they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....spalco said:What's the difference exactly?wansteadimp said:And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".
What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.