Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 463 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yep, we have what we know about the past, and that's about it. So I'm left with "I doubt it's that simple" but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Convinced? Look, everbody draws their own conclusions. Whether or not that has any bearing on the nature of things, is an open question. Someone once said stoically, the effects of anger were much worse than that which caused it. Marcus Aurelius?
 
I bet they aren't watching the full 5 hour broadcast like us.
You may be right about fans switching off but popularity of cycling goes up and down. Maybe it went down during Merckyx, Indurain and Armstrong eras too?

But your quote I am interested to know who is "us"? How many fans actually sit through an entire day's racing? "Hardcore" fans would not be a large number in the total scheme of viewers and followers who make up the cycling market.

I have been following the sport for 33 years and have never sat through an entire stage - I don't think I ever watched a full replay either -5 to 6 hours? We have a car race in Australia which runs all day. I kind of watched that as a kid. But a bike race? I prefer the last 2 hours at most. Most European races finish at 1:30am here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Rick
I thought the story was that Armstrong didn't really pay off the UCI to cover up a positive, but rather that Armstrong was notified (as was the standard protocol at the time) of a weird test result that wouldn't really have gone anywhere as per the rules at the time but he thought it was an actual positive so he believed he was getting preferential treatment because he was The Greatest and he decided to pay off the UCI for no reason then brag about it to his underlings like an absolute moron
 
Sure. Yet it seems now everyone is protected to a degree. The sport seems to have lost interest in policing itself some time ago.
Protected is maybe overstating it in my view, but they're definitely not trying all that hard to find anything.

I try to just assume people in cycling are neither especially corrupt or especially incorruptable, and just try to have a holistic view of how it would work if everyone is just self interested mostly.

Cycling has experienced that when it tries to do a better job policing itself, it only gets a worse reputation. In addition, 'demand' for antidoping and questions about doping are much more determined by whether the dominant champoins are well liked or not rather than if they're completely ridiculous or not.

Pogacar ticked so many boxes in his first years that made him very appealing for many casual fans so they bought in completely, and now that it's gotten ridiculous to the nth degree to the nth degree, it's too late to take that emotional investment back.
 
Protected is maybe overstating it in my view, but they're definitely not trying all that hard to find anything.

I try to just assume people in cycling are neither especially corrupt or especially incorruptable, and just try to have a holistic view of how it would work if everyone is just self interested mostly.
Agree with all of that.
Cycling has experienced that when it tries to do a better job policing itself, it only gets a worse reputation. In addition, 'demand' for antidoping and questions about doping are much more determined by whether the dominant champoins are well liked or not rather than if they're completely ridiculous or not.
I dunno. I think it was more what you say about the reputation of the sport than any one champion being palatable or not. The Armstrong hangover. "We can't afford another one" kinda thing. Not sure it would have mattered too much who it was. Happened to be Sky. But sure, no real motivation there either, just not the same kind of detestable behavior across the boards.
 
There might be an argument that the Armstrong era capitalized and brought a level or degree of “professionalism” that was more than earlier decades. Consummated maybe. Sky obviously moved with that, and once it became endemic as the state of things, there’s not going to be a return to the ramshackle scandals of the past. As much as allowable.
 
Just explain what you mean. I'm not even a moralist, but Gianetti's got to go, like Riis, like Bruyneel. The guy simply shouldn't be involved with the sport. Life isn't like the 90s? Nice try. It's far worse.

That’s debatable, but it wasn’t posed as disagreement. In terms of cycling as a possibility, probably so.

Edit, here, I’ll indulge you: Gianetti going is not a fix. Riis and Bruyneel (with his mostly wrong race analysis) seem to be carrying on.
 
Last edited: