-
Oh please don't assume ignorance. Frankly I have got to the point of not caring. At least with Wiggins they did it by the book, this is just sloppy.
Jimmy_Fingers-
Oh please don't assume ignorance.
What would you like me to take from the proposition that another doping story materially affects your interest in the sport? I'd have thought anybody over 10 was long past the point where another one made any difference.
At least with Wiggins they did it by the book
Which book? This one?
Froome's AAF is consistent with taking permitted doses of a substance for which there is scant evidence of performance enhancement when taken in the quantities and route of administration he probably used. Wiggin's TUE is consistent with shopping his medical condition around until he could find a doctor who would put his name to the idea that the PED Wiggin's wanted to use was the best and, for his patient, only suitable treatment. There are alternative explanations available in either case, but in the Froome case the alternatives look improbable, while in the Wiggins case they only change the nature of the wrongdoing.
gbj_tester
Where have you been for the last 100 years? There has always been cheating in cycle races, there will always be cheating in cycle races. If your enjoyment of it is contingent on everybody playing fair, you might as well stop watching.
The best Tour stage I've ever watched was 2006 stage 17; the fact that it later turned out that Floyd was off his tits can't go back in time and change that, and I knew before I fired up the pirate stream on the computer that there were probably dopers on the start line. While Floyd's epic solo was the catalyst, the real fun was watching T-Mobile at war with itself anyway.