Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[topt]

am wondering one thing if Pog results are not result of bike and training improvements..... where are Merckx climb times if he was the best ever ?
thank you

 

[Berniece]

traditional cycling countries
could it be cause they are not winning...

When were Belgium and France winning the TDF? Loooooong time ago

 

[pelotonIQ]

Oh look. There are consequences for allowing one person and team to dominate. Pogacar is eating cycling and the public literally aren’t buying it. Particularly significant is the fall of viewing figures in traditional cycling countries. They know the sport and they don’t like what they’re seeing. Interestingly viewing figures for this year’s Giro actually went up from last year. Because, no doubt, at least it was competitive. The narrative from the media that we should feel privileged to watch what is being served up is falling pretty flat.

View: https://youtu.be/fCUTclg-R1M?si=akQFj2vHfzE-Wkbw

What do you mean by ''allowing'' Pogacar to win. He wins because he is better than everyone else, not because he is allowed. If Tour ratings are going down because of Pogacar's dominance, who cares? You cannot prevent a rider from winning.

 

[fenns]

So missing the Vuelta giving it less than 48 hours to make an assessment he'd be too tired. He's never raced it before after Paris. I'm betting he has to cycle down in order to peak again for the Autumn

 

[topt]

So missing the Vuelta giving it less than 48 hours to make an assessment he'd be too tired. He's never raced it before after Paris. I'm betting he has to cycle down in order to peak again for the Autumn

I mean what can you even say to this; its crazy what is allowed here and what is not

 

[Red Rick]

1. no one has any business asking anyone doping questions unless they failed a doping test.
2. Only the specific rider who failed a test can be questioned? You can't ask a teammate, DS or sponsor?

Have I understood you correctly?

Hear that? That's the sound of starting with the conclusion and then determining the methodology backwards.

 

[dr.eve]

So your claim is not true. You don't check the X-ray data. The tablet has its limits as I told you before. You won't capture a pro team. They have their own tablet. They will make sure the motor is installed and used in a way that you can't detect anything.

Also a tablet is no x ray device... If a tablet is the most sophisticated tool they have to test then its laughable at best.

And hey I don't even believe motor doping is used or widely used.

 

[Red Rick]

I mean what can you even say to this; its crazy what is allowed here and what is not

You have gotten lost on the internet, this is the Clinic?

 

[dr.eve]

At this point in professional cycling if riders are engaged in illegal conduct or in violation of racing rules there is zero reason not to know. And 99% of all drugs made have identifiable sequences that can be picked up in modern laboratory testing, so if you are taking one of @70+ common substances used as a PED, if not found in A sample will most likely be caught in B sample secondary test.

What do you base your statement on?

I really look differently to testing, I am by all means no anti doping test expert. There's plenty of things we do not have proper tests for. And even if we do, it all also depends whether you actually test for something. Its not like they run all laboratory tests available to date in an antidoping test, no one would be able to afford the costs.

But anyway some other practicalities to consider:

- Many substances are difficult to detect because they leave the body quickly and may evade timing of test. Clearance varies per compound, this can also be engineered to a degree (size, charge, hydrophonics properties etc)
- New compounds are constantly developed and either tests do not exist for them or are not implemented in antidoping practice.
- Tests have limitations in specificity and sensitivity; reducing the dosage of your compound as such that you stay below the detection threshold will not get you a positive test. It could be that you still get performance enhancement from the substance taken.
- There are countless things in biotech and medicine where we do not have tests for or tests are inadequate, why would antidoping tests be perfect all of a sudden?

I am sorry to say but your first sentence is so utterly naieve. Zero reason not to know? What world are you living in? Your confidence in a clean sport is admirable I will give you that.

 

[Saint Paul de Vence]

am wondering one thing if Pog results are not result of bike and training improvements..... where are Merckx climb times if he was the best ever ?
thank you

Throughout his professional career, Merckx was recognized as the top rider in a rather limited field of competitors. But, when it comes to sprints, he was not the top sprinter by any means. In terms of in race time trials on steep mountains, there were frequently riders who outperformed him during his era. He did not secure victories in all mountain finishes. As a preliminary estimate, let's asume that during Merckx's time, in the Small World of cycling with modest earnings, there was typically someone superior to him in mountain finishes every four years. Thus from 1955 to 1985, within this Small World, seven riders surpassed Merckx in mountain finishes. The contemporary expansive world of cycling encompasses the previous Small World that has since expanded, along with a New World of countries emerging globally. It can be posited that the eighth best French rider today performs approximately three times worse in mountain stages result rankings compared to the standards of the Small World era. Based on the aforementioned observations, it is reasonable to conclude that today, cycling discovers around six riders every four years who excel beyond Merckx in high mountain stages. Considering a linearly expanding Big World of cycling, we can estimate that from 1985 to 2025, thirty-five new riders have emerged. By combining these 35 with the previously pointed 7, we arrive at a total of 42. Therefore, throughout the entire history of cycling, there have statistically been 42 cyclists who have outperformed Eddy Merckx in mountain finishes. This serves as a preliminary approximation; the actual ranking may vary, potentially falling between thirty and eighty. Nonetheless, one fact remains indisputable: under identical training conditions, utilizing the same bicycle, and during his peak years, Pogačar, recognized as the best mountain cyclist since the inception of the sport, would have defeated Merckx on the Mont Ventoux with relative ease.

 

[AlpRaid]

Gianetti.

That’s really what it comes down to.

One of the proven very dirtiest riders and managers In cycling history.

Any rider wanting to be given the benefit of the doubt would NEVER choose to ride for UAE no matter the money thrown at them.

So exactly when and why did Gianetti decide he would have all his riders clean and they would end up even more successful. As LeMond points out, once u dope u would question whether u could compete without it. That makes psychological sense. Gianetti just deciding no longer to use dope in the team he manages comes from what? It makes no logical sense at all.

 

[peterfin]

i never claimed I am present at x ray but my boss is and I do trust him. You do know how many different people on many different races are present at x rays, so they all have to be on take; I wish you could see that live and you would know this claims UCI is somehow in on this is insane.
I get its possible to somehow hide positive doping test cause not many people are involved but this, just no way

It would help if the UCI gives us more details. We just don't know what happens to a specific bike after the race. It's good to know that you tell us that the UCI takes it seriously. They know they should. Technology moves fast. You can't take anything for granted.

 

[BullsFan22]

Gianetti.

That’s really what it comes down to.

One of the proven very dirtiest riders and managers In cycling history.

Any rider wanting to be given the benefit of the doubt would NEVER choose to ride for UAE no matter the money thrown at them.

So exactly when and why did Gianetti decide he would have all his riders clean and they would end up even more successful. As LeMond points out, once u dope u would question whether u could compete without it. That makes psychological sense. Gianetti just deciding no longer to use dope in the team he manages comes from what? It makes no logical sense at all.

Was LeMond clean?

 

[Ripper]

what exactly is pretty daming ?

?
Are you not keeping up with the news?

 

[Ripper]

Just seeing that Pogacar interview and a few things struck me. He’s not a very good liar unlike say Lance who found that part easy and had an ability to make the interviewer feel like an idiot for asking the question.

I don’t for one moment believe his answers but you’re not going to hear him proclaim to a journalist that he’s not worth the chair he is sitting on or that he feels sorry for the doubters. With UAE there is a lot less pretence than Sky or to a lesser extent Jumbo who put a large emphasis on PR and the holier than thou attitude which definitely rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. By doing so it often felt as though they were trying to insult people’s intelligence with all the marginal gains talk. With UAE, given the links to Giannetti and the performance spikes in their riders, there is no doubt that they are getting plenty of magic fuel. Yet the amazing thing is that all we have is speculation and innuendo based on performances and Giannettis history. That despite Pogacars utter dominance of the sport.

The other thing that struck me in the interview was the fact that David Walsh asked Pogacar the 2nd softball question about whether he would ride his bike in the immediate aftermath of the Tour. Which given the fact that he helped take down Lance and was then subsequently embedded with Team Sky whilst Rozman worked with them, just shows the hypocrisy of the press based on whether they like a rider or not. He went after Armstrong with a vengeance but has played the game ever since.

Personally I find Pogacar and Vingegaard for that matter to be likeable individuals off the bike, however given the history of the sport any yellow jersey winner should expect to have to answer questions about doping. In fact they should be welcomed if the winner was clean and doubts were being cast on the merits of their achievements. But it appears as though the omertà is now stronger than it has been for a generation and the press and media are largely complicit in selling this utopian dream.

Well according to some of the posters on this forum, omerta is a good thing and reporter should not dare ask such questions about doping. And if they do, said reporter should be thrown out! 🤪

 

[yaco]

1. no one has any business asking anyone doping questions unless they failed a doping test.
2. Only the specific rider who failed a test can be questioned? You can't ask a teammate, DS or sponsor?

Have I understood you correctly?

Why are Arenssman and Pogacar asked about events that may or not have occurred at team Sky in 2012. Logically, it makes no sense at all because neither can provide any information.

 

[yaco]

Well according to some of the posters on this forum, omerta is a good thing and reporter should not dare ask such questions about doping. And if they do, said reporter should be thrown out! 🤪

I have pointed out that it is ridiculous to ask Arennsman or Pogacar what happened at Sky in 2012. That is not omerta! Only people involved in Sky at the time could answer questions about 2012. The strangest thing is that if someone was taking PROHIBITED substances they are hardly likely to tell all.

 

[yaco]

What do you base your statement on?

I really look differently to testing, I am by all means no anti doping test expert. There's plenty of things we do not have proper tests for. And even if we do, it all also depends whether you actually test for something. Its not like they run all laboratory tests available to date in an antidoping test, no one would be able to afford the costs.

But anyway some other practicalities to consider:

- Many substances are difficult to detect because they leave the body quickly and may evade timing of test. Clearance varies per compound, this can also be engineered to a degree (size, charge, hydrophonics properties etc)
- New compounds are constantly developed and either tests do not exist for them or are not implemented in antidoping practice.
- Tests have limitations in specificity and sensitivity; reducing the dosage of your compound as such that you stay below the detection threshold will not get you a positive test. It could be that you still get performance enhancement from the substance taken.
- There are countless things in biotech and medicine where we do not have tests for or tests are inadequate, why would antidoping tests be perfect all of a sudden?

I am sorry to say but your first sentence is so utterly naieve. Zero reason not to know? What world are you living in? Your confidence in a clean sport is admirable I will give you that.

You need to get your head around that athletes will use new compounds that are not on the prohibited list. This is what professional athletes do! This word doping is thrown around like confetti. There is a world of differnce between legal and illegal doping.

 

[Blobs]

so he is guilty, the cycling experts on clinic decided so

Seems like you are dodging my question in order to deliberately miss my point.

 

[cnort]

Was LeMond clean?

That's an interesting question. I have always believed yes on the grounds that no mud was thrown at him in earnest and his performances seem plausible in light of an extraordinarily high max VO2. His decline at the onset of the EPO era was pretty stark too.

This thread has repeatedly pointed an accusatory finger at Pogacar not because of any dodgy test results but because of the implausible physical performances and the company he keeps. For me both are sufficient to believe he is not clean. I cannot say the same of Lemond, but maybe others think differently.

The writer and journalist Benjo Maso said (about 20 years ago) that there were only two post-WWII tour winners that were believably clean: Bartali and Lemond. All the others were proven dopers or there was enough to say they probably were.

 

[Venge 82]

Because Wout is a wattage monster that has been riding up cobbled roads and difficult, dirty hills in CX since his teens? You can't compare this with a 40 min 7 w/kg effort.

And I would like to add that attacking "en danseuse" makes no sense at all on cobblestones, especially when they're wet. On the contrary – it's better to stay seated to keep pressure on the rear wheel and maintain traction.
This is quite different from attacking on a long climb on paved roads, where it feels much more natural to get out of the saddle and accelerate while standing on the pedals to make a difference.

 

[thetdog666]

i never claimed I am present at x ray but my boss is and I do trust him. You do know how many different people on many different races are present at x rays, so they all have to be on take; I wish you could see that live and you would know this claims UCI is somehow in on this is insane.
I get its possible to somehow hide positive doping test cause not many people are involved but this, just no way

I dont believe everyone is on it. They are using a motor not detectable by xray. Like athletes doping, they are always a head of the game.

 

[dr.eve]

You need to get your head around that athletes will use new compounds that are not on the prohibited list. This is what professional athletes do! This word doping is thrown around like confetti. There is a world of differnce between legal and illegal doping.

Ah yes it is black and white. Either its prohibited or not, and if it is prohibited then there is zero chance to not know.

Maybe you need to get your head out of the sand and open your eyes... Don't be so naïeve man...

 

[Cookster15]

They are using a motor not detectable by xray.

They are or you think they are?

There is no such thing as motors invisible to X-Ray detectors and even if there were they would eventually be found by trained mechanics. Plus the UCI can pull apart bikes if motors are suspected.

 

[E_F_]

There is no such thing as motors invisible to X-Ray detectors

Certainly not. But a motor could be concealed from an X-ray machine.

they would eventually be found by trained mechanics

They very much could be found by trained mechanics, but I've seen nothing to suggest that trained mechanics are even necessarily involved in the testing - if indeed there is any testing. And we don't know that there aren't motor which would require a thorough search to be found - and while...

the UCI can pull apart bikes if motors are suspected

...they quite literally pride themselves on using unobtrusive measures to test the bikes.