Wallace and Gromit said:I like conjecture as much as most. Some I agree with. Some I don't. There's a lot of conjecture at the (in my view) less plausible end of the scale relating to Wiggo, hence I tend to comment on it. My basic point is that the UCI and cycling were dodgy long before Lance arrived on the scene.
So what do you think is the most likely reason for the UCI's rule change in 1994?
There were also rumours at the time that after Obree went "off message" following his very brief pro career in 1993 that the UCI were after him, as it was not good to have riders talking about doping. I'm not sure whether this portrays the UCI in a better or worse light than my "Pinarello Theory".
Obree's brief pro career was 95 not 93 but nice of you to follow the clinic nuts in twisting facts to suit your agenda. When did Indurain go for the record, I think it was late 94 or 95.
I would say the UCI were not happy about two amateur's (one completely unknown, Obree) smashing the hour record which was supposedly an elite record. I think they thought that the record was becoming more about bike technology and technique rather than ability. I think some unknown Italian amateur almost beat the record as well using the Obree position.
I have no doubt UCI were not corruption free pre-Armstrong but I don't think they ever had the same relationship with other cyclists as they had with Armstrong. His Lanceness simply dwarfed all other cyclists so of course they wanted to protect him more than others.