I guess your employees would not mind listening to what you would prefer.I'd prefer you'd post direct quotes before you tell your opinion, but it's your call.
I guess your employees would not mind listening to what you would prefer.I'd prefer you'd post direct quotes before you tell your opinion, but it's your call.
That's a very simple construct. Willing to buy it if there's any evidence to support it. History suggests money helps, but is certainly not the only path, and a lot of teams have a lot of money.Money talks, bull-sheet walks. Trust fund does wonders. In any case, only a select few actually know what's going on at the top.
Who has evidence? Who shot JFK? I don't know. But we all live in the "real" world. It's fun and kind of kinky, when you think about it.That's a very simple construct. Willing to buy it if there's any evidence to support it. History suggests money helps, but is certainly not the only path, and a lot of teams have a lot of money.
Yep, we have what we know about the past, and that's about it. So I'm left with "I doubt it's that simple" but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.Who has evidence? Who shot JFK? I don't know. But we all live in the "real" world. It's fun and kind of kinky, when you think about it.
Convinced? Look, everbody draws their own conclusions. Whether or not that has any bearing on the nature of things, is an open question. Someone once said stoically, the effects of anger were much worse than that which caused it. Marcus Aurelius?Yep, we have what we know about the past, and that's about it. So I'm left with "I doubt it's that simple" but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
UAE press officer!I hope this entire paragraph is satire. If not, it is pure and utter ignorance. There's really no in-between.
Just explain what you mean. I'm not even a moralist, but Gianetti's got to go, like Riis, like Bruyneel. The guy simply shouldn't be involved with the sport. Life isn't like the 90s? Nice try. It's far worse.Money buys dope? Life isn’t like the 90s? Effects exceed and transform the techniques of their causes? What else?
You may be right about fans switching off but popularity of cycling goes up and down. Maybe it went down during Merckyx, Indurain and Armstrong eras too?I bet they aren't watching the full 5 hour broadcast like us.
That's where UCI protection comes in. Team doctors on UCI medical panel, etc. Armstrong had positives covered up. It's all been done before.But sure, one team might hold an advantage for a couple years. See Visma, then UAE.
I think this is what's going on, I think Armstrong payed off the UCI to cover up a test, I could imagine UAE doing something similar.That's where UCI protection comes in. Team doctors on UCI medical panel, etc. Armstrong had positives covered up. It's all been done before.
Sure. Yet it seems now everyone is protected to a degree. The sport seems to have lost interest in policing itself some time ago.That's where UCI protection comes in. Team doctors on UCI medical panel, etc. Armstrong had positives covered up. It's all been done before.
Is not just hearing what you want to hear too much to ask?I guess your employees would not mind listening to what you would prefer.
Protected is maybe overstating it in my view, but they're definitely not trying all that hard to find anything.Sure. Yet it seems now everyone is protected to a degree. The sport seems to have lost interest in policing itself some time ago.
Pogacar ticked so many boxes in his first years that made him very appealing for many casual fans so they bought in completely, and now that it's gotten ridiculous to the nth degree to the nth degree, it's too late to take that emotional investment back.
Spoken like a Lance apologist.Bottom line is this is the sport of cycling. You are not going to find any top pro who is squeaky clean. None. So sadly most of what gets discussed in the Clinic boils down to my doper is being beaten and I'm not happy.
This post alone makes today, Wednesday the 8th of October, 2025, a horrendous day to have eyesSo you don't think Pogi is a good boy whose only marginal gain is porridge? Disappointing.
Agree with all of that.Protected is maybe overstating it in my view, but they're definitely not trying all that hard to find anything.
I try to just assume people in cycling are neither especially corrupt or especially incorruptable, and just try to have a holistic view of how it would work if everyone is just self interested mostly.
I dunno. I think it was more what you say about the reputation of the sport than any one champion being palatable or not. The Armstrong hangover. "We can't afford another one" kinda thing. Not sure it would have mattered too much who it was. Happened to be Sky. But sure, no real motivation there either, just not the same kind of detestable behavior across the boards.Cycling has experienced that when it tries to do a better job policing itself, it only gets a worse reputation. In addition, 'demand' for antidoping and questions about doping are much more determined by whether the dominant champoins are well liked or not rather than if they're completely ridiculous or not.
Just explain what you mean. I'm not even a moralist, but Gianetti's got to go, like Riis, like Bruyneel. The guy simply shouldn't be involved with the sport. Life isn't like the 90s? Nice try. It's far worse.