In this video, we bring you the latest cycling news as Tadej Pogacar, the four-time Tour de France winner, addresses the harsh criticism from former Paris-Roubaix specialist Roger De Vlaeminck.
De Vlaeminck, known for his outspoken nature, had previously claimed that Pogacar isn’t worthy of comparison to cycling legend Eddy Merckx. He stated that Pogacar wouldn’t drop him if they were in the same peloton, sparking a debate in the cycling community.
However, Pogacar remains unfazed by the remarks. When asked about De Vlaeminck’s comments, Pogacar maintains a calm and composed demeanor, stating that external opinions do not affect his self-evaluation.
This video highlights Pogacar’s response and the contrasting attitudes of these cycling icons, showcasing Pogacar’s focus on his own journey and performance.
Imagine being told point blank that you’re not even worthy to tie the shoelaces of a cycling legend. Ouch. That’s essentially what happened to Tatage Podakar. And his response is surprisingly Zen. But here’s where it gets interesting. Recently, cycling legend Roger Dlamink, known for his brutally honest opinions, launched a scathing critique of the young Slovenian superstar Tadage Pagar. Dlamink, a true icon of a bygone era and a staunch supporter of Eddie Merks, didn’t mince words. He declared that Pagakar isn’t fit to lace Eddie Merks’s shoes. And if that wasn’t enough, he added, “If I were in the pelatin, he wouldn’t be dropping me.” Strong words coming from a legend. Dlamink even went as far as to call Pagakar overrated, igniting a firestorm of debate across the cycling community. The cycling world waited with baited breath to see how Padakar would react. Would he fire back? Would he defend his accomplishments? Finally, during an appearance on Ryport Radio Corsa, Podakar broke his silence. httpsw.play try play.it/programme/radioca. His response remarkably calm and collected. When asked directly about Dlamink’s harsh assessment, Podakar simply stated, “I evaluate myself. If someone overrates me, it doesn’t bother me. If someone underrates me, it doesn’t bother me either. It doesn’t change anything in my life.” The contrast between the two cyclist styles couldn’t be more stark. Dvlamink delivered a fiery old school broadside full of passion and perhaps a touch of nostalgia for his own era. Pagakar on the other hand offered a measured almost detached response focusing solely on his internal compass. It’s a clash of generations and philosophies really. Dlaming’s comments carry weight precisely because of his legendary status and his reputation for speaking his mind. He represents a generation of cyclists known for their grit and unwavering loyalty to figures like Eddie Merks. And this is the part most people miss. This loyalty often translates into a skepticism towards modern cycling where training methods, technology, and even the very nature of competition have evolved dramatically. Pagakar’s decision not to engage in a back and forth is a strategic one. By refusing to rise to the bait, he effectively diffuses the situation and redirects the focus back to his performance on the road. He’s essentially saying that external opinions, whether positive or negative, have no impact on his own self assessment or his pursuit of excellence. Instead of fueling a potentially damaging war of words, Padakar has chosen the path of quiet confidence. He lets his results speak for themselves, leaving the debate to rage on without his direct involvement. It’s a mature and calculated move that underscores his mental fortitude, arguably as important as physical strength in professional cycling. But here’s where it gets controversial. Is Podakar’s response a sign of genuine indifference or a carefully crafted PR strategy? Is he truly unbothered by the criticism? Or is he simply too savvy to engage in a public spat with a cycling legend? And more importantly, does Dlamink have a point? Are modern cyclists with their advanced technology and specialized training somehow softer than the writers of Merks’ era? What do you think? Is Pagakar right to ignore the criticism or should he have defended his achievements? And does Dlamink’s perspective have merit even if his delivery was a bit harsh? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.