-
You can't dismiss all of it as irrationality unless you ignore the fact that Sky's own actions and PR happenings have greatly contributed to the dialogue around their performances and the wider disbelief that they operate above board.
Freeman's managed to transform himself into the Wallace and Gromit of doping through accidental orders of steroid patches and losing his laptop-for him to refuse to appear in front of a committee and then roll out a book about how great he is is fucking surreal.
deleted-
Only the gullible believed Sky’s bullshit about being different to other teams and doing things the right way. They showed their true colours when they hired the likes of Scott Sunderland, Sean Yates and Brian Nygard. It’s clear they exploit the grey areas in the rules, and have taken advantage of the growing medicalisation of the sport. But what they do is within the rules of the sport as far as we can tell.
andyp
The thing is, you either accept that WADA and the UCI are doing their jobs and accept the decisions they make, or you don’t. If you choose the latter then you need to produce evidence to back up your claims, because without it you can’t prove anything. Citing times up climbs or calling foul based on what you are watching on tv coverage is not evidence.
Those who believe Froome is a massive doper, part of a conspiracy set up by Dave Brailsford and protected by the UCI under Brian Cookson, will reject today’s decision. But their beliefs are based on nothing, just irrationality that they can’t believe one bike racer can be stronger than his rivals.