Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Fuente De]

The thing I can't make sense of is that we're seeing enormous increases in power output in the last five years, but we're not seeing corresponing paradigm shifts in other endurance sports. Looking at the world records and fastest times in the 5000m, 10,000m and marathon, as well as the longer events in rowing, track cycling and speed skating, none of them have been lowered by unpresedented amounts in the last few years. The speeds in XC skiing don't seem to be on a different planet to five years previously.

Surely the athletes at the cutting edge in these sports have access to the same technological advances as cyclists, in terms of training, nutrition, sports science and PEDs, both in the legal/grey area and the illegal stuff? When EPO hit the scene it affected all endurance sports. There was a before and after across the board because the game had obviously changed. We're seemingly at another one of those watershed points in cycling now. Times are faster than they were at the uninhibited height of EPO use where a 60% hematocrit was the norm. The physical laws of the sport don't seem to apply any more, where featherweight riders can crank out ungodly watts and beating the tanks on the flats and classics and sprint specialists like WvA and Pollitt are doing monster pulls in the mountains. For someone who's followed cycling for the better part of three decades it doesn't make any sense. But similar mind-melting exploits aren't seen elsewhere. Why?

It's not because Pogacar is "the best ever" or because his team has more marginal gains than the next one. He's an outlier and UAE are stinking rich, but the entire peloton has shifted up several gears compared to just a few years ago. The entire sport has been affected by this. Is it because cycling has more money in it than any other sport, so other sports can't afford the new drug on the block yet? Possibly, and I guess time will tell whether we will eventually see other sports use the same groundbreaking methods successfully.

Unless, of course, the crucial advantage that's responsible for the enormous performance increases in cycling is literally only possible in that particular sport... Yes, I'm talking motors. I used to be so firmly on the other side of the fence on this and I didn't think the sport could sink that low, but I'm getting doubtful. There's too much going on these last few years that doesn't pass the eye test unless you add a motor into the equation. Then you have the fact that UAE literally own a bike company now and that Pogacar is making some weird bike choices recently, which is admittedly thin evidence at best, but has to be considered as part of the bigger picture. If we also zoom out and stop looking at cycling in a vacuum, the increase in performance in cycling compared to other sports is hard to explain by any other means too. The longer it takes before a superhuman freak comes along and smashes records in other endurance sports, the more I think we're dealing with something beyond just your average oxygen vector/pharmacological cheating.

Great postt, but I'd argue that triathlon sees some massive gains in recent years too, however, the explanation there are sorta more believable.

 

[BubbaChuck]

So basically Pog has 6.Jonas is nothing but Co2 rebreather merchant and if you put them on water and bread he runs circles around him like he is his father.Watts will explain alles,even doping,lol.

 

[Rackham]

Probably because 'exposing' him will kill the sport immediately? I don't think they have any (conclusive) evidence but we are seeing desperate moves such as the whole battle against mechanical doping the UCI is doing. It gives the impression that they are not in control of the situation. The current era with the big 6 was great for them but since Pogi's dominance in 2024 that changed. A report came out that viewers in countries such as Spain and France are dropping so there might be a relation with the dominance of Pogacar. Ultimately for the UCI the focus will be on the viewers, the revenue, the other stuff (doping) only needs to be managed so it doesn’t impact the credibility and as such the return too much. Currently they are in a difficult spot but talking openly about it is impossible as it impacts the credibility of the sport. So yes, I believe Pogacar can be both protected and at the same time killing the sport.

It'll be about greasing palms, IMO, similar to how Hein Verbruggen was in bed financially with Postal back in the day:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-nothing-illegal-has-happened/

A favor for a favor etc. And I believe there's serious vested interests in doing nothing about the free-for-all doping that's going on. When I see the UCI wetting itself over Bruyneel showing up in the Tour for one afternoon whilst known past dopers run the show all over the sport in almost every team and in TV commentary, all we can do is shrug and say we smell the B.S.

But looking to the future, let's see if Paul Seixas lives up to the hype because he's just what France "needs" (if we cynically accept this is how the sport is conducted, basically, i.e. with performance enhancers). FYI people watching on TV or on the roadside won't care about trivialities like doping when a Frenchman is going toe-to-toe with Pog in the Tour. The problem with the Tour right now is the cast is stale and the Pog versus Vinge 'rivalry' is an empty well in terms of excitement and emotional engagement.

 

[Abedfo]

It'll be about greasing palms, IMO, similar to how Hein Verbruggen was in bed financially with Postal back in the day:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-nothing-illegal-has-happened/

A favor for a favor etc. And I believe there's serious vested interests in doing nothing about the free-for-all doping that's going on. When I see the UCI wetting itself over Bruyneel showing up in the Tour for one afternoon whilst known past dopers run the show all over the sport in almost every team and in TV commentary, all we can do is shrug and say we smell the B.S.

But looking to the future, let's see if Paul Seixas lives up to the hype because he's just what France "needs" (if we cynically accept this is how the sport is conducted, basically, i.e. with performance enhancers). FYI people watching on TV or on the roadside won't care about trivialities like doping when a Frenchman is going toe-to-toe with Pog in the Tour. The problem with the Tour right now is the cast is stale and the Pog versus Vinge 'rivalry' is an empty well in terms of excitement and emotional engagement.

The UCI are just like FIFA. A self appointed governing body with total power who are under no scrutiny.

 

[ashhutch1997]

You are correct. His performance in 2021 was ludicrous. Yet since then, since 2023 really, he has improved another 10% (which is impossible using legitimate means) while he also almost moved to total domination by monopolising the classic races. As for him being protected, I think it’s a case whereby they’ve allowed Gianetti to create this brand leader, this GOAT cycling ambassador figure, but he’s turned into a monster who is not so much showcasing the sport as he is now eating it. However they know that taking him down would be a scandal that would set the sport back ten years. He’s Armstrong all over again, but at least Lance just dominated the Tour, not the entire racing calendar. The guy is a headache and other teams are spitting feathers. Rock, hard place etc.

Great post, but making him a cycling ambassador figure makes little sense. Lance Armstrong brought millions of American viewers to the sport, plus the story with being a cancer survivor made him a global superstar. Respectfully to Slovenia, it doesn't really open up to a new market compared to America. Most non cycling fans knew who Armstrong was, I bet most people have no idea who Tadej pogačar is.

 

[CleanCiclismo]

Man, it’s honestly so obvious when he hits the mechanical boost. You could even see him suffering and looking tired breathing through his mouth on those first two climbs. You can tell he’s just trying to hold on waiting to flip on boost mode when Vingegaard attacks or when he goes himself.
Then boom perfectly timed seated surge.
The device he’s using has to be really small. Makes sense though he’s not using it all race just in those key moments when it really counts. That’s what makes it so hard to catch. It’s not about using it all day it’s about making sure no one can follow when it actually matters. I don’t even think it’s some grand conspiracy between UCI and UAE just a well engineered small hidden motor.

That motor? Clearly hidden inside his legs so that it can't be caught on x-rays when the bike goes through. He's playing 4D chess. Open your eyes .

 

[cnort]

Pogačar doesn't help himself sometimes, dropped the best riders in the world in the saddle looking fresh as a daisy isn't a great look.

Cycling is a sport of suffering, and spectators like the obvious visual cues that riders are in pain, a la Voeckler. Pogacar's seeming lack of physical distress diminishes the spectacle, but I could say the same of Vingegaard and many others. Perhaps the watts-watching means they don't go into the red in the same way as twenty years ago, but everything looks very measured and controlled now. Being juiced up on EPO does not get rid of suffering. Maybe Tadej is also on bucket-loads of painkillers. Whatever is the case, it's simply less interesting if they look comfortable.

 

[ashhutch1997]

Cycling is a sport of suffering, and spectators like the obvious visual cues that riders are in pain, a la Voeckler. Pogacar's seeming lack of physical distress diminishes the spectacle, but I could say the same of Vingegaard and many others. Perhaps the watts-watching means they don't go into the red in the same way as twenty years ago, but everything looks very measured and controlled now. Being juiced up on EPO does not get rid of suffering. Maybe Tadej is also on bucket-loads of painkillers. Whatever is the case, it's simply less interesting if they look comfortable.

There's looking comfortable and then taking the absolute p**s.

 

[Lorzenz08]

" Tomorrow, if I put the same watts on the bike that Lance Armstrong had in 2000, I'll climb the Alpe d'Huez five minutes slower than I did on my bike today. "

"If I put the same watts on the bike that Lance Armstrong had in 2000, I'll climb the Alpe d'Huez five minutes slower" - World Tour pro on doping questions in cycling

French cyclist Nans Peter, currently with Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale and a stage winner in the 2020 Tour de France, was asked about doping in cycling and brought up a curious example with Lance Armstr...

cyclinguptodate.com

 

[Venge 82]

In de ban van de darmen: experimenteert het Tour-peloton écht met het opnemen van stoelgang?

Tijdens de Tour de France gaan wielrenners tot het uiterste voor elk voordeel. Volgens een trainer van een wielerploeg zouden sommige klassementsrenners zelfs écht experimenteren met het opnemen van gezonde stoelgang om hun lichaam een boost te geven. Feit, fabel of gevaarlijk spel? Wij legden...

www.hln.be

A recent article in Het Laatste Nieuws claims that some riders in the Tour de France peloton are experimenting with re-ingesting their own stool — specifically, “healthy” fecal matter from earlier stages of the race — in an attempt to enhance gut health and, by extension, physical performance.
By storing stool from days when they felt strong and healthy, riders hope to restore a favorable microbiome during later, more taxing stages — similar in concept to medical fecal transplants.
If you're willing to re-ingest your own crap…

 

[Venge 82]

" Tomorrow, if I put the same watts on the bike that Lance Armstrong had in 2000, I'll climb the Alpe d'Huez five minutes slower than I did on my bike today. "

"If I put the same watts on the bike that Lance Armstrong had in 2000, I'll climb the Alpe d'Huez five minutes slower" - World Tour pro on doping questions in cycling

French cyclist Nans Peter, currently with Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale and a stage winner in the 2020 Tour de France, was asked about doping in cycling and brought up a curious example with Lance Armstr...

cyclinguptodate.com

Perhaps your post was meant to be ironic, but I would like to counter this.

I have some serious doubts about this claim.

Let’s break it down: the Alpe d’Huez climb is 13.8 km at an average gradient of 8.1%. For a pro, that’s around a 40-minute effort. Claiming a 5-minute difference means a time loss of over 12%, which would translate into 50–60 watts of additional drag or inefficiency. That’s a massive number – and frankly, it doesn’t add up.

First, let’s talk bike weight. Armstrong’s Trek Madone from the early 2000s was already hovering around the UCI weight limit of 6.8 kg, which is still in effect today. So from a pure weight perspective – especially on a steep climb like the Alpe – there’s no real disadvantage. Weight remains the dominant factor when climbing, not aerodynamics or stiffness.

Secondly, modern bikes are undeniably better: more aero, stiffer, smoother shifting, better rolling resistance. But on a climb where you're going 15–20 km/h, aero drag is a minor factor. Even drivetrain and frame stiffness improvements don't yield massive gains at those speeds. In practice, you might save 30 to 60 seconds, not five full minutes.

To add some real-world context: I’ve been riding the same local 63 km loop with about 500 meters of elevation gain for over 20 years with my cycling group. That route includes flats and rollers – where aerodynamics and stiffness actually do matter more than on the Alpe. Our average speeds have remained between 36.5 and 39.5 km/h, depending on wind and weather.

Yes, we’re all getting older – but the group constantly refreshes with younger and faster riders. And let’s be honest: we also consume far fewer beers and gin tonics than we used to on the weekends. Training is smarter, recovery is better. Yet, no revolutionary jump in speed, despite riding the latest high-end gear.

Finally, several independent tests and engineering reviews (e.g. Tour Magazin, CyclingTips, Hambini) have measured the performance difference between early-2000s race bikes and today's top-end models. The total gain on flat terrain is around 10–15 watts, depending on tires, drivetrain, and aero design. On long climbs, that benefit drops to 5 watts or less. That’s nowhere near enough to justify a 5-minute deficit unless the rider's legs also went back to 2001.

So yes, modern bikes are technological marvels. But the idea that riding Armstrong’s old Trek would cost you five minutes on Alpe d’Huez is, frankly, marketing myth or smoke screen...

 

[Lorzenz08]

Perhaps your post was meant to be ironic, but I would like to counter this.

I have some serious doubts about this claim.

Let’s break it down: the Alpe d’Huez climb is 13.8 km at an average gradient of 8.1%. For a pro, that’s around a 40-minute effort. Claiming a 5-minute difference means a time loss of over 12%, which would translate into 50–60 watts of additional drag or inefficiency. That’s a massive number – and frankly, it doesn’t add up.

First, let’s talk bike weight. Armstrong’s Trek Madone from the early 2000s was already hovering around the UCI weight limit of 6.8 kg, which is still in effect today. So from a pure weight perspective – especially on a steep climb like the Alpe – there’s no real disadvantage. Weight remains the dominant factor when climbing, not aerodynamics or stiffness.

Secondly, modern bikes are undeniably better: more aero, stiffer, smoother shifting, better rolling resistance. But on a climb where you're going 15–20 km/h, aero drag is a minor factor. Even drivetrain and frame stiffness improvements don't yield massive gains at those speeds. In practice, you might save 30 to 60 seconds, not five full minutes.

To add some real-world context: I’ve been riding the same local 63 km loop with about 500 meters of elevation gain for over 20 years with my cycling group. That route includes flats and rollers – where aerodynamics and stiffness actually do matter more than on the Alpe. Our average speeds have remained between 36.5 and 39.5 km/h, depending on wind and weather.

Yes, we’re all getting older – but the group constantly refreshes with younger and faster riders. And let’s be honest: we also consume far fewer beers and gin tonics than we used to on the weekends. Training is smarter, recovery is better. Yet, no revolutionary jump in speed, despite riding the latest high-end gear.

Finally, several independent tests and engineering reviews (e.g. Tour Magazin, CyclingTips, Hambini) have measured the performance difference between early-2000s race bikes and today's top-end models. The total gain on flat terrain is around 10–15 watts, depending on tires, drivetrain, and aero design. On long climbs, that benefit drops to 5 watts or less. That’s nowhere near enough to justify a 5-minute deficit unless the rider's legs also went back to 2001.

So yes, modern bikes are technological marvels. But the idea that riding Armstrong’s old Trek would cost you five minutes on Alpe d’Huez is, frankly, marketing myth or smoke screen...

The guy is a 2020 TdF stage winner. Im pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

 

[Venge 82]

The guy is a 2020 TdF stage winner. Im pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

Sure he knows what he is talking about. However, that does not mean he does not exaggerate.

 

[Red Rick]

In de ban van de darmen: experimenteert het Tour-peloton écht met het opnemen van stoelgang?

Tijdens de Tour de France gaan wielrenners tot het uiterste voor elk voordeel. Volgens een trainer van een wielerploeg zouden sommige klassementsrenners zelfs écht experimenteren met het opnemen van gezonde stoelgang om hun lichaam een boost te geven. Feit, fabel of gevaarlijk spel? Wij legden...

www.hln.be

A recent article in Het Laatste Nieuws claims that some riders in the Tour de France peloton are experimenting with re-ingesting their own stool — specifically, “healthy” fecal matter from earlier stages of the race — in an attempt to enhance gut health and, by extension, physical performance.
By storing stool from days when they felt strong and healthy, riders hope to restore a favorable microbiome during later, more taxing stages — similar in concept to medical fecal transplants.
If you're willing to re-ingest your own crap…

Cyclists wanting the good ***.

What else is new.

 

[ashhutch1997]

On a climb like Alpe d'Huez it's all about watts per kilogram, Lance Armstrong's trek madone in 2004 had to add lead weights to his bike to make it legal. Pogacar us riding an areo bike, which would be in 7.4 kilo mark, which is considerably heavier.
As all round bikes, yes today's are faster, but on the climbs the differences are minimal.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

The guy is a 2020 TdF stage winner. Im pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

“The chicken coop is quite impenetrable”, noted the Fox.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

In de ban van de darmen: experimenteert het Tour-peloton écht met het opnemen van stoelgang?

Tijdens de Tour de France gaan wielrenners tot het uiterste voor elk voordeel. Volgens een trainer van een wielerploeg zouden sommige klassementsrenners zelfs écht experimenteren met het opnemen van gezonde stoelgang om hun lichaam een boost te geven. Feit, fabel of gevaarlijk spel? Wij legden...

www.hln.be

A recent article in Het Laatste Nieuws claims that some riders in the Tour de France peloton are experimenting with re-ingesting their own stool — specifically, “healthy” fecal matter from earlier stages of the race — in an attempt to enhance gut health and, by extension, physical performance.
By storing stool from days when they felt strong and healthy, riders hope to restore a favorable microbiome during later, more taxing stages — similar in concept to medical fecal transplants.
If you're willing to re-ingest your own crap…

"I have never used any fecal doping practices. This positive test is a result of me having absorbed my twin's butt whilst in the womb".

 

[E_F_]

Jonas feeding his daughter his own ***

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Sure he knows what he is talking about. However, that does not mean he does not exaggerate.

Does he? He's a Pro cyclist, fair enough, but those guys are not exactly renowned for their smarts or their truthfulness. He as a vested interest in saying so anyway, and appeal to authority is... not a strong argument.

 

[Raest]

In de ban van de darmen: experimenteert het Tour-peloton écht met het opnemen van stoelgang?

Tijdens de Tour de France gaan wielrenners tot het uiterste voor elk voordeel. Volgens een trainer van een wielerploeg zouden sommige klassementsrenners zelfs écht experimenteren met het opnemen van gezonde stoelgang om hun lichaam een boost te geven. Feit, fabel of gevaarlijk spel? Wij legden...

www.hln.be

A recent article in Het Laatste Nieuws claims that some riders in the Tour de France peloton are experimenting with re-ingesting their own stool — specifically, “healthy” fecal matter from earlier stages of the race — in an attempt to enhance gut health and, by extension, physical performance.
By storing stool from days when they felt strong and healthy, riders hope to restore a favorable microbiome during later, more taxing stages — similar in concept to medical fecal transplants.
If you're willing to re-ingest your own crap…

I flat out refuse to believe this

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Jonas feeding his daughter his own ***

No, it just looks like that because he's a terrible chef. He needs to spend more time in the kitchen.

 

[Raest]

Perhaps your post was meant to be ironic, but I would like to counter this.

I have some serious doubts about this claim.

Let’s break it down: the Alpe d’Huez climb is 13.8 km at an average gradient of 8.1%. For a pro, that’s around a 40-minute effort. Claiming a 5-minute difference means a time loss of over 12%, which would translate into 50–60 watts of additional drag or inefficiency. That’s a massive number – and frankly, it doesn’t add up.

First, let’s talk bike weight. Armstrong’s Trek Madone from the early 2000s was already hovering around the UCI weight limit of 6.8 kg, which is still in effect today. So from a pure weight perspective – especially on a steep climb like the Alpe – there’s no real disadvantage. Weight remains the dominant factor when climbing, not aerodynamics or stiffness.

Secondly, modern bikes are undeniably better: more aero, stiffer, smoother shifting, better rolling resistance. But on a climb where you're going 15–20 km/h, aero drag is a minor factor. Even drivetrain and frame stiffness improvements don't yield massive gains at those speeds. In practice, you might save 30 to 60 seconds, not five full minutes.

To add some real-world context: I’ve been riding the same local 63 km loop with about 500 meters of elevation gain for over 20 years with my cycling group. That route includes flats and rollers – where aerodynamics and stiffness actually do matter more than on the Alpe. Our average speeds have remained between 36.5 and 39.5 km/h, depending on wind and weather.

Yes, we’re all getting older – but the group constantly refreshes with younger and faster riders. And let’s be honest: we also consume far fewer beers and gin tonics than we used to on the weekends. Training is smarter, recovery is better. Yet, no revolutionary jump in speed, despite riding the latest high-end gear.

Finally, several independent tests and engineering reviews (e.g. Tour Magazin, CyclingTips, Hambini) have measured the performance difference between early-2000s race bikes and today's top-end models. The total gain on flat terrain is around 10–15 watts, depending on tires, drivetrain, and aero design. On long climbs, that benefit drops to 5 watts or less. That’s nowhere near enough to justify a 5-minute deficit unless the rider's legs also went back to 2001.

So yes, modern bikes are technological marvels. But the idea that riding Armstrong’s old Trek would cost you five minutes on Alpe d’Huez is, frankly, marketing myth or smoke screen...

Good points all. Most of the drag coefficient comes from the rider themselves not the bike.
With respect to the latter. The bikes themselves have become more aero compared to the noughties but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence on the net (companies won't of course volunteer this information ) to show that rim brake aero models from the mid 10s are more efficient than current disc braked frames. The discs alone add between 8-10 worth of watts in drag. And yes they are heavier.
Also, the wide tyres (28 mm or higher) now used do reduce rolling resistance (under certain conditions) also increase the drag coefficient both due to their increased surface and also because their fit necessitates wider forks which increases the total frontal area of the bike and disturbs the airflow more compared to a 23/25 mm tyre. Hambini I think has calculated the effect between 3-6 Watts at 45 km/h. No one will talk about this either.
Where noticeable gains have been made is in fabrics and helmet design because those affect the airflow around the rider directly.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Good points all. Most of the drag coefficient comes from the rider themselves not the bike.
With respect to the latter. The bikes themselves have become more aero compared to the noughties but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence on the net (companies won't of course volunteer this information ) to show that rim brake aero models from the mid 10s are more efficient than current disc braked frames. The discs alone add between 8-10 worth of watts in drag. And yes they are heavier.
Also, the wide tyres (28 mm or higher) now used do reduce rolling resistance (under certain conditions) also increase the drag coefficient both due to their increased surface and also because their fit necessitates wider forks which increases the total frontal area of the bike and disturbs the airflow more compared to a 23/25 mm tyre. Hambini I think has calculated the effect between 3-6 Watts at 45 km/h. No one will talk about this either.
Where noticeable gains have been made is in fabrics and helmet design because those affect the airflow around the rider directly.

The funny thing with the "modern bikes" argument is, has you said, the rim brakes bikes from the late 201x were probably the peak of performance as far as climbing goes, but they largely predate the double big jump in climbing times from post lockdown 2020/winter 2023.

 

[repoman]

Good points all. Most of the drag coefficient comes from the rider themselves not the bike.
With respect to the latter. The bikes themselves have become more aero compared to the noughties but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence on the net (companies won't of course volunteer this information ) to show that rim brake aero models from the mid 10s are more efficient than current disc braked frames. The discs alone add between 8-10 worth of watts in drag. And yes they are heavier.
Also, the wide tyres (28 mm or higher) now used do reduce rolling resistance (under certain conditions) also increase the drag coefficient both due to their increased surface and also because their fit necessitates wider forks which increases the total frontal area of the bike and disturbs the airflow more compared to a 23/25 mm tyre. Hambini I think has calculated the effect between 3-6 Watts at 45 km/h. No one will talk about this either.
Where noticeable gains have been made is in fabrics and helmet design because those affect the airflow around the rider directly.

Those aero gains for clothes are arguably non existent. Those solid helmets from Bell everyone bought for their kid in the 1990s test better than most aero helmets these days (not talking about TT ones). There was a recent test of about 20 different aero socks and only a few had better aero than some normal worn out casual socks the tester used for a baseline, most of them tested worse.
Puppy paws and supertucking has been banned.

Tour magazine tested the Dogma F10 as more aero than many contemporary aero bikes.
Tires have been the same since the 2010s, GP5000s have been around since then, Veloflex tires from 2010s all test about as good as you can get.

 

[AlpRaid]

wellens. another uae transformation.

this was a rider who would only get any results near the start of the season and then would largely disappear.

last year I remember being shocked that he won the Belgian ITT.

now he is killing the mountains of the dauphine and TDF, as well as soloing the Belgian road race and a stage.

suddenly at age 34. give me a freakin' break.

and also narvaez -- now a mountain goat -- never performed like this in the mountains.