ebandit said:There is an argument but you aren't clever enough to see it.......let me spell it out for you as simply as I can.......multi Olympic golds in the 2000s are being cited (sorry for the difficult word) as evidence of doping......therefore by that logic Wiggins was doping to win his 3 Olympic golds in 2004-08........still with me?.....and yet......during those very same years he was having NO success on the roads.........certainly in comparison to 2009-12........so either the doping only worked when riding on wooden boards....or........shock horror......he wasn't doping.........if he was doping for those 2004-08 golds then what accounts for the sudden leap in performance in 2009???......... Can't be dope because he was already doping following Hitch logic......there........that is probably about three or four logical steps too many for you to manage so doubtless you'll come back with something typically fatuous
Mark L
Wiggins can't have been doping because he didn't win the tour de France and Olympic pursuit in the same year?
Wtf is this logic. It's like saying Armstrong can't have been doping because he only did the marathon in 3 hours. If he was a doper he would have broken the world record. Because all sports are the same and require the same doping methods