Doping in pro cycling ? really ?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Maxiton said:
I think a big part of the problem people have with, say, USPS and Sky, is the complicity of UCI in these team's respective domination. In the case of USPS, UCI complicity is established fact, while with Sky it's only implicit but still obvious.

Last year, we had arguably the most enjoyable and authentic Tour in many years. Why? Because the rider who was very likely designated winner, Wigans, fell down and went bump bump, knocking himself out of the race. Wiggins' absence left a peloton where no one rode like they were outrageously doped, and everyone looked human. It was a rare treat, watching riders who sometimes looked like they were being crucified. And the ultimate winner, Evans, was actually believable.

Most of us knew these riders were probably doping in some way. But whatever they were doing was more like maintenance doping, rather than something that left them looking ridiculous and us, the fans, looking like drooling fools. Too bad we can't say the same about this year. Or the one coming up, probably.
as it was pointed out in the recent Basso "Sky praise" talk discussion - Even dopers have standars. That pretty much sums it all.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY