Re: Re:
See bolded. I'm not talking about the entire peloton, I'm talking about the top.
I've a mate who was a pro during the Armstrong years who told me that any rider who got to a certain level within the pro peloton would reach a point where if they wanted to be a star rider they would have a decision to make. It was more about money than morals because going on a doping programme was a huge financial commitment with no guarantee of success. Tens of thousands of pounds a year.
I can't see very much to suggest why any of that would have changed, other than possibly getting more expensive. So in relation to other riders commenting on Froome I'm not too expectant. I would expect Nibali to comment, but that is because he's a weasel.
DirtyWorks said:macbindle said:Does anybody really believe that many, if any, of the top riders don't dope?
As has always been the case, clean riders are in there giving it their best shot. Sure, you don't know who they are immediately, always. But, to just write off the entire peloton as doping isn't accurate. More importantly, it gives actual dopers an excuse to steal from clean riders.
See bolded. I'm not talking about the entire peloton, I'm talking about the top.
I've a mate who was a pro during the Armstrong years who told me that any rider who got to a certain level within the pro peloton would reach a point where if they wanted to be a star rider they would have a decision to make. It was more about money than morals because going on a doping programme was a huge financial commitment with no guarantee of success. Tens of thousands of pounds a year.
I can't see very much to suggest why any of that would have changed, other than possibly getting more expensive. So in relation to other riders commenting on Froome I'm not too expectant. I would expect Nibali to comment, but that is because he's a weasel.