Tadej Pogacar’s agent blasts power data passport plans as 'stupid'

The proposal, currently being tested in a voluntary pilot involving several teams, would allow the International Testing Agency (ITA) to analyse riders’ power data over time as an additional anti-doping intelligence tool.

Carera, who has represented Pogačar for years, believes the initiative risks creating new problems for a sport that has spent more than a decade rebuilding trust.

“I know that a commission wants to analyse the data of TrainingPeaks and decide some elements. No. Why? Our sport has changed a lot. Now cycling has credibility,” Carera told road.cc.

For the Italian agent, the current anti-doping framework already demands a huge level of transparency from riders. The introduction of a system based on training and performance data would therefore be excessive.

“We don’t need to find other stupid things to create only problems, because cycling is different than 15 years ago,” he said. “Maybe we needed to come back to have the credibility to show to the fans that we want more controls, 24 hours availability, and so on. But now the mentality has changed. We do not have this problem, the doping problem. Why do we need to create something new?”

Another concern raised by Carera is the competitive value of training data itself. Teams invest heavily in performance science and preparation methods, and he questions whether sharing large volumes of training files could undermine that investment.

“I heard that they want to take all TrainingPeaks from all riders. But why do we need to do that?” he said. “Every team has its secrets about training. Otherwise, why do I need to spend money on the technology and after that other people copy it?”

Carera’s comments are not the first signs of resistance. Speaking on the Domestique Hotseat podcast earlier this year, CPA president Adam Hansen made clear that the peloton is strongly opposed to the concept.

“Now they’re only testing it this year with four teams and the CPA’s position is very clear: we’re 100% against this and so are the riders,” Hansen said.

According to Hansen, the biggest issue is that power data is far harder to interpret than biological markers.

“With your blood, it remains very consistent, so the biological passport is not a bad idea,” Hansen explained. “The problem with the power data is how do they know what the riders are doing? What if your coach tells you to ride 80% for three weeks and then he says tomorrow you’re going to ride 120% for a shorter period.”

Context is everything, Hansen argues, and power numbers in isolation can be easily misread.

“Without knowing the training programme given by the coach, how do they know what the rider is doing? And they’re creating baseline for the athlete off that easy zone, but that’s not the true baseline.”

Practical issues also remain a concern. “And if your Garmin falls off, which happens sometimes, and you can’t upload your files, or if your Garmin’s flat, does that mean you can’t go training?” Hansen said. “There’s so many factors where a rider just won’t have his training data and if he can’t submit it, is that a missed control?”

For now, the trial remains voluntary, but the pushback suggests any move toward making it standard across the sport will be anything but straightforward.