Zlatan;3527634 said:
Anyway, the fact that Froome and Wiggins were so dominant in the past versions could have a million reasons from which doping is one. Speculating is not a very useful way of analyzing cycling.
No it's not. But people analysing the power output, people seeing the sudden dominance - especially in a way so similar to that of Armstrong, and to see guys like Contador beaten so comfortably rings alarm bells.
I love the sport of cycling, it's far and away my favourite sport, but I often think they're often their own worst enemy - they catch, and chase dopers too much at times.
In no other sport would Lance Armstrong have been stripped so long after the event. In no other sport would it have been chased up. It's nothing to do with the money or success - why wasn't Carl Lewis ever chased in a similar was What about Operación Puerto, why was it only cycling that sanctioned anyone over those events?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't chase dopers, but they have created a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and now people consider it the most doped sport in the world. I still don't think it's any worse than ANY professional sport. When physical skill/fitness is involved, science can help. Any sport with large amounts of money involved - tennis, football, formula 1, basketball, American Football etc, is going to make the most of this money. Not sure why there seems to be this attitude that it's only cycling. It's finally coming out in Australia - in other sports (Rugby League and Aussie Rules Football the two big ones), and again the governing bodies and media want to cover it up. They want to say it's a witch hunt etc, where as when it's cycling, straight away it's "Another cheating cyclist". It frustrates the hell out of me.
But having said all that, my eyes have been opened, I'm no longer willing to just accept what I don't believe. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. Marginal Gains and Sky is a load of crap. There is loads of pointers, nothing concrete but it all adds up - just as it did during Lance's time. It doesn't mean Froome is guilty, but it shows that tests etc are no indication. The blood doping and EPO that Lance used can now be tested for quite effectively, so they would be using something else. The circle continues.