The translation of the author's snide reference to Cadel also being a worthy winner because he like others has not used use his win to crusade against doping is a little too literal. In context it should have read "... wasn't prepared to take a clear anti-doping stance...". The article as a whole makes no inference that Cadel was or has doped.sniper said:Der Spiegel about whether Cadel is a worthy winner of this years Tour:
"Is Cadel a worthy winner? Yes, since he was quickest. And yes, just like the previous winners of the past decade, he wasn't capable of taking a clear anti-doping stance in his closing pressconference."
In fact in the second part of the articlehe asks himself whether Evans is a clean winner:
"Ist Cadel Evans ein sauberer Sieger?
Bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils: Ja. Es liegt nichts gegen ihn vor, keine positive Probe, keine verweigerte oder ausgelassene Kontrolle. Als sein mittlerweile verstorbener Trainer Aldo Sassi noch lebte, wurden ab und an sogar Leistungskurven des Australiers veröffentlicht, was man als Bemühen um Transparenz werten kann."
His answer is basically that he is (until proof to the contrary) due to his clean record including occasional publication of believable data under Sassi.
Curiuosly he goes on to suggest Andy Schleck is in theory cleaner than Cadel due to his 3 on the UCI suspicion index v. Cadel's 4 but urges extreme caution against reliance on this index due to lack of clarity as to how it works. He does not give any other reason as to why Andy would be clean.
Overall it is a strange somewhat dark article with vague hints of light at the end of the tunnel - but in Germany it may take another Jan Ullrich to fix things!