It's the most tested sport by far. Mostly because a couple of huge scandals - Festina and Armstrong. It's an endurance sport which is a natural target for doping because of the huge gains that can be made and it's also probably the most popular endurance sport too. That said, it's a problem in other sports but they just don't test as much or publicise it as much. It's become a real problem in Rugby, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50785122 and in Football where they hardly test anyone
https://warrenmenezes.substack.com/p/doping-and-english-foot...
> endurance sport which is a natural target for doping
This makes a lot of sense to me. A very singular goal of "maximum output" without much need for fine motor skills and strategizing. I'd guess sprinting/marathons might have similar issues?
But like Jorgenson said this year, there’s no tactics that can beat Pogi going up a steep hill at 7w/kg. At some point it all comes down to power to weight.
Stage 21 was a great example of how tactics can beat a stronger rider. Pogacar was probably the strongest but Matteo burned up his energy chasing attacks in the final lap and then at the right moment WvA was ready to pounce and take the stage.
Sure it was great to see Wout win again - in Paris no less! And it does kind of validate the TVL strategy of “wear Pogi out with 3 super hard weeks of racing.”
Unfortunately for them it just wasn’t enough to make the difference in the GC.
I wouldn't deny that (and probably should have caveated this in my OP), but compared to a basketball or football team, the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
>the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
For the athlete, or for the team?
For professional racing strategy is in the hands of the team members on the sidelines - it's less of a team sport (as in athlete) and more of a group sport (as in information parity.) Whether it's motor races or TdF, there's a significant number of factors to consider. What you are going to have your team do? What are other teams doing? What you should do in response to what they're doing? What will they do in response to your response? What is the average performance of your team? What is the current and maximum performance? What's the condition of the equipment? What tires are being used? What is the forecast for the next few hours? How will changes in weather impact the equipment used? Will you have enough spares to make it through? Do you have good comms between you and the athletes? Etc.
For example, sometimes two athletes on the same team might be one behind the other, only for the coach to tell the lead to let the other teammate to pass. For the audience, it might be unclear why or it might even feel unfair, but there are reasons why they made that call.
Maybe the leader looks gassed and needs to hang back to collect himself.
Maybe they want to encourage the secondary by giving him the reigns for a while, and in turn, push the lead to work harder.
Maybe they want to keep the wear and tear a little lower on the lead by holding him back in case a team close behind ends up overtaking in a sharp turn up ahead.
Maybe they're worried about a pile up that hasn't been cleared yet.
Maybe the sun will be facing the direction of their next turn, so the secondary is providing shade for the lead.
So on and so fourth. An individual athlete can only receive and process so much of that information in a cohesive way.
sure, numerous examples can be shown to say smart play does help. but, would you argue the net benefits of smart play are identical between a sport like basketball and racing?
I thought the same but after watching the Netflix TdF documentary I would not agree to your statement anymore. Team strategy plays a huge role as e.g. driving in the slipstream saves up to 40% of your energy expenditure.
Depends on what is meant by popular. In terms of participation then running, in terms of non-participatory viewers then cycling is probably more popular
