RownhamHill said:I don't know about Nibali, just as I don't know about Wiggins.
But if your sole argument explanation is I've seen it therefore it is, then I hope you understand the structural weakness of it.
If there's no positive test, or otherwise damning physical evidence, you don't "know". Got it. I don't "know" either. But many things are obvious, and I don't need to "know" them for them to be obvious.
So really what's the point of the conversation? If you will only accept that those riders who have been caught are the dopers, than just go with that list. I tend to think that the riders who have been caught are the tip of the iceberg, and it's pretty damn obvious who the un-caught worst offenders are.
More to the point, does Nibali need to be a doper for the points to be salient? I don't think it matters.