-
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.
You are reading a single comment by @andyp and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
andyp
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