Benotti69 said:
FAIL.
You are not understanding how doping worked during the different eras.
To compare the modern epo era with the eras that proceeded it is wrong.
That doping was commonplace is not debatable. That is a given. But riders were able to compete clean. Stephen Swart's testimony of his time in the pelotons of Europe and USA then back to Europe testify to this.
So you do a big disservice to those riders who most beleive raced clean, LeMond and Bassons to name 2.
If you cannot distinguish between the various methods of doping down the years then the clinic is not for you.
That is why so many have confessed that you can't climb the Tourmalet on mineral water.
We all know doping has been widespread in all eras, and what great champions such as Anquetil, Coppy, Merckx and Lemond have told us about the benefits of doping. It is just a matter of being selective and choose the worst case scenario to understand the capital importance of doping for a professional cyclist. You have to understand that it is not easy to confess, to completely open the Pandora box even by the most honest of them.
It is not coincidence that the most honest accounts by cyclist regarding doping were from the time when it was not forbidden.
If Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Fignon or Delgado needed it to win or even complete the race (if not why take it?) anyone who wants to believe that (insert your childhood hero here) did it clean is either an hypocrite or really naive.
You have confessions from guys saying that everyone doped, or 90%, which is the percentage people use when they don't want to disclose that everyone is doing it. Then you get the tremendous benefits IN ALL ERAS that doping provided, that told by ex cyclists, doctors and masseurs.
And then you get confessions from some of these people who at the same time of telling you that doping was brilliant performance wise, open the door for a possibility that our hero might have done it without it (we still have to give the sport a little bit of credibility or protect some people for some unknown reasons).
"You could win without doping" can be read from the very same guy who 20 pages before tells you how by using PEDs he could compete with cyclists who were well superior. Contradictory? Isn't it? When it comes to beliefs who cares about contradictions.
Even when the hero of heroes of clean riding, Greg Lemond, tell us that steroids would help his rivals TREMENDOUSLY (and this is literal) we want to believe him that he beat them fair and square.
In a way we never leave childhood.