the sceptic said:
Do tell, what has changed that makes the sport so much cleaner than say, 2009?
I could say you several things, but it is something that you have to be inside cycling, to hear riders and to see the difference with the riders behabiour.
But this is something that I dont say, Hamilton say in his book.
The biopassport has sep up, it has been a long way from 2008 till maybe today still, but 2011 is ok.. the Contador case, that was maybe the end for a lot of teams, if he could fail, everybody could. That made that people doping with more work and less advantage and more expensive, think twice if it worth...
When I see riders from here, go to Venezuela, Colombia, and see his result, you realize that now here is different, when you see a master following quintana in Madrid. I could say you some things, but, you are not going to believe me.
Now everybody talk when a rider dope, before everybody shut up, you lose reputation, before no...
There are riders with good reputation wining importants things. You could say, Lance had a good reputation.. really??
An other evidence is climbing time... you see the hematocrit level getting down (that is something public) and the power/kg getting down as well. even the avearge speed of last Tours is lower than Tours harder
You see the improvement in thecnologhy, but the average not improve, so..
if you can see in the biopassport they finished 42 a Tour instead 49 as before... well...how to say in English... if you think: now they use aicar os others thing (yes, I know, they have used it some time some riders even in Europe).. they must do the same power as before...I dont know if you follow me.. if the hematocrit is lower, the average lower as well, there is not other doping.
You see now a lot of riders doing less performance in the same climbs than before, if you consider all the thing to be in account, and should be the contrary, becouse the world progress and the sport records as well, slowly, for differente improvements.
I could say that everything, any news I read, any result, for me everything makes sense.
You could say... in the contrary makes sanse as well...I think that not for everything, but if yoy think twice, in a period in wich UCI is the same, and some riders are the same, always you are going to find a sense, the dark era is close, and they ldidnt say the truth a lot of times.
But, what have a team as SKy to do to shows they are clean, or Garmin, or any other... or what they have to say... the sentences are going to be always the same: for a doper to explain his victories, and for a no-doper for the same... it is going to be the same always, so it is stupid to say: but, they said the same in the past...
I didnt believe Santambrogio, becouse there wasnt an explanation that makes sense, but with SKy there are an explanation that makes sense always. You could say, oh wait, maybe, but, too much coincidence... well, sometimes that happens, you could say, coincidence in the past were always finished in the say way... and??'
Where are the people I read some day saying Froome is a man for this month, We will never see him again, like Jaskula... I have read that to some skeptics... they have now another theorie I guess...
Where are now the people said last year, Oh my good, T Locke and Dombrosky are going to fly in SKy, maybe Locke could go for the Vuelta
I said 6 years ago Uran and Henao will be two of the best riders in the world. What a pity thet finished inthe same team, and what a pity in SKY, but is like that
if EBH were doped he will be doing the same that Lance did, becouse they are similar kind of riders.
Where are now people that said, if Rogers leaves SKy, he will be finished, and Contador was working for him in Dauphine and did second in California.
Where are those people??,.. written other theories that suits them and trying to see a dark side in everything...
(I hope even my bad BS English you can follow)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram