the narrative soaring in the air in the length of the whole thread IS froome would've been a total blank if cycling was a really clean sport. and it baffles me as well as it's completely irrelevant what might have happened in clean cycling. that's a sport we will never see.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.