the sceptic said:
Youre on to something there
No team would ever wants its riders to dope
There's letting him dope, and there's letting him dope arrogantly and to go "full ***" which is the reason given why he's doing better than all the other dopers
Froome's performances over the last couple of years look very dodgy and the non-doping justifications have lots of holes in them
But then so do the explanations given on this thread of why he's doing better than other teams who are also doping. It seems to be either a new drug that nobody knows about, or somehow he is doing more than anybody else or he has no fear of cancer and everyone else does.
As someone who calls themselves sceptic, do you believe any of the above theories of why Froome is able to do better than other cyclists doping?