“When Pogacar punctured, we increased the pace to make him use energy and teammates” - Wout van Aert's right-hand man callously defends controversial Paris-Roubaix tactic

The debate around Paris-Roubaix 2026 has not settled in the days since the finish in the velodrome. If anything, it has sharpened. At the centre of it sits one moment. Tadej Pogacar punctures, loses ground, and the race at the front does not hesitate. The pace lifts. The pressure increases. The gap stretches. For some, it crossed an unwritten line. For others, it was simply Paris-Roubaix.

Now, Wout van Aert's right-hand man in Roubaix, Pietro Mattio has offered a clear insight into how Team Visma | Lease a Bike approached that moment and, speaking to Bici.Pro, there is no attempt to soften the edges. “When Pogacar punctured, we and Alpecin increased the pace to make him use energy and teammates.”

The reaction in the immediate aftermath made the moment even more significant. Within UAE Team Emirates - XRG, frustration was clear, with Mikkel Bjerg among those to speak out strongly against the tactics used by their rivals.

His comments reflected a view held by parts of the peloton that, while not against the rules, such moves sit in a moral grey area. The idea that a race should not be actively accelerated when a key contender suffers misfortune remains an unwritten code in many situations.

Mattio’s position is clear and rooted in the nature of the race itself. “Roubaix is the only race where you can do that. If we had to wait for everyone who punctures, we’d still be at the first sector,” he explained. “It’s part of the game. When Van Aert punctured, nobody waited for him either.”

That framing removes the moral layer entirely. It becomes a race of circumstance, not etiquette. What happens on the cobbles is accepted, not judged.

The move was not improvised in isolation. It fitted within a broader approach from Visma, who had already committed to making the race as hard as possible from an early point.

The initial plan had been to isolate the key favourites, Pogacar and Mathieu van der Poel, through sustained pressure across the sectors. Even after Wout van Aert suffered a puncture of his own and the plan had to be adjusted, that aggressive mindset remained.

By the time Pogacar hit trouble, the race was already in a phase where hesitation carried its own risk. For Mattio and his team-mates, the decision was immediate and logical.

Mattio’s perspective is also shaped by the responsibility he carried on the day. “That’s why I was the rider who always had to stay close to Wout,” he explained. “With similar measurements, I could have given him my bike straight away.”

It is a detail that underlines his function within the team. Not just another rider in support, but a direct, like-for-like backup option in the most critical phases of the race.

That responsibility placed him at the heart of the action when the race began to fracture, and explains why his account of the Pogacar moment carries added weight.

There was also a tactical context behind the decision. “There was a selection that reduced the group to around forty riders. We had five riders there, so everything was going perfectly,” Mattio said.

That numerical strength allowed Visma to dictate the race alongside Alpecin-Premier Tech, increasing the pace at a moment when one of their main rivals was vulnerable.

Pogacar was forced to chase back after the puncture, expending energy and resources that would later shape the finale. The Slovenian still recovered to contest the race at the front, but the cost of that effort has been widely discussed.

Mattio’s own race adds another layer to the story. “I did my final pull before the Forest, and from that moment my race was over,” he said.

Tasked with staying as close as possible to Van Aert through the key phases, the Italian had fulfilled his role just before the race exploded across the Forest of Arenberg.

Even from behind, the scale of what was unfolding remained clear. “I thought it would be really hard for him, but I didn’t think he was out of it,” Mattio said of Van der Poel. “Over the radio we were getting time gaps and he was always coming back.”

Those details underline just how fluid the situation remained, even after key incidents had reshaped the race.

That sequence has since become one of the defining talking points of the race. The criticism that followed has ensured it remains a central part of the post-race narrative, highlighting the tension between tradition and competitive instinct. The question is not whether the move was allowed, but whether it should have been made.

Mattio’s version cuts through that tension with a different perspective. There is no suggestion of doubt, and no indication that anything would have been done differently.

The wider conversation is unlikely to fade quickly. Paris-Roubaix has always operated with its own rules, both written and unwritten. What this edition has done is bring those boundaries back into focus. Was it ruthless? Or simply correct?

Mattio’s answer is clear. In Roubaix, there is no waiting.