Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[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.

 

[DONCA]

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

The guy is part of the industry sure he wants to get another contract next year.

 

[Ripper]

I think it’s fair to be cautious with anything Antoine Vayer posts — his tone is often provocative, and he has a tendency to overstate things. That said, not everything he shares is nonsense, and in this particular case, it’s worth separating the messenger from the message.

Regarding ITTP, there seems to be some confusion:

- ITTP is not the same as efaproxiral (RSR-13).
While both are allosteric effectors of hemoglobin, ITTP is a distinct molecule with stronger oxygen-release capacity. Efaproxiral was explored in the early 2000s, but ITTP only started appearing in the literature around 2010–2012, and was developed as a more potent and stable alternative.

- Studies have shown performance-enhancing effects.
Peer-reviewed publications (e.g., PLOS ONE, 2012; Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, 2011) report significant improvements in tissue oxygenation and endurance capacity in animal models. No human trials exist yet, but the physiological basis is solid.

- ITTP is not currently on the WADA Prohibited List by name.
It may fall under broad categories like “blood manipulation,” but it’s not explicitly mentioned, and to date, it has not triggered any athlete positives — except for one case in French horse racing (2019), where a custom test had to be developed.

- Detection is not straightforward.
ITTP has a short half-life (1–3 hours), leaves no lasting markers in the blood, and doesn’t raise hemoglobin or hematocrit. That makes it invisible to the biological passport and difficult to detect without a targeted test — which, to our knowledge, doesn’t yet exist in anti-doping labs for humans.

Ding ding ding

I think we have a winner

 

[kingjr]

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.

Yeah, Wellens was almost as fast as noted mountain goats Bruno Armirail, Victor Campenaerts, and Tobias Foss. That's a red flag if ever I saw one.

 

[SorelyBoy]

This is an interesting development: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/25/tour-france-bikes-hidden-motors/
Are we about to go mainstream? Will other journalists start investigating? Early days but one pebble can start an avalanche.