This can go even further. Whether you think Froome was doping with Salbutamol or not, the decision of whether he wins that Vuelta wasn't even a case of, is his test positive or not, it was about a decision a group of people like you and me made.Too many riders were not caught. Indurain being a likely example. And LA actually is another example, illustrating how big a role chance plays. Has anyone forgotten how close he was to going down in history as a legitimate winner of sevenTours, when Floyd opened up? IF LA had just given Floyd a job, nothing would have happened. Maybe years later, it would have all come out, but by then it would have been too late. As it was, it was seven years after LA's last Tour win that he was finally sanctioned and banned.
How about Contador? His samples happened to go to one of the few labs capable of detecting CB at the levels present in his urine. I could give some more examples, but we are in the wrong forum for this discussion.
I was going to point out that if you include LA, Ullrich looks pretty good, too, considering he rode most of his most important races vs. LA. Take LA out of the picture, and Ullrich has four Tour wins, two seconds (plus one stripped) and one third. Plus 2 WCTT, and an Olympic RR.
In fact, in a sense he did win four Tours, because though he officially finished second in three, no one finished ahead of him. Isn't that the definition of winning?
He was inches away from not having won the Vuelta at all and has now instead won it twice.
Just looking at the official results looks so beautifully simpel but it frankly gives you a wrong impression. The real stories are so much more nuanced