Is Roglić really 'big enough' for the UCI and WADA and whoever else is involved at the 'top' to not bust him and suspend him? He's been redlining so far this season and his rise to where he is after actually riding a bike on a regular basis at the age of 23 is very impressive, he's obviously super talented, has won multiple times every year since he became a pro and since his first year at the world tour level just three years ago, he's had a lot of success. I don't need to list all of his accomplishments, but he's not a household name, yet.red_flanders said:Domestiques ride at a pace that is not the same as a top rider attacking. If you think Froome was at his max working on that climb we rather strongly disagree. I didn't say they are riding "slower than they [the domestiques] can", they are riding slower than the team leader would if he were on his own attacking.
Any way you slice it, the time on that one climb, that one year, is as fast as known dopers have ridden it in the past. While the conclusions which can be drawn from one climb are VERY limited, that fact does NOT suggest things are cleaned up much. Yeah, they're not Pantani. Who is?
Regarding the UCI as applies to Roglič, they clearly and obviously have protected top riders from doping allegations and positives multiple times in the past. They are a Marketing and Promotions organization and behave as such. The passport is a marketing initiative, as it give the impression, real or not, that the UCI are combatting doping. If doping didn't hurt sponsorships, they would not care one whit. See the 1990's. They are not an anti-doping organization. There is no reason to think they have interest in prosecuting big names, and every reason to think they will do what they can to protect them.