Tom375 said:Open to interpretation really, IMO the more widespread you think it is in a particular team the dirtier it is. If you think 3/4 of a squad is on a basic program that's pretty widespread!
If you think a team has a doping program a la USPS stylie that's damn dirty in my book..
Top ups for mountain train seems pretty similar as your talking about a co-ordinated doping effort to win races across multiple cyclists again USPS style.
If you think a team might have suspect characters in that are running a private doping regime thats dirty but again IMO not as dirty..
- That sort of doping indicates a corruption of given cyclist not entire team.
However teams that know they have these suspicious cyclists but turn a blind eye etc. that notches them up a ratchet in terms of dirtiness.
- This may not be an exact science, its just the way i see it i suppose. Your welcome to put your own interpretation on it!
BTW - i don't think that its the quantity of doping that counts as it is pretty much accepted that those that do - microdose now; the question remains though to dope or not to dope?, cheat or not to cheat?
It's too hard for me.
There are the teams which look very systematic: Astana, Katusha, OPQS.
Then there's the elite GT teams: Radioshack, Saxo, Sky.
And the absurd: Europcar.
Think overall I go for Astana.
Funny that we all consider Unzue's mob to be one of the cleaner teams these days.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram