Wout van Aert

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The most i have known him to weigh was 78. And he looks a lot skinnier now. But if you are an expert in guessing how much somebody weighs based on TV images, well then i guess we can close the topic and just label him doped, right?
He looks skinnier than Dumoulin who is at 69kg and only a few centimeters shorter.
I'm not a so called expert. Besides that, this forum and especially this sub is meant to debate with those topics.

My point was that I expect him to be closer to 78 than 70kg even if I'm not a physiological TV expert, I've got eyes. He is very muscular and his height is 1m87.. I'm 3cm smaller and would weight only 10kg less than him, trust me that's not possible. Like, never, cuz when you look at me I'm more of a Rasmussen than a Wout.
 
Regardless, the winter when he was without a team, Wuyts commented that he was nearing 80kg, because he looked "heavy". Wout didn't like the comment and responded (i think through social media) that he only weighed 78.
He is visibly a lot leaner now. The difference is not one or two kgs. You'd probably not even notice that for a guy his size. I'm quite sure he's a lot lighter than most people assume. He has still climbed a lot less consistently and worse than Dumoulin, who is not in the best shape, while Wout is. I'm not seeing the nuclear radiation.
Huge difference between being 78 and 69.

Not that it matters all that much. When's the last time a supposed classics rider just is right there in the GC mix in a GT stage with the most elevation gain? Hincapie?
 
Seems like it's you who is an expert on guessing how much a person weights.

Question is why do you think your judgement is the one we should take.
Perhaps you missed the part where his weight is 70kg in an official TDF brochure.

Why would you take anyone's guesstimate over that? Because it doesn't fit your narrative, that's why.

All i'm saying, is that his maximum winter weight was 78. That was before going to TJV. And that clearly he's much lighter now, so that 70 doesn't look that far fetched to me.
 
Last edited:
Huge difference between being 78 and 69.

Not that it matters all that much. When's the last time a supposed classics rider just is right there in the GC mix in a GT stage with the most elevation gain? Hincapie?
Huge difference between then and now too. Between winter and summer as well.

And what does "a supposed classics rider" have to do with anything. It's about weight, watts and how long you push them. It is not any more suspicious for him than it was for Dumoulin 4 years ago.

I'm not a so called expert. Besides that, this forum and especially this sub is meant to debate with those topics.

My point was that I expect him to be closer to 78 than 70kg even if I'm not a physiological TV expert, I've got eyes. He is very muscular and his height is 1m87.. I'm 3cm smaller and would weight only 10kg less than him, trust me that's not possible. Like, never, cuz when you look at me I'm more of a Rasmussen than a Wout.
Oh, ok. Lol. Then that settles it!
 
The internet should update his weight then, the difference is massive.
That's one issue. Affini's height and weigh has only been updated on PCS somewhere in 2019. At the moment he was riding the EC ITT, he was supposedly about the same height/weight as Evenepoel. In reality:



Same with Pidcock, who has grown 10cm easily based on pictures of him on the podium next to Bissegger (1m78). He's still listed as 1m57 & 50kg.
The problem is that those things change, it's quite possible when van Aert starts CX again, his weight will be 3kgs more than whatever it is now.
 
Perhaps you missed the part where his weight is 70kg in an official TDF brochure.

Why would you take anyone's guesstimate over that? Because it doesn't fit your narrative, that's why.

All i'm saying, is that his maximum winter weight was 78. That was before going to TJV. And that clearly he's much lighter now, so that 70 doesn't look that far fetched to me.
No, I have missed nothing. In fact, it wasn't even in the post I quoted.

All I was wondering is why your own guesstimates in the post I quoted are better than other people's guesstimates.

So it's just because of some 'official' brochure without any sources of the actual data in it. Seems like running dangerously close to an appeal to authority fallacy since it's unlikely that you know what the source of the data was.

And don't *** tell me what my narrative is. I only wrote that he was significantly the biggest guy in that group yesterday. That's all. Don't go around inventing stuff.
 
Really curious how you guys stay fans of the sport. Personally, I don't think there is any difference in the odds that Contador (who tested positive for minuscule amounts of clenbuterol) doped compared to Andy Schleck (whose brother tested positive to, what, some sort of weight loss drug?) or to Cadel Evans (who everyone for some reason assumes his clean because he's not as good, but then again, maybe he's just, you know, not as good, doping aside) or Chris Froome or G or Bernal or Dumoulin or Roglic or...Wout.

These guys are as good as the best ever in a sport with incredibly high incentives to dope, and a long history of doping. Many are certainly doing everything they can get away with. But using results to then determine guilt creates a situation in which the competition in the sport is not just to win, but to, in doing so, prove that you dope. To me, while potentially accurate, that is not inspiring.

But what is the alternative? You can't use personality or nationality or performance spikes or early talent as inputs because cyclists have doped - and not doped - that tick all combinations of boxes.

So to me the only choice was either to stop watching the sport because they're all a bunch of cheaters, or accept that they're all potentially cheating, just as all previous heroes potentially cheated, and enjoy the sport regardless without getting caught up in the guessing game.

Do I think Wout is potentially doping? Of course. Do I want Wout to dope? Of course not. Do I enjoy watching Wout race and hope he continues to blow my mind? Absolutely.

/unasked for monologue
 
Last edited:
Reactions: gregrowlerson
They're probably all doing everything they can get away with.
I'm not a fan of that assumption. Paul Köchli once said (I'm paraphrasing) there are basically three types of riders: those that don't want to dope and don't (and they exist, he emphasized), those who initially don't want to dope but get talked into it, either by someone else or by themselves, and those who are perfectly willing to dope from the outset. Personally, I believe the last group to be the smallest.
 
Reactions: Cookster15
I'm not a fan of that assumption. Paul Köchli once said (I'm paraphrasing) there are basically three types of riders: those that don't want to dope and don't (and they exist, he emphasized), those who initially don't want to dope but get talked into it, either by someone else or by themselves, and those who are perfectly willing to dope from the outset. Personally, I believe the last group to be the smallest.
Fair. I edited my post because I don't think its probably that all of them are doping, but I do think it's probable that each of them is doping. And I think you're probably right regarding the groupings. I believe the second group likely fluctuates with risk-reward/cultural pressure and has, at times, been quite high.
 
Reactions: kingjr
So to me the only choice was either to stop watching the sport because they're all a bunch of cheaters, or accept that they're all potentially cheating, just as all previous heroes potentially cheated, and enjoy the sport regardless without getting caught up in the guessing game.

Do I think Wout is potentially doping? Of course. Do I want Wout to dope? Of course not. Do I enjoy watching Wout race and hope he continues to blow my mind? Absolutely.

/unasked for monologue
You've echoed my sentiments exactly.
 
First, when he showed up on the road, he was a promising classics rider in the making. He had the engine, he could handle the distance, he could handle the cobbles. He couldn't sprint, he would fall off the bike if the climb was very steep...
His TT was decent from the start, but now is a top class. He somehow got the speed last year, nobody knows how. He said something about confidence :oops::confused_old:?! This year he become a climber de luxe, again nobody knows how. He said he lost some weight, we heard this quite often... Of course he didn't lost any of his previous qualities, and why should he? He only lost weight..:p, and gain speed:tearsofjoy:, not a big deal. And noe we have genuine relic from the past in the peloton, a successor of Merckx, Hinault and Kelly. One must've see it to believe it!
So there is still hope I can at least score a World Tour contract within two years, lose some weight, gain some confidence. I can see a lot of potential there. I mean the step from decent pro to world-class is the hardest right, all I want is to go from smth like Cat.3 level to below-average World tour rider??
 
He lost the fat sounds familiar. He always had the engine also sounds familiar.

Given his 3 week exploits in this Tour it seems he is now a climber first who is also a classics specialist, sprinter and TTer.

That makes him a "once in a generation" rider but I thought that got awarded to Remco?
 
https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/cyclisme/tour-de-france-ceux-qui-connaissent-le-velo-savent-que-ce-n-est-pas-normal-17-09-2020-8386752.php ( In French) Felliu does not believe in miracles when it comes to Wout van Aert. Says that people who knows cycling, will know that what Van Aert is doing is not really possible. LIke winning in the lottery twice.
Feillu assumes van Aert weighs 80. "Un mec de 80kg", he tweets. Which, he never even did on his worst winter form. Can't take a guy like that seriously imho.

No, I have missed nothing. In fact, it wasn't even in the post I quoted.

All I was wondering is why your own guesstimates in the post I quoted are better than other people's guesstimates.

So it's just because of some 'official' brochure without any sources of the actual data in it. Seems like running dangerously close to an appeal to authority fallacy since it's unlikely that you know what the source of the data was.

And don't *** tell me what my narrative is. I only wrote that he was significantly the biggest guy in that group yesterday. That's all. Don't go around inventing stuff.
Well, the 70kg from the official TDF brochure is more than what anybody else here so far has brought to the table. Considering they didn't just copy/paste the PCS or Wikipedia info, one might assume they have an actual source?

Also, i wasn't guessing. I know that in his worst winter, his weight was 78kg. That's a hard line. Now, you can beat around the bush and claim it's possible he didn't lose much weight or even that he gained weight since then since you want to cherrypick sources. That doesn't make it any more plausible. Also why would you assume the sources for every other rider are correct? You know that about every source used on riderdata is a lot shadier than this, right? You can send in a tweet of a random guy on Twitter claiming he saw the weight of a rider in a Zwift race as a source, and PCS will accept it. I'm not kidding. And once that's done, some other guy will put it on Wikipedia and quote PCS as a source, and then Google will put it in their info banner. And then, we can all start a clinic topic about how that rider is doing insane *** for a fatass. So excuse me if i find it a bit disingenuous to question this source. But i'm sure they just so happened to get "only" van Aert's weight incorrect, since all the other data seems pretty accurate. But hey, i'll play and disregard the source.

Yes, you simply "observed" that "he's the biggest guy from the group"... sure, i wasn't contesting that. Doesn't mean anything though. Dumoulin has repeatedly been "the biggest guy in the group" over the past 5 years. Is Dumoulin suspect every time he finishes along (or ahead of) 58kg climbers? The issue is whether it is plausible that he delivers such efforts if his weight is in the low 70's rather than in the high 70's, which most people assume he is. We already know from Jumbo that he pushes the most watts on the entire team by some margin. So he doesn't even have to be as light as Dumoulin in order to do what he did. Again, over the course of 3 weeks he didn't come close to Dumoulin's climbing level, who already weighs (supposedly) 69kg, and who has been far removed from his best form as well. So, what would be a plausible weight for him, to do what he did?

Dumoulin won the Giro weighing over 71kg in week 3: https://www.ad.nl/wielrennen/een-kijkje-in-de-machinekamer-van-dumoulin-de-data-achter-de-podiumplaatsen~acf408ab/. If Dumoulin can win the Giro on 71kg, then what would the clinic deem acceptable for van Aert to weigh considering Dumoulin was not on his best form the past month and yet still a lot better than van Aert uphill?

So in conclusion, the facts we know:

Dumoulin wins the Giro with 71kg.
Van Aert's highest known weight (winter) prior to joining TJV: 78kg
Van Aert lost "weight" (no exact number quoted, but he did mention that he also lost as much as possible unneeded upper body muscles)
Van Aert pushes bigger numbers than Dumoulin (best of the entire team, source: TJV).
Off-form Dumoulin climbs a lot better than on-form van Aert.

I'm sorry but i'm not really seeing the issue, unless Dumoulin's Giro (who then rode for Sunweb) is suspect too.

He lost the fat sounds familiar. He always had the engine also sounds familiar.

Given his 3 week exploits in this Tour it seems he is now a climber first who is also a classics specialist, sprinter and TTer.

That makes him a "once in a generation" rider but I thought that got awarded to Remco?
Really? He wins Strade, San Remo and two (disrupted) sprints... finishes 80 minutes down in GC and manages to only once (barely) make the elite group in a mountain stage, but he's a climber first.
 
Last edited:
Really? He wins Strade, San Remo and two (disrupted) sprints... finishes 80 minutes down in GC and manages to only once (barely) make the elite group in a mountain stage, but he's a climber first.
He didn't really try to take part in the bunch sprint that often right? When he did his results are outstanding. 80mins down in GC and only once with the very best in the mountains doesn't count at all in my opinion. Staying close to the best in GC wasn't his aim at all, he was riding tempo and then dropping back and not hanging on as long as he could conserving as much energy as possible. Also see his workload compared to climbers who he dropped, riding in the Wind for Roglic nearly every day, not protection from his team, taking part in few sprints. Then on the last mountain stage he is really putting the hammer down.
 
Really? He wins Strade, San Remo and two (disrupted) sprints... finishes 80 minutes down in GC and manages to only once (barely) make the elite group in a mountain stage, but he's a climber first.
Not here to argue for or against his doping, but I think you know better than to keep saying he wasn't one of the best climbers in the race because hes 80 minutes back in GC when he didn't try to finish high on gc. Nor did he get to go for stage wins on any stage he wanted, he worked for Roglic the entire race, minus 2 or so sprint finishes because they could afford to let him loose.
 
Weight is not the issue here. He could be 80, 75, 70, that is not the point. The point is, if you're so good in the mountains, and he is (you can't drop Valverde, Uran and Yates if you're not, or drive the peloton for 10km on Col de la Loze), you can't be so powerful on the flat, so explosive on the hills, and so fast in the sprint. You just can't do all these things at the same time, no matter how much you weight. I never saw it in my life.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY