will10 said:
Decent level? They were untouchable in Paris - Nice, Romandie, the Dauphine and the Tour. A level of domination we never saw from even Postal.
That's the whole point. US Postal didn't race that often because they were hidden away avoiding in-competition testing, as they prepared for the Tour. I've read countless forum posts decrying Lance's achievements against other known dopers in the Tour on the grounds that winning the Tour is somehow "easy" if you don't "honour the traditions of the sport" by racing a full programme.
These same posts banged on endlessly about how all the Great Champions from yesteryear raced a full programme, because they were talented and didn't need to dope (much) to recover and perform on a regular basis. Lance only raced once a year due to needing a military style operation last months to dope him beyond his donkey-like natural performance levels.
Now we have Wiggo and Sky racing - as opposed to turning up to turn the pedals - a full programme and getting accused of doping on the back of it. Some people are clearly never happy, hence my previous comment about the optimum racing programme needing to contain no racing to achieve acceptance as not indicating doping!
So if you have a rider successful in one major race a year they are doping and if you have a rider successful in multiple races a year they are doping as well. So I ask the question again: What pattern of racing (in terms of frequency, type of race and success levels) would satisfy the Sky cynics? It's a tough circle to square from my viewpoint, but I'm sure you guys will rise to the challenge!
Note that the response: "I believe anyone successful in any World Tour level bike race is doping" is acceptable, if unimaginative.