No argument with the last. Except...what's the scrutiny? Forums? The UCI is clearly not targeting money-making riders and haven't been for some time. There's no scrutiny that matters. Performances across the board are spectacular. You even have Armstrong and Hincapie saying they could never hang with the current crop of superstars, THOSE guys are blown away.
As far as doing it clean, who knows? Do you think he was on some program 2 levels above all the other riders as a junior, and still is? Because he's killing everyone now like he was then. What other explanation is there for his performances since he got on a bike? The blindingly obvious conclusion is that he's just a lot better than everyone else, and has been from day one. Not sure why this is even a discussion. He's a massive talent. They exist.
I do think he was on something good, early. I also think he's exceptionally talented. To be that far ahead of the competition (especially as a beginner against much more experienced riders) I would think you'd need a combination of the two.
All speculation of course, but also not really relevant to my point. What I take issue with, is the hypocrisy of tolerating some dopers and berating other. We don't know their talent to doping ratios, and so the guy who starts at 15 could be seen as the natural talent, given a free pass to dope, and be celebrated as a hero, while the guy who tries to do it clean but realises he can't, and succumbs to the pressure at 24, might be vilified.
You either tolerate doping in general or you don't. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Do you by any chance remember when Lance and Hincapie said that suff? I'm guessing it's on The Move podcast? I'd love to hear humble Lance. That sounds like a unicorn to me
