Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Oldman]

Good question. He has already been confronted in the podcast. He says that it is very time-consuming. There he says also that they are in the process of developing new control processes, as the current processes do not rule out the possibility of motor doping being used. Those are his words.

But ultimately they can do what they want as they are the only body authorised to control the bikes.

It is inexplicable to me that there is so little and inadequate control. There is really only one question I have to ask myself. Are they really trying to find something or is it just to look like it fot the good image of the sport?

Above all, we must not forget that they only check 1 bike per rider, if at all. What about all the bike changes? Like the one from Pogacar at Roubaix, for example. Why did he change his bike at all? He didn't have a flat tyre. In general, we've seen a lot of bike changes in recent years where I, as an amateur, always ask myself how shitty these high-end racing bikes must be. I ride more than 10k a year and have a maximum of 2 punctures a year. How can it be that the professionals with better material change their bikes that often?

Possibly because most are running the most current version of wireless shifting? How many times have you witnessed bike changes due to that or see riders banging their shoe against a stuck front derailleur? Couple that with debris stuck in disc brake calipers, etc and it's more than flat tires. It could even be sponsored tires that suck on slick pavement.
I've got cable shifting on my gravel bike and 13 speed, single ring Campy. Never a problem except sticky mud. It's rough here and few want to ride the newest stuff 'cause it's expensive to crash. The ProTour guys have no choice.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Why you are not a fan of Armstrong anymore? There is no reason from somebody who was a fan of him, suddendly not being his fan anymore.

If i were a big fan of Armstrong, i would "demand" the 7 Tours France back, who were unfairly taken from him. It is probably one of the biggest injustices in the history of sport.

We mature as people and I realized cycling is a farse (like other individual sports) when we talk about doping. Back in those days, I believed in the fairytaile of a rider who almost died to cancer in 97 and cameback to win 7 Tours. There won't be ever another Armstrong (popularity).

 

[Oldman]

Then the UCI is in breach of its own rules. Below is from the above linked UCI motor doping programme:

And the teams probably don't trust the UCI either. I wouldn't want anyone but a team mechanic dismantling and reassembling a bike that will descend at 60mph the next day.

 

[Gratemans]

Why you are not a fan of Armstrong anymore? There is no reason from somebody who was a fan of him, suddendly not being his fan anymore.

If i were a big fan of Armstrong, i would "demand" the 7 Tours France back, who were unfairly taken from him. It is probably one of the biggest injustices in the history of sport.

Those are some pretty weird questions..
People change, opinions can change based on things you learn. Someone could have been a fan of Armstrong, then after they learn he doped and destroyed other peoples lives to cover it up, they can surely stop being a fan? How is that hard to understand?

Not that I ever was an Armstrong fan btw. But in your world, you pick a favourite and then you remain a fan until the end of days no matter if they turn out to have a knack for organizing genocides and kill puppies as a hobby? That's just weird dude.

And if this was some way of referring to Peyroteo being a fan of Pogacar, who you think dopes: well he seems to think so as well. He also believes a lot of other riders dope. Including Jonas. And I gotta say, imo that's a lot more of a realistic point of view then the one you showed a couple pages back...

 

[bNator]

The 2024 Paris-Roubaix was the moment I became convinced that he is motor doping. He did not win, but the fact that he nearly matched a significantly heavier more experienced classics rider on the cobbles Is beyond suspicious.

The sudden acceleration It was eerily reminiscent of Cancellara’s attacks. Out of nowhere, he launches an explosive burst not a gradual buildup, but an instant surgeright on the edge of the cobblestones where the ground is sketchy and full of loose dirt. Any cyclist knows that kind of sudden acceleration on loose uneven cobbles/dirt is nearly impossible there’s simply not enough traction to pull it off without slipping or losing control(unless you used a motor)
The bike change: This is the smoking gun for me. Late in the race with no visible mechanical issue, he swaps bikes. On the new bike his pace noticeably drops suddenly he is losing time to Van der Poel. Before the change, he was holding the gap with ease. Almost as if he knew the win was out of reach, so he switched to a regular bike to play it safe.

Why would he wanna play it safe? Isn’t there a UCI conspiracy where he gets off the hook so that everyone can make money? There’s nothing to be afraid of…

 

[anti -e-bike]

pogi uses a motor, and the earth is flat.

bro is spitting the facts

 

[HashRouge]

Good question. He has already been confronted in the podcast. He says that it is very time-consuming. There he says also that they are in the process of developing new control processes, as the current processes do not rule out the possibility of motor doping being used. Those are his words.

But ultimately they can do what they want as they are the only body authorised to control the bikes.

It is inexplicable to me that there is so little and inadequate control. There is really only one question I have to ask myself. Are they really trying to find something or is it just to look like it fot the good image of the sport?

Above all, we must not forget that they only check 1 bike per rider, if at all. What about all the bike changes? Like the one from Pogacar at Roubaix, for example. Why did he change his bike at all? He didn't have a flat tyre. In general, we've seen a lot of bike changes in recent years where I, as an amateur, always ask myself how shitty these high-end racing bikes must be. I ride more than 10k a year and have a maximum of 2 punctures a year. How can it be that the professionals with better material change their bikes that often?

I thought he changed bike the first time for speed, as there was some sort of issue with the chain. Then he got a puncture, so changed onto the original bike. I don't generally view Pogacar as having lots of bike changes to be honest.

 

[Cookster15]

And the teams probably don't trust the UCI either. I wouldn't want anyone but a team mechanic dismantling and reassembling a bike that will descend at 60mph the next day.

Fair call, but I assume after checking the bikes after the stage the UCI mechanics give them back to the team mechanics who can do a quick check over to ensure zero issues before they are used for racing? Assuming the UCI and team mechanics have the right tools this should be quick and easy.

But I am not sure when this happens though? If its a stage race then the UCI mechanics should be required to hand back the bike that night so that the team mechanics have time to do a quick recheck before the next day.

Rules are rules and for the betterment of the sport the teams should comply. But am more concerned the UCI isn't carrying out its own rules? The words of Lappartient are a worry.

 

[danielovichdk2]

Fair call, but I assume after checking the bikes after the stage the UCI mechanics give them back to the team mechanics who can do a quick check over to ensure zero issues before they are used for racing? Assuming the UCI and team mechanics have the right tools this should be quick and easy.

But I am not sure when this happens though? If its a stage race then the UCI mechanics should be required to hand back the bike that night so that the team mechanics have time to do a quick recheck before the next day.

Rules are rules and for the betterment of the sport the teams should comply. But am more concerned the UCI isn't carrying out its own rules? The words of Lappartient are a worry.

Mechanics ? Tools ? They ride them through a portable x-ray scanner in a back of truck. That's at least how it's done today.

 

[AttaqueDeRolland]

Uninformed people are batting their eyes and scourging their backs against this heresy.
1.They also don't know how to ride a bike, at speed in a pack.
For all: you and some strong pals warm up a bit. Have them lead you out at 25 mph to a base of a 5-10% hill while you stay seated. You can gap off just a bit and take a spinning acceleration to the back end of the leadout. As you feel the grade toughen you can shift while staying in the saddle to maintain cadence. Keep doing that until you can't push a gear without getting out of the saddle.

Duplicate that exercise at a slower entry speed, staying close to the rider in front of you. Jump out of the saddle and gauge the difference in effort and how far you get up the hill until you are out of gears for bailout.
It's been done for years by riders that know how to do it, particularly riders that have raced high-speed and technical criteriums or fixed gear velodrome racing. A smart, not super-powerful rider once told me: "in a fast crit you can't spin too small a gear out of a corner". Saves tons of energy and allows the output to be even and not peak the pulse rate so soon you cannot adjust. It's also much more stable and aero to stay low while others thrash around you. You'll also be faster on an inside line allowing you to pass more thrashers.
If you don't see improvement; keep trying. If it seems impossible to spin that smoothly: see 1 above.
Or let one of your buddies try it.

This is genuinely hilarious, next-level comedy. We have now reached a point where the Pogi-defence is not only pointing to crits as the holy grail of "good cycling," but is even implying that crit-tactics are one-to-one transferable to a climb like Combloux. In its own way, this would also somewhat suggest that a rider like Contador, famous for going out of the saddle, especially when attacking, was neither "smart" nor "efficient," which is an utterly ridiculous claim to make when Contador produced top-level performances time and again with this approach.

Also, it's next-level gatekeeping and elitism to say that people are uninformed if they "don't know how to ride a bike, at speed in a pack." Firstly, that has very little relevance in the context of Pogi doing seated attacks in one-versus-one situations against Vingegaard. Secondly, even though I have experience "riding a bike, at speed in a pack," I would never claim to be more informed than many of the commentators or journalists who do not have this experience but, in return, work professionally in and around the sport every single day.

 

[DONCA]

Possibly because most are running the most current version of wireless shifting? How many times have you witnessed bike changes due to that or see riders banging their shoe against a stuck front derailleur? Couple that with debris stuck in disc brake calipers, etc and it's more than flat tires. It could even be sponsored tires that suck on slick pavement.
I've got cable shifting on my gravel bike and 13 speed, single ring Campy. Never a problem except sticky mud. It's rough here and few want to ride the newest stuff 'cause it's expensive to crash. The ProTour guys have no choice.

I ve been using wireless shifting for more than 5 years and never had a problem with it nor a stuck front derailleur. I am not saying that these problems do not exist but the number of bike changes are ridiculously high. So I have to ask myself how that can be. How can it be that teams with the biggest budgets and the best technicians have so many mechanical problems? Above all, it's also bad publicity for all the brands if so many bikes are exchanged every race.

Mechanical problems are part of cycling, but the high number of supposed mechanical problems makes me doubt it. Especially those changes when you don´t even see a flat tyre. Like Pogacar at Paris Roubaix.

I thought he changed bike the first time for speed, as there was some sort of issue with the chain. Then he got a puncture, so changed onto the original bike. I don't generally view Pogacar as having lots of bike changes to be honest.

Yes the first time he changed it after his crash at 37km to go and then at 20km to go. It's difficult to judge from the TV and its Paris Roubaix where riders have punctures but when a rider has a real flat tyre, you can see it. This was not the case. Maybe it was a slow puncture or maybe he just wanted to get rid of this bike like Cancellara back in the days. Same for MVDP who changed his bike 5km after Pog changed it. Maybe it's just a stupid coincidence, but some bike changes make me wonder. But maybe I've just read and heard too much about motor doping recently

Mechanics ? Tools ? They ride them through a portable x-ray scanner in a back of truck. That's at least how it's done today.

These x ray scanners are rarely used. At least that's what the UCI president says. Tablets are used most often, but they are a joke. Even engines from 10 years ago can bypass these tests, according to Stefano Varjas. So think about what is possible with modern technology.

And as Marshall-Bell exposed even in the Giro, for example, there are stages where there are no controls at all. So the controls are a joke and according to insiders and even the UCI president, motor doping is technically possible and that is really worrying.