its not entirely fair to take the line that Frank doped so Andy must. You cant be responsible for the behaviour of others.Sanitiser said:Obviously his brother and Fuentes had an association or 'agreement'. Is if fair to paint him with the same brush? Is there information I'm missing?
Sometimes, simple logic has to make do. Because of the difficulty in getting a) a positive test (see Kohl and Landis on this) or b) rider throws away career by confessing, we have to make do without.Sanitiser said:
Sanitiser said:With Lance there is enough circumstantial 'pieces' to make the puzzle fit, I really don't see that's the case with Andy as yet.
The other more armchair psychology thing is that most cycling fans dislike Andy but he and his brother were likeable enough to take half of Saxobank away with them including lovable Jens, Cancellera and lesser extent O'Grady. Or was Bjarne that just much a ****?
The most telling is that, while a clean rider would be extremely angry at being robbed of a win by a doper, Contador's drugs couldn't be farther from Schleck's mind.
Instead, he's demuring on the minor point of the chain slip.
That speaks volumes.
Correct - a family history of cycling .flicker said:I think it is very unfair to tag ashleck as a fueler. If he has passed his drug tests and has passed the strict conduct/ethic code that the posters adhere to on cyclingnews, Andy is most certainly a geneticlly gifted young man
Basically this.The Hitch said:its not entirely fair to take the line that Frank doped so Andy must. You cant be responsible for the behaviour of others.
But the scummy way Frank got away with it and the closeness of the 2, certainatly add to this perception.
But as far as im concerned, none of this matters too much because it is a step i can not take, to believe that someone who is matching Contador (10) Di luca, piepoli (07) in the mountains, is doing it clean.
For those who believe that it is possible to dope and get away with it, Andy Schleck is the most suspicious rider. Simple as that.