gooner said:
Thanks for proving what I'm been saying.
Again, who has said doping went after Lance's downfall? This strawman has been thrown a lot at people.
Well there are quite clearly a very large number of very influential people in the sport who while not outright saying that doping is gone with lance, possess opinions very close to that, while others actually do argue doping is gone since lance (plenty of riders and commentators say that lance was a different era but no one does it now)
The issue is that in this thread a number of people who don't hold that opinion are being wrongly accused of it, but it's equally ridiculous to pretend it doesn't exist. Though I suppose a qualifier should be added that many of these people like Wiggins, brailsford, Brian smith etc, also denied lance doped, quite viciously in some cases, and have retrospectively been forced to aknowledge he doped while keeping to their principle of - no doping exists in cycling, which is a different thing all together.
As for Walsh who your defending of being open minded about doping because he acknowledges some masters riders maybe on some small worthless drugs, that's really a technicality. This is a guy who just recently said even contador is clean
I'm sorry, if he believes the entire top echelon of the sport Is now clean then he believes the form of doping that gathers 99.9% of media attention and 99.9% of clinic attention, by which I mean doping to win GTs ( not stages at semi pro races) has disappeared since lance. In fact it's an even bigger deal than that because by extension he is arguing that doping no longer has any remotely valuabke effect on performancws whatsoever.
Ps, - both " masters riders" and " semi pro" were hyperboles but the wider point is that you and many others of the new dawn believers constantly massively overplay the tiny things, be it worthless drugs or worthless riders. Small fish like Sayer doping, or oh Walsh didn't cover up an article about big bad jtl, riders who if I'm not mistaken never even made a tour de France team
or discussions about how froome climbing like pantani, tting like Indurain might have some Tue for some drugs weaker than paracetamol.
The doping most people ( most people as in the entire world minus 12 people in the clinic (different 12)) care about are gt riders charged to the eyballs on 6 figure doping programmes flying up mountains in the Tour de France. Not some hill in the tour of Turkey. Not some hill in whatever the **** race it even was that jtl won. The tour de France, the champions and contenders earning 5 million a year, the big budget teams sponsored by mega rich evil capitalists who have the finances to pay people like Fuentes Leinders and Ferrari.
So when someone says that Walsh argues doping is gone after lance (since he even believes the big time dopers like contador or his manager Riis or his boss Tinkov all also stopped engaging in doping right after lances second retirement)it's really not that strong a counter to say - oh but he tweeted he thinks jtl doped, after he was caught anyway.
A handful of 10 character tweets that only diehards with msg updates about Walshs Twitter even even see amidst all the insulting articles, shockingly researched books and hillarious hypocritical interviews not to mention thousands of heroworship tweets, all of which celebrate the end of doping in professional cycling, backed up by a promise, a page torn out of a magazine and the astounding logic that 2 riders can't dope if they share the same room