Wow, so many people are overlooking the most obvious explanation for Pogacar's performance: he was using
Campagnolo!
Ok, I'm half kidding, but I think we all have good reason to be skeptical. As we have seen in the past, when something looks too good to be true, it often is. And while great performances happen, to have such a huge margin on the entire field does seem suspicious. He seems like a nice enough kid, so let's hope not.
Originally Posted by
Skullo
This is all very interesting. Is anyone wondering also about the performance of Richie Porte at the age of 35?it’s only fair.
Don't endurance athletes generally improve a bit with age? I don't think 35 is over the hill for a GC rider. Didn't we have a 40 year old in the top 10?
Originally Posted by
79pmooney
Another point - Pogacar and UAE targeted the ITT. Visited it three times before the race.
The rider/team to look at is Roglic and JV. They did not pre-ride that course. Their bike change was unprofessional. They clearly didn't ride the days before focused on this Stage being the most important of the Tour.
I've heard this point, but I think the impact is overstated. First off, Roglic's bike change wasn't THAT bad, and it maybe cost him a couple of seconds at most. Likewise, knowledge of the course is all well and good, but it can't account for such a massive difference in performance. The competition was far from doing it blind...