Originally Posted by Lucidia2011:
“Yes, i mean it's all very insightful AND necessary. Also interesting that he said as there wasn't really any actual evidence against CF/Sky he would lean towards giving them the benefit of the doubt. Will be looking forward to see what else his time with them brings to light.”
Maybe I just look at it all with too much innocence, but to me the easiest story to believe is the one where Brailsford and co masterminded success at British Cycling on the track by revolutionising training regimes, by focusing on technology, by thinking outside of the box compared to what had been done before, using experts from outside of cycling who weren't engrained in what had always been done. In ten years of incredible success on the track there hasn't been even the slightest whiff of doping, not one iota of suspicion.
This successful approach has then been used and adapted for the road. Again novel techniques have been employed but essentially the same approach (because Sky is essentially British Cycling). And by jove, we have success in time. Meanwhile Chris Froome recovers from a parasitic disease which depletes his red blood cell count, undetected for years, and sees his performance improve dramatically.
It all just fits together, makes perfect sense to me. Nothing fishy, not even the smallest doping story over the decade in question, where hundreds of cyclists will have gone through the system. Surely one would have taken the jackpot of a doping exclusive with the papers?
But obviously Sky and Froome are taking a wonder drug (which British Cycling must have kept secret for 10 years), and are in league with the UCI, and most likely WADA as well.
Well the last paragraph is the one that seems nonsense to me.