Bold part shows the problem with your argument and many of the others on here. As the late great Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"sniper said:thanks Viking!
great indeed that JV shows himself in here. No arguing with that. As maxiton said, that is compelling, and as hrotha said, it does a lot of good to his credibility.
It is obviously difficult to reconcile his job as DS with posting in the clinic (though I'm happy he tries!). The clinic and its posters have no censorship in terms of spelling out the obvious, e.g. that wiggo dopes and that he doped also in 2009, or that it is somewhat unlikely that hesjedal won the Giro clean, etc., whereas JV can of course never speak out fully openly on those questions, regardless of what he truly thinks. It's obvious and understandable that he has to support and stay true to his (ex)riders at all costs as long as there is no evidence of doping. But that does create, I assume, some sort of a conflict of interest:
- the clinic's interest being to expose as many dopers as possible and to be as critical as possible (with accusations based more often on gutfeeling and common sense than on tangible evidence);
- JV's interest being to spread the view that cycling is (rapidly?) growing cleaner and hence fairer, allowing for clean riders to emerge on top.
Regardless, I fully share the feelings of great respect for JV's appearing on here, hope he hangs around, and apologize if some of my posts have been too judgmental.
Having a suspicion based on the sordid history of the sport is one thing but this far from makes it obvious that Wiggins doped. More intellectual rigour required...