red_flanders said:The performance of Froome is evidence. It's simply not possible for clean riders to perform at the levels of doped riders from just a couple of years ago. Just not possible, even if Froome was somehow the talent of a generation, which he is not. That some people can't see this, and a lot of them are British is not an anti-British point of view. It's simply a case of nationalism clouding judgement.
And this is the problem I have regardless of the nationality of anyone.
I believe that clean riders are able to do this subject to what the performances were and them being compared logically. You "know" Froome is doping. Is this from TV or from seeing him in person?
Ideally we would have confidence in the UCI and in the ACDF to catch cheats but I don't and I suspect others don't.
But as this is the Walsh thread isn't the problem that people thought Walsh was someone that he obviously isn't. They thought he saw what you see, a cheater, and when he didn't see one straight away they thought he would investigate and find the drugs and expose Brailsford, Froome, Wiggins and Porte.
One explanation is that Walsh just might have just got lucky with LA Confidential.
I have only read snippets of his work and he seems to me to be an average sports journalist and I would be surprised if he broke a huge doping story on Sky.
But he may have a cunning plan! When he interviews Froome for the biography Froome might reveal all!
Goodluck with that!