Benotti69 said:
Martin's theory fails.
Why because the culture is to dope and riders are very early sorted from those who are prepared to do what the teams require from those who wont.
Obree is a clear example of a guy who was not wanted because he wouldn't embrace the culture.There will always be exemptions to the way things are done but the culture must be embraced or you will be excluded.
Obree was pushed out in 1996 (according to his L'equipe interview of that year)
1996. 17 years ago.
That's pre Festina, before Armstrong had even come back never mind won. The hight of the EPO years. Before the existence of WADA. Before any EPO test.
To suggest Obree as direct evidence of the current peloton is utterly bonkers. Indeed, it has a strong grasping at straws quality to it.
The culture of doping has not changed no matter how much guys like JV or Sky want us to believe. Too many make a living dealing dope to riders for one.
Too many? How many? You state this as fact, so can we have some figures, please, on the numbers making a living from dealing sports dope?
Secondly it has always been the culture and look at who runs the teams, ex dopers, to see what culture they were raised in, how and in what environment they learnt their trade. Doping. We just have to look at the reaction to riders caught, the nice guys that kept quiet are welcomed back, those that shout, scream, rant or rave are rarely let back in and if so at a low level, see Rasmussen and Schumacher.
But that's not true. Landis toed the line, and they still shat on him. Only after that did he sing. Who gets back and who doesn't is a more complex question than that. Sadly, it still seems to have a lot to do with the culture of your fan base. But culture can change - the french used to be far more laissez faire about doping.
Till September cycling's anti doping chief of police was McQuaid. That tells us everything we need to know about the doping culture that is pervasive in the sport.
Again, that's just not really true. McQuaid was head of the sport, he wasn't chief of police or anything like that. A corrupt little turd, absolutely, but let's try and keep things factual.
Let us see if Cookson will empower anti doping with the setting up of a properly funded independent anti doping agency that will crack down on doping and force a change, but until i see it happening the culture is to dope.
Think back to the 1990's, the height of the EPO years, the year of 60%, Pantani, etc. Pantani being removed from a race for a sky high Haemo was about as bad as it got.
Now think of things, broadly, since Landis. Think Landis himself , Di Luca, Rasmussen, Contador, Valverde, Basso, Ullrich, even, eventually, Armstrong, Hincapie and the lads. All boys from the top end of the sport, all pinged, all banned, many losing big titles, several careers over, several reputations in bits. Unheard of in the '80's or even the '90s.
Contador lost two years and a tour for frankly less than cost Sean Kelly 10 minutes in a race. The idea of the peloton staging strikes AGAINST testing and anti-doping sounds farcical now, but that's exactly what was happening then in the wake of Festina.
Are things perfect? Of course not. If anything, Festina and Puerto proved the need for allowing/promoting police involvement in other countries - 'cos it works. The change from 2 to four years for first offences is long overdue, and it should have been UCI pushing, not IAAF, who now get to look serious without suffering half the pain that cycling has - yet.
But to ignore the reality of change and evolution, and the possibility of more, is not a response to facts, or to the current peloton, flawed as it may be - it's casting the sins of the fathers on the heads of the sons.
So no, my theory doesn't fail.