Originally Posted by walterwhite:
“There is still zero evidence that Sky are doing anything like that, that's my point.
And even if they are, are we to believe that no other teams are doing it? Because the alternative to Sky being better naturally is that they are taking better drugs.”
My personal opinion is that, because the performance gains are so great, it is impossible to compete successfully at the pinnacle of cycling without doping (here's an article that illustrates just how great the potential gains are:
http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/...n-performance/). Even the UCI commissioned report earlier this year acknowledged doping is still widespread in pro cycling (
http://road.cc/content/news/145048-d...ys-circ-report). I've been following pro cycling for over 30 years and I've lost count of the number of times those involved in the sport have told us that it was dirty but that it's cleaned up its act, only for the next doping scandal to hit the headlines soon afterwards.
In the current Tour you have a highly suspect team such as Astana (and plenty of others btw, particularly Europcar) run by a former doper which I don't believe should nave been allowed to compete in this year's Tour. Yet Sky are making even these teams look very ordinary. Marginal gains (just a modern soundbite for attention to detail) can only get you so far.
So, as the old adage goes, if you're beating the dopers, well, I'm sure you know the rest.