cheating, it's not cheating (although it might be really stupid for your health and ethically dubious is heck)

 

[pierremenard]

(Long-time lurker, first-time poster, hi fellow cycling fans!)

I think a lot of the discussion here boils down to two types of evidence. Within prediction/forecasting, there's the notion of "Inside View" and "Outside View." The Inside View looks at the specifics of the case in question; the Outside View looks only at similar cases, with the specific case a "black box" whose details we don't know. For example, the Inside View might say: "based on its internal characteristics, this particular highway construction project should cost A amount and take B years." And the Outside View might say: "every similar project has cost X amount and taken Y years; knowing literally nothing about the specifics of the new project, we should expect it to look similar." From there, much of the art of prediction comes down to deciding how to weight both types of evidence.

In this framework, the Inside View argument that Pogacar is doping (= one of: EPO, blood bags, motors, or novel pharmacology) boils down to:

• his notoriously dirty support structure (Gianetti, Matxin, and many others) - I don't think anyone is defending this group?
• specific otherworldly performances like PdB, stretching the limits of human performance
• certain oddities, like the PdBF bike change, the dispute over Pog's bike after last year's WC, or the astonishing acceleration at Mur de Huy

And the Outside View case rests on:

• the fact that, for much of pro cycling's history, elite riders used pharmacology to boost performance - especially those at the very top
• the fact that drug tests and the biological passport have often failed to catch anyone, with only police raids or whistleblowers sufficing (= lack of failed tests is not meaningful)
• per above: the fact that we've only known the specifics of cheating in hindsight. Folks were suspicious in, say, 2005, but only later did we learn the details of Operation Puerto.
• the fact that many of cycling's best-ever performances (Pantani, Basso 2006, Verbier, LA's Tour run, etc) are known to be dirty, and Pog is producing or exceeding such performances

Anyway, I read @pelotonIQ as requesting a strong argument from the Inside View. We've seen arguments advanced, none of them airtight. And, crucially, I'll grant that the Inside View case is not that strong on its own. However, many folks are also responding with arguments from the Outside View, which I personally find compelling. (Note that, in previous cycling eras, it was a good bet to heavily weight the Outside View, even when that meant living with weak Inside View evidence like a lack of positive tests.)

I argue that the two types of evidence combined add up to a likelihood that Pogacar is doing something beyond the "gray area." And I also argue that we don't need to look inside the Inside View's black box (= state Pog's exact methods) to hold that view.

 

[pelotonIQ]

I believe the only example you have brought forward is the possibility that the big teams illegally used carbon monoxide rebreathing as a performance enhancer (which is, by the way, not grey, but actually a banned method/use). I would agree, it is likely they at least tried this out. So, at least you agree that Pogi is doping

They didn't use it illegally, they used it when it was wasn't banned. It later got banned and teams stopped using it. That tells us that top teams are always looking for non-banned advantages even if said method may or may not get banned in the future.

 

[pelotonIQ]

In this framework, the Inside View argument that Pogacar is doping (= one of: EPO, blood bags, motors, or novel pharmacology) boils down to:

• his notoriously dirty support structure (Gianetti, Matxin, and many others) - I don't think anyone is defending this group?
• specific otherworldly performances like PdB, stretching the limits of human performance
• certain oddities, like the PdBF bike change, the dispute over Pog's bike after last year's WC, or the astonishing acceleration at Mur de Huy

The motor-doping accusations are absurd. How would one go about motor-doping when the bicycles get checked with magnetic resonance devices, tablets with thermal imaging, and X-ray technology to detect hidden motors or other illicit equipment?

The bicycles are scanned pre-race, post-race and the UCI performs random checks based on tip-offs or specific suspicions. As of now, no world-tour team has ever been officially caught for motor-doping. Motor-doping in world tour doesn't exist, but it's still very good that they check for it.

And the Outside View case rests on:

• the fact that, for much of pro cycling's history, elite riders used pharmacology to boost performance - especially those at the very top
• the fact that drug tests and the biological passport have often failed to catch anyone, with only police raids or whistleblowers sufficing (= lack of failed tests is not meaningful)
• per above: the fact that we've only known the specifics of cheating in hindsight. Folks were suspicious in, say, 2005, but only later did we learn the details of Operation Puerto.
• the fact that many of cycling's best-ever performances (Pantani, Basso 2006, Verbier, LA's Tour run, etc) are known to be dirty, and Pog is producing or exceeding such performances

The biological passport was introduced to cycling in 2008. All of your examples mentioned are prior to that date

 

[topcat]

They didn't use it illegally, they used it when it was wasn't banned. It later got banned and teams stopped using it. That tells us that top teams are always looking for non-banned advantages even if said method may or may not get banned in the future.

It is not currently banned, but it is regulated and restricted. Performance enhancing use was already banned under S2.1.2: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/2025list_en_final_clean_12_september_2024.pdf

 

[pelotonIQ]

@topcat The example of CO-rebreathing was to show that teams are always on the lookout for legal ways to improve their abilities. Like another user said, CO-rebreathers are only the top of the iceberg.

 

[scribers]

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.

Yes everyone understood athletes were using ped, particularly steroids and there was a clear understanding significant scientific achievement in blood enhancement was going on. The use was considered progress in human achievement. Never mind the nonsense someone like lemond is trying to sell about that time in his rearview mirror. Rules much less testing and enforcement weren’t of anyone’s concern.

Two things happened that changed views on rules and enforcement forever
1. Long standing baseball records were being shattered. This got the attention of the older power structure in professional sports when their history was being wiped out.
2. Athletes started dying from the things they were doing.

 

[topcat]

@topcat The example of CO-rebreathing was to show that teams are always on the lookout for legal ways to improve their abilities. Like another user said, CO-rebreathers are only the top of the iceberg.

Once again, the CO-rebreather is and was banned if used to improve abilities. So we have no examples of legal ways of boosting performance.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Once again, the CO-rebreather is and was banned if used to improve abilities. So we have no examples of legal ways of boosting performance.

Yeah, but how do you test for it?

 

[Netserk]

Yeah, but how do you test for it?

You can't. But autologous blood doping also isn't grey area even if you can only test its effect on the passport (just like with CO).

 

[topcat]

Yeah, but how do you test for it?

I think we're getting somewhere now. Cyclists are becoming better at not having their violations being detected.

 

[dr.eve]

I have been reading the latest, sometimes heated, discussions in this thread with interest.

I also do not believe in motor doping, I really do not see how they would keep this hidden for so long, even if you don't xray the bikes I just don't consider it likely.
For me more likely are tests simply not picking up everything. A poster before in this thread correctly highlights parts about accuracy of tests in other fields, e.g. diagnostics.
But still we can talk long about false positives and negatives, about accuracy, sensitivity etc. Or have a discussion about whether the performance improvement is physically impossible when relatively comparing to other sports.

That is all not needed when we do not address the big elephants in the room: Giannetti and co.

One can say it is addressed er cetera. But I think it isn't. It is the clear downside of putting Armstrong as the big evil doping genious. This largely made others get off easier or even still be in play to this day. Of course many teams have people with a doping history but some are clearly horrible examples such as Giannetti.
So what we see today in the Dutch cycling news is that Giannetti is welcomed everywhere, interviewed everywhere but not asked one critical question. It's all praise. I believe this is wrong, I really do not understand why we think it is OK that this guy is in the pro peloton and I also do not understand that Pogacar wants to be with him if you claim to be clean.

So instead of trying to find things that may not even be there (i.e. motor doping or doping at all), let's just focus on what is there: the bad history and bad people still in play. Let's first focus on cleaning the house. You will not estinguish a fire if you keep the guy who puts fuel on the fire.

Then a totally other concept that I think contributes to the lower critical opinion towards Gianetti and so on is that nowadays people are quite egocentric in a way that it is all about the GOAT. You see this in many sports. Pogacar is the GOAT so he is our messiah, a god if you will et cetera. I wish we'd stop this adoration and look through that fake layer.

Anyway that is just my two cents.