Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Unchained]

Most of what you write is a consequence of being from the USA.
Another thing is that he DID beat cancer and recovered to be a 7 time TdF champion. That counts for something.

That counts for everything, not a little something. Lance Armstrong, despite being American was a world wide phenomenon, his bike racing was complimentary to his conquering cancer story.
Bike racing wise Tadej Pogacar looks likely to break most existing records but as of now he is nowhere near what Armstrong accomplished in wealth or public recognition globally. Pogacar is isolated in a cycling bubble, Armstrong was not his biggest impact was outside cycling. If you are just comparing Armstrong and Pogacar using bike racing metrics, Tadej is superior.

 

[aphronesis]

Of course there’s the argument that certain Americans would make overcoming cancer into an identity and publicity agenda.

Pog might have other priorities.

 

[Revelation]

Yes, a guy being the best rider in the world by using training methods a decade out of date makes all of the sense in the world

Shame there's no sense left in this world.

I do think that even if the training methods were far from optimal, Pogacar was also to blame by not dedicating himself fully into maximising his performance until 2024. There was nothing stopping him from having the proper physique before that, so not an insignificant gain was had from that alone before whatever Sola brought.

 

[Abedfo]

I think what we have to remember through all this is that UAEs performances look so over the top because we are also assuming that the majority of other teams also have programmes.

I also find it laughable to suggest a world tour pro isn't "dedicating themselves fully" they are being paid handsomely to do so.

 

[AlpRaid]

lol at some of these delusional armstrong re-appraisals.

he was completely incapable of following GC riders on longer climbs before hooking up with Ferrari. lost 20+ minutes every mountain stage.

he had a 70+ or so VO2 which is average (if not low) for a pro and his natural hematocrit level was also on the low side -- thus he was a super-responder to oxygen vector doping.

the idea that he was a really good rider - dope or no dope - is tantamount ridiculousness.

Bassons' physiognomy was apparently better, but since he refused to dope he was soon out of the pro ranks.

I find any talent/racing comparisons with that generation is simply ludicrous. the only thing you can discuss about those riders is how well they responded to the doping of the time. and there were likely dozens of riders who opted out -- like Delion -- who were head and shoulders better talents than the biggest freakin' fraud in sports history.

 

[aphronesis]

None of that changes the fact of the period. Would I like to have seen Ullrich or Basso do more? Certainly. But it didn’t happen. Jan extended Oktoberfest?

Is the argument that only mediocre riders were present and doping while others opted out?

 

[AlpRaid]

Is the argument that only mediocre riders were present and doping while others opted out?

not necessarily.

however, quantifying individual talent based on totally doped performances is absolutely pointless.

and armstrong stands out particularly because he showed no ability whatsoever to be able to compete in GC (I mean, nowhere close) until getting connected with Ferrari. So to say armstrong would be or was still an excellent pro rider is completely non-sensical. and the data actually suggests the opposite.

it's like saying DiLucaa or Ricco would have still won GTs.

It's just completely illogical.

 

[Extinction]

This has been spiralling out into the usual nonsense. Foremost the tendency to confuse Armstrong’s personality, the spectacular machinery around him and the extent to which he gamed the cycling world with those means, among other things, dope and do what he did. Any hand wringing and moralizing is all well and valid, but it ultimately inhibits and involutes any discussion of the sport’s history when people are unable (by now) to separate and discuss those things on their own. Which leads to a situation of many discussants wanting to have things both ways. Part of what may contribute to the incoherence of the clinic.

To the bolded, I don't think the many who have taken umbrage with Armstrong was for doping alone, given the sport's history, but the ruthless manner in which he ruined those who opposed him while he still could. "Both ways" also entails understanding doping is a constant, but not holding Armstrong accountable for being a bully and a tyrant. At all events, Pog and Gianetti have succeded in the difficult ruse; namely, a tyrant who comes across as pares inter pares, an Augustan Genius that saves a moribond republic. Proscription lists are all that await us.

 

[aphronesis]

not necessarily.

however, quantifying individual talent based on totally doped performances is absolutely pointless.

and armstrong stands out particularly because he showed no ability whatsoever to be able to compete in GC (I mean, nowhere close) until getting connected with Ferrari. So to say armstrong would be or was still an excellent pro rider is completely non-sensical. and the data actually suggests the opposite.

it's like saying DiLucaa or Ricco would have still won GTs.

It's just completely illogical.

But that would lead to the familiar path of omerta, patron, bullying, etc. And maybe so, but reducing the period down to any zero point doesn’t seem sufficient.

 

[aphronesis]

To the bolded, I don't think the many who have taken umbrage with Armstrong was for doping alone, given the sport's history, but the ruthless manner in which he ruined those who opposed him while he still could. "Both ways" also entails understanding doping is a constant, but not holding Armstrong accountable for being a bully and a tyrant. At all events, Pog and Gianetti have succeded in the difficult ruse; namely, a tyrant who comes across as pares inter pares, an Augustan Genius that saves a moribond republic. Proscription lists are all that await us.

I agree with you. My point was that many used the behavior and doping as actual wedges against each other to make an argument that, as a few of us have claimed, wasn’t honestly about cycling.

Edit: conversations on saving the Republic are probably right up there.

 

[dr.eve]

probably,but gotta push agenda,cause rooted for ullrich back than,lmaoo.

Hehe same here, i was one of the few in my environment who was supporting Ullrich.

 

[Unchained]

Yes, a guy being the best rider in the world by using training methods a decade out of date makes all of the sense in the world

Shame there's no sense left in this world.

Yes, a guy being the best rider in the world by using training methods a decade out of date makes all of the sense in the world

Shame there's no sense left in this world.

I don't know were it is but if you really want to check out just how old school he isn't.. There are a couple of videos about position and crank length, bottom bracket and pedal spindle offsets and through research they discovered that open hip position and abbreviated stroke made major circulation in lower limbs to be improved. Something that basically says that if during your pedal stroke your circulation is restricted were your leg is connected to your pelvic bone.. So if your leg doesn't bend as much you have way better blood flow.. Lots of Pogacar interviews about training are behind pay walls ..I am not signing up for some patreon BS to hear about cycling training and nutrition that I will never do.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s0kMSn_7rEg&pp=ygUadGFkZWogcG9nYcSNYXIgcGV0ZXIgYXR0aWE%3D

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Q3n--TOH0&pp=ygUOdGFkZWogcG9nYcSNYXI%3D

And Johan on Move podcast talks about how Tadej doesn't use as many calories as others, he uses Strava data

 

[AlpRaid]

But that would lead to the familiar path of omerta, patron, bullying, etc. And maybe so, but reducing the period down to any zero point doesn’t seem sufficient.

I literally do not understand this post at all. No comprehension whatsoever as to the point you are trying make. None.

Sorry.

 

[aphronesis]

I literally do not understand this post at all. No comprehension whatsoever as to the point you are trying make. None.

Sorry.

You aren’t offering any account of the period other than a negative one based on the most prominent rider. How to make that point clearer isn’t clear to me. Hundreds of riders. Surely there’s something else to say?