Just watched that Code Yellow documentary. The most interesting thing from that documentary was Roglic about Pogacar 1:20 minutes in the ITT:
"It's another world of cycling, eh?"
But Jonas and Roglic came to Jumbo the same year. He was always going to lead after Roglic. They just didn't expect him to be this good. And we still don't even know if Roglic is as good as he is. Because of a haybale.
Fun documentary, eh? Best parts were also those moments when Grischa Niermann was screaming abuse at Pogacar in the car. I mean just relax... it's only cycling!
As for Vingegaard, I think a rider who finishes 105th in a 33km on November 3rd 2020 in the Vuelta over 6 minutes down on the stage winner (Roglic) shouldn't be viewed as a rider who was "always going to lead after Roglic". There was absolutely nothing in his career at that point which was vastly more promising than other riders, even in his own team. I watched his transformation from bottle carrier to GT contender in the space of 7 months. Pas normal & demoralizing from a cycling romanticist point of view. There's no story there, just watts produced in a lab as fast as possible.
Why not Sam Oomen? Lennard Hofstede? Koen Bouwman? The answer is likely the same as always, i.e. Vinge is a super responder with doctors who saw more potential in him than the others based on the science they employ in that team. Science produces miracles, not random riders plucked out of fish factories & sent up a hill on a bike. What makes Roglic better? Lotto Jumbo were a useless team before he arrived & they built something together. He was a trailblazer for them. Vingegaard? He landed in someone else's laboratory & did whatever they told him to do, with nothing based on his own merit or hard work.
Same way Floyd Landis is a completely useless story without redeeming qualities, i.e. he took the science they'd perfected at Postal (thanks to Michele Ferrari) & used that for his own gain. It's lazy & greedy. Someone like Pantani meanwhile was a maverick, i.e. a freak natural talent who pushed his own limits & used PED's to become a sort of climbing superman we've never ever seen before (& haven't seen since). He was a flawed genius (& yes, there's some of that in Roglic as well, considering his background & crazy idea of becoming a pro cyclist). Landis, Armstrong, Vingegaard, Froome etc. by comparison are all just cynical cash grabs by teams who already have access to the best science in their eras.
That's the way I see it. And that's why certain dopers (Pantani, Virenque & even Ullrich) are viewed by cycling enthusiasts as redeemable whereas others aren't, i.e. due to the cynicism involved with teams on a massive budget producing robots based on existing science. This contrasts massively with others who were natural talents pioneering their own careers with determination, flair & let's face, a cr*p load of PED's. But at least they had panache.
And if we're talking natural talent & results at a youth level, Pogacar > Vingegaard, without doubt in my mind. One is a freak talent on a program, the other is a lab creation in a team copying Sky & Froome.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram