-
Course not, I have a bit of a theory that a few of these doctors have different packages, a doping one, and an everything-but-doping one, maybe in his early years he tried to do the latter too much and got limited "success", then doped them all up, and now he's just pushing the absolute limits with Phil Gil.
Still though, you can't deny that it smells just a bit fishy
noBlakes-
But that Cyclismas article you link to is full of anecdotes, none of which prove anything, yet he is at pains to show that Ibarguren has a detrimental affect on a team's results. Which is it, i.e. is he a doping mastermind or a doping failure?
It's very, very easy to link anyone who has worked in cycling in the past twenty years with doping, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they've been a facilitator. It could be that Ibarguren likes the milieu of professional cycling and enjoys working in the sport, hence why he's stuck with it.
The days are, it would seem, long gone when results were heavily influenced by the team doctor.
As for Gilbert being a doper, where's the proof? Given that he's been, for a pro rider, exceptionally outspoken about his opposition to doping it would seem an odd stance to take. He's also been a consistent winner since his early years at FDJ, hardly the traditional route for a doper.
andyp
This old chestnut is trotted out every few years, whenever a rider does well. Yet the fact remains that Dr Ibarguren has never been convicted of any anti-doping violation. Whether that means he's innocent is another matter, but you can convict people on hearsay and speculation from internet anti-doping crusaders.
The fact that Gilbert has been winning big one day races from his neo-pro days onwards would suggest he has a modicum of natural talent.