No need to explain yourself, i.e. my reply was just an attempt at humor (which can get lost in translation with this limited medium of communication which is online forum posting).First of all I didn't want to accuse you or insult you, if my post came across as such I'm sorry. I was trying to find an explanation for your sentences that sometimes don't make that much sense to me simply because you state that people say xy all the time and I'm wondering "they do? where?"
I'll just touch on the dope issue again: in my personal opinion it's an open secret just about everyone in the pro tour & beneath has a program & engages in an arms race. I think doctors & performance scientists are employed specifically for that task.
I don't care though, i.e. as Jacques Anquetil once told a French politician to his face: "we can't ride the Tour de France with clear water" (I paraphrased slightly). To me there are two groups of people who're equally wrong: the people who claim riders are "clean" & only a few "bad apples" exist (it's totally naïve & wrong), & the others who claim they're all "dopers" & "cheaters". I don't think doping as it exists in most situations in the peloton (& has done since forever) = cheating & I don't think everyone is "clean" either (as per the anti-doping definition of clean).
What I do think is the peloton in general has been way too defensive on the issue of pharmaceutical programs (feigning disbelief at the suggestion there's widespread pill consumption & injections in order to protect a "fantasy" sold to the media & audience) whilst others on the outside constantly use it as a weapon to attack cycling with, whilst at the same time totally ignoring other sports like football.
And I also think too many ex champions have missed a golden opportunity to have an open conversation about doping in order to protect a big illusion which occasionally backfires on the sport when the real truth gets out (as it did with Lance & his rivals in their era). I think if men like Merckx or Hinault for example wanted to do pro cycling a favor, they'd have adopted that same attitude as Anquetil, i.e. "I dope, so what? You can't race the Tour on water".
Laurent Fignon did, but he was ignored. That conversation could have been so beneficial (like a weight off everyone's back), but here we are seeing the same arguments rehashed ad-infinitum which is usually "xyz rider dopes because he's so strong", whereas in reality, even the riders finishing last have been proven to be on something as well.