Probably best to let me make my own comments about something you say before speculating about it. RE: Pogačar that doesn't make a lot of sense. You're over complicating something simple here. As you say, Bardet's comments makes sense. I'd leave it at that.Funny as in, it makes no sense. Whether he enjoys it or not, is completely besides the point. Oh, but he's saying he's going faster than ever before? Well, i guess in that case it makes sense... So I guess if Pogacar just comes out with a statement that he's going faster than he's ever gone before, everything would be ok? Ah, too much of a strawman argument for you probably.
Because you were making a point that other people are only speculating. "A reasonable question but I don't see any evidence for it." There is no evidence of anything you're saying either.
Again, rider commentary and performances are evidence. When everyone starts going faster, IF that is the case, that would be evidence in favor of some kind of change in rider preparation. Or something else. It is not conclusive or even good evidence at this point, but as we've seen in the past, when levels shoot up there has historically been one reason for it. And people will come in and argue this and that, road surfaces, rounder wheels, bike aero advantages, training, blah blah. We shall see what the levels look like at the end of the Tour.
Right, sorry, in Dutch there is no such difference between evidence or proof (I guess you'd say "bewijsstuk" and "bewijs" in that case). In this case however, i would certainly not see those as "evidence" regardless. It's a statement by a rider, based on nothing but his personal impression. If climbing times are evidence, than so are tailwind and plenty of other factors we've already discussed. It would rather say the climbing times are "a fact to take into consideration".
I see. In English, any fact in favor of a proposition is evidence for the proposition, specifically - "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." That does NOT mean any one piece of evidence is convincing, it just means it's a piece of the picture. So speeds up cols and rider testimony is evidence. At this point it's not compelling. Your "...fact(s) to take into consideration" is a close approximation and makes sense to me, but "evidence" is correct and clear in English.