You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
i am very much a Wiggo fan but his reputation has been damaged by the Team Sky stuff and the absence of a properly credible explanation either from him or the team hierarchy.
Out before the ban.
Out before the ban.
It's a sad indictment of the sport but that was my first thought too.
He's a legend, a hero to many (myself included), I really hope we're not about to have another Armstrong moment.
He's a legend, a hero to many (myself included), I really hope we're not about to have another Armstrong moment.
Quite!
It is very said that first thoughts are that he's about to be outed as some serial doping offender isn't it. If something like that is proven than it won't just be Wiggins will it.
It is very said that first thoughts are that he's about to be outed as some serial doping offender isn't it. If something like that is proven than it won't just be Wiggins will it.
If, and it is a big if, he's outed as a doper that all of Team Sky, all of British Cycling, and likely all of cycling in the UK in general, is stuffed.
But, in the absence of any evidence that this is the case, lets celebrate a wonderful cyclist who charmed a nation and who is rightly seen as one of the best that there ever has been.
Unfortunately mud tends to stick
Especially when it's applied by the Russian state to shift focus away from their vile cheating program
i am very much a Wiggo fan but his reputation has been damaged by the Team Sky stuff and the absence of a properly credible explanation either from him or the team hierarchy.
+1.
I'm also a huge fan, I think Wiggo and Cav have done so much to raise the profile of cycling in the UK.
It is now pretty obvious Team Sky been sailing very close to the wind with the TUE certificates etc.
I'm actually heartened that we are now talking about abuse of the TUE system rather than "proper" doping - shows we have come a long way in the last 10 years when I was sitting on the mountain above Morzine watching Floyd Landis make an amazing recovery to win the Tour de France.
We've already had his Armstrong moment. We know for sure he took drugs normal doctors don't prescribe to normal patients just before big races which he won. Whether he gets banned for it is neither here nor there.
That said, in my lifetime the only variable to do with drugs and winning big bike races is the length of time before doping was exposed. It's pro sport. So as far as heroes on a bike go, he's right up there.
That photo of Wiggins in yellow leading out Cavendish in the world championship bands next to the Arc de Triomphe sums up everything about both his career and the resurgence of GB/Sky. Well done Wiggo, fantastic career.
[img] 
[/img]
It's a sad indictment of the sport but that was my first thought too.
And mine
Especially when it's applied by the Russian state to shift focus away from their vile cheating program
What's this? Have I missed something? 🙂
That landis comeback was amazing though wasn't it? One of the greatest things I've seen on a bike. The doping version of go big or go home.
As for wiggins His garmin 4th was a revelation and we will always have 2012. If I'm being picky I wish he had given the classics more of a stab he always seemed more of a natural Rouleur.
Again?
Proper Lad Bradderz, sadly because of recent events he would have had a tortured time in any event he took part in.
But, through sheer will and determination he achieved way more than most TdF contenders and threw some monumental strops along the way.
I like him, a lot.
TBF he's been talking about retirement for the last couple of years, so it's not really a big suprise is it.
I hope nothing more comes out on the doping front, he's still a legend at the moment. I hope he stays a legend.
We've already had his Armstrong moment. We know for sure he took drugs normal doctors don't prescribe to normal patients just before big races which he won. Whether he gets banned for it is neither here nor there.
I don't agree.
If (big if) Wiggo gets pinged then it's one Tour, not 7 like Armstrong. If Sky as a whole get pinged then it's 4 across a whole team. Hardly ideal and very damaging but still not Armstrong.
But, at the moment, we have a questionable TUE that was sanctioned by the governing body and nothing else. Until we here more I shall try my best to concentrate on what he achieved and not what he may or may not have done.
As said above Sky not Brad as an individual have sailed very very close to the wind, I still keep going back in my head to a clip on one of the Brad shows sat in front of a infant class saying something like"How can I sit here talking to all these children when in a few years I might lose it all" ,hoping he`s good to his word.
TUE are allowed in the rules. End. Of.
A great career on fhe track and the road. Chapeau.
Like it or not, no one has provided any evidence that he, or Sky, have broken any rules. All the information "leaked" indicates that they followed the rules, even if their stories have not always hung together.
No former team mates or staff have claimed rules were broken.
It's a sad background to his retirement, but it's not Armstrong v2.1, no matter what the haters and conspiracy nuts might like to think. And it's certainly no worse than other riders and teams have been doing.
IMHO, until some evidence actually turns up.
He's been a massive boost to the sport, and cycling culture, in this country.
He has a smug aura of someone who got away with it.
I'm of a similar age to wiggo and David Millar so I can remember watching the tour for years but thinking that a British winner of the tour is kinda fanciful, so to see him win in 2012 was a big deal to the fans of road racing.
Doper ? On balance I'd say no even though it's right on the edge of the rules, blame the UCI for having poorly implemented rules etc.
I've never met him but I can imagine he's a Marmite personality, but that doesn't detract from the wins of which there were an impressive many.
What's this? Have I missed something?
Fancy Bears? WADA hack? Ring a bell? It kicked off the whole TUE "revelations" bandwagon in the press....
He has a smug aura of someone who got away with it.
Does He? Or are you just projecting?
I'm don't really see much similarity to LA personality wise, not quite the same messiah complex, shouting down descenting voices or threatening potential whistle blowers...
It's easy to default to the cynical position, especially post LA, Sky aren't difficult to dislike, Murdoch's money, the (mutually beneficial) tie in with BC but that doesn't actually mean they're another US postal...
Pushing the rules to the limit is different to breaking the rules.
He may not have explicitly broken the rules in the armstrong sense but along with sky it seems he bent them beyond their spirit.
Banned? For what - ridiculous notion 1+2 = 666. Whilst there may have been some 'interpretation' of the TUE rules, it was hardly blood bags in camper vans.
I'd seen him racing previously and then bumped into him in early 2009 and saw how weight he'd lost - his 4th place at that summer's Tour didn't come as a surprise.
Ref Wiggins TUE.
From the Secret Pro
'I’ve never taken Kenacort, but from what I have heard, it’s just rocket fuel.I can only take it from guys I’ve spoken with, how good it is. Supposedly it makes you bionic. It strips down any muscle you’re not using, and any fat you have is used as energy. Your arms waste away, your legs become lean; the muscles you do use become all muscle, no fat'
Pushing the rules to the limit is different to breaking the rules.
End result is the same though...
[quote=shermer75 ]What's this? Have I missed something?
Apparently.
Fabulous strop at the Giro Del Trentino..
Ya gotta love him.
[img] 
[/img]
Does He? Or are you just projecting?
Projecting cookeaa?
The Russians can go stuff themselves, they're mud slinging isn't going to diminish Brads achievements. Bradley Wiggins is a legend. He might not be the greatest cyclist ever but he added personality to a mechanical team machine blah blah blah
He'd already retired, then hinted at the 6-days "race" that he might not, so I assume he's stuck with Plan A while there's still some shine to his reputation.
The Russians can go stuff themselves, they're mud slinging isn't going to diminish Brads achievements.
yeah, it's the pesky Russkis fault 🙄 Personally I think him using the exact same corticosteroid LA failed a test for, to treat "allergies" that only flared up after he'd left a team with a no-needles policy (and had still managed to come 4th in the Tour with, and we all know how bad the pollen is in the Italian mountains in May, when they're ploughing snow from the roads to keep them open) diminishes his achievements. As does Dave B and Sky's laughable attempts at explaining the Jiffy bag.
Wiggins and Sky gamed a system that has been gamed since it's inception and to many of us that's cheating.
A riding hero for the masses, with a tainted record. Still, fanbois gonna fan.
That pic that midlifecrashes put up there gave me goosebumps! One of the best moments in sport ever.
Still, fanbois gonna fan
And haters gotta hate, must be in their DNA.
Britains greatest ever cyclist.
Legitimised doping, marginal gains?
Margarine gains.. Slippery slope to drugs
I can't believe it ('s not butter)
Eggsellent, keep churning them out guys.
'I’ve never taken Kenacort, but from what I have heard, it’s just rocket fuel.I can only take it from guys I’ve spoken with, how good it is. Supposedly it makes you bionic. It strips down any muscle you’re not using, and any fat you have is used as energy. Your arms waste away, your legs become lean; the muscles you do use become all muscle, no fat'
Clever stuff. How does the drug identify muscle "you're not using" and "strip it down" but not touch the muscles "you do use"?
Britains greatest ever cyclist.
by what measure? Medal haul copiously funded by the National Lottery, where BC get an order of magnitude more money than some of the other big hitter national cycling federations? Not really a level playing field (I know he likes that phrase) to compare him with riders from other generations, like maybe a woman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Burton
And you certainly can't be referring to his panache and racing style, as he doesn't have any. Try googling or youtube searching "wiggins" and "attacks"....
I was genuinely never a fan, saw his Tour win for the one-off it was on a course which looked designed for him, and got progressively more sick and tired of seeing his picture and articles about him in the lazy cycling media who know a Wiggins or Cav front cover sells, and is why I associate him with the [i]arriviste[/i] fan who UK Cycling Expert so brilliantly spoofs on Twitter.
And I don't even reflexively hate riders for doping - my favourite rider is Contador for his attacking style and racing wiles, the way he shakes up any race he's in and his go-big-or-go-home attitude (the only GT podium step he's finished on is the top one). I don't care what music riders like or how sweary they can be in interview, it how they race that makes me a fan.
Clever stuff. How does the drug identify muscle "you're not using" and "strip it down" but not touch the muscles "you do use"?
I don't believe the Secret Pro is a qualified doctor, pharmacologist or research scientist so his description may, perhaps, just be a summary as he and his peers see it.
TBH, as damaging as the TUEs were, the mystery envelope is the one I'm a bit more concerned about. Nothing to do with it makes any sense, least of all Wiggins absolute and total silence on something supposedly so mundane.
Clever stuff. How does the drug identify muscle "you're not using" and "strip it down" but not touch the muscles "you do use"?
and can i buy it from super drug?
[quote=crashtestmonkey ]I was genuinely never a fan, saw his Tour win for the one-off it was on a course which looked designed for him, and got progressively more sick and tired of seeing his picture and articles about him in the lazy cycling media who know a Wiggins or Cav front cover sells, and is why I associate him with the arriviste fan who UK Cycling Expert so brilliantly spoofs on Twitter.
The question is, when did you first hear of him? I'd been a fan since he was a junior.
As for the package, exactly what evidence is there that it is anything other than what DB says it is? Meanwhile nobody appears to have refuted the suggestion that the reason so little detail has been given before and now is because it's the subject of a proper investigation and they're not allowed to discuss it. The whole thing does appear to be a bit of a DM witch hunt (and no, I'm not commenting at all on the TUE thing there, that's a different story).
Because it makes perfect sense to fly someone up to Manchester to pick up a 'medicinal package', fly back to London then on to France at £600/day. All for an 8 euro 'decongestant'.
The 'package' was then administered straight away....
And Cope and Shaney-boy held hands and skipped home again. That's Cope, allegedly the BC women's coach, not a Sky errand boy.
This all on record to the PSC.
But wait, wasn't it supposed to be for Emma Pooley again. Oh, no, that was a proven to be a pack of lies...
And you ask why [i]we[/i] don't believe Brailsford. Looks like they've removed gullible from the dictionary (again) 🙄
This would be the charming Cope that dumped Emma O'Reilly when she was talking with him about coming clean about Armstrong.....so much for the zero tolerance policy at Sky again and nice to know Cope's loyalty lies with a doper if push comes to shove.
I don't believe the Secret Pro is a qualified doctor, pharmacologist or research scientist so his description may, perhaps, just be a summary as he and his peers see it.
I'm not a qualified doctor or scientist either, but his description just doesn't make any sense. Nobody actually seemed to be able to explain how this wonder drug actually works when the whole TUE debate was going on.
Bloody hell, I expected a bit of a mixed response but I'm actually shocked at the hostility here.
"Out before the ban" is nonsense, there's no prospect of any kind of ban because he hasn't broken any rules - the only real dirt on him is that Kenacort TUE, and as pointed out above the effects of that are open to question.
His retiring (again) doesn't change anything. His reputation will still be slightly tarnished.
I'm actually shocked at the hostility here.
Honest question. Why?
I mean, none of us have ever known what "clean" or pan y agua pro cycling looks like! They've been taking something to artificially improve performance since before my Dad was a bairn.
How many years of being lied to does it take to create a culture of mistrust. Riis, Festinia, Lance...
If there was anything dodgy in the package then it would have shown-up in the numerous drug tests he'd have undertaken during the Tour - or are some suggesting that Sky were one-ahead of the vampires also?
Pitminster - cheating has been going on since racing started. Lifts, drugs, swapping riders, mechanical doping. Cycling has never been clean. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
^^ this is to agree with Piemonster not dis-agree
Never failed a test, hmmm. Sounds familiar.... 😉
I wonder how quick to judge people would be if it was, say an Italian or Spanish rider that was being queried....
There's quite a few high profile caught dopers (Rasmussen, Millar) who have been swearing to the efficacy of kentacort. Course, we can't believe [i]them[/i] dopers though...
Plus, less we forget, the presence of a certain dr Leianders.... Reputed to have been the 'race doctor' at the run up tour races.... I guess he [i]might[/i] know a thing or two about doping, eh?
Now, all this doesn't constitute in itself 'proof' but it sure should at least make you [b]question[/b].
If there was anything dodgy in the package then it would have shown-up in the numerous drug tests he'd have undertaken during the Tour - or are some suggesting that Sky were one-ahead of the vampires also?
You know that Armstrong claimed to be "the most tested athlete in history" don't you?
Unfortunately, the tests can't be relied on to catch dopers. And for balance you can't prove definitively that someone was clean.
we were joking about thius at work the other day (supplying some for a patient and wondered if we should do a stock-check). Folk on (much weaker) steroids for any prolonged period get lots of body fat redistribution (buffalo-hump is a well-known complication), so they're clearly capable of inducing fat mobilisation. I guess if you're riding hard too, maybe that fat gets "lost" in the moving process ? Fat is stored in small amounts in skeletal muscle so I guess maybe losing that is the apparent streamlining of muscle ?I'm not a qualified doctor or scientist either, but his description just doesn't make any sense. Nobody actually seemed to be able to explain how this wonder drug actually works when the whole TUE debate was going on.
IANAExercisePhysiologist
The only thing that amazes me is the idea that pro cycling (insert sport of choice) is clean
Perhaps its because "we are good at it" and "we dont do that kind of thing"?
This is a source of comfort for us all
Pro cyclist are not normal people, as such they require abnormal treatment to compete in rediculous events such as the TDF. Therefore in order to compete at the top level in this sport some medical assistance is going to be required (it really would not be possible without a dr). The rules exist in order to regulate the level of medical assistance in order to create a level playing field. To this end Wiggins is as "clean" as they come.
Just because team SKY over egged their clean stance for marketing reasons, does not make Wiggins a cheat. Since when has sport been anything to do with ethics? Surely any ethical issues are included in the rules, no?
Any comparison with Lance is ridiculous.
If the same level of scrutiny was given to Quintana, Nibali, Aru, Valverde (FFS), I'm sure similar medical issues would be uncovered. But there seems to be no interest in applying that level of scrutiny elsewhere.
Pro cyclist are not normal people, as such they require abnormal treatment to compete in rediculous events such as the TDF. Therefore in order to compete at the top level in this sport some medical assistance is going to be required (it really would not be possible without a dr). The rules exist in order to regulate the level of medical assistance in order to create a level playing field. To this end Wiggins is as "clean" as they come.
Pretty much sums up why pro cycling isn't "clean" and never will be as the audience ultimately wants to see the human physiology pushed to the extreme by any means necessary.
Isn't it about now that someone brings up NSAIDs
Since when has sport been anything to do with ethics? Surely any ethical issues are included in the rules, no?
What? You obviously don't believe in the Olympic 'ideal' then.
Sky played the ethics card right from the get go. No, it doesn't [i]make[/i] Wiggins a cheat, doesn't make him 'clean' either....
I thought it naïve that the MPS couldn't understand why he wouldn't take an OTC medicine. There is absolutely no way that anyone as tested as Wiggins would just source of local OTC product in another country due to problems with cross contamination.
Plenty of sportsmen have failed tests due to unknown added extra components. OTC does not mean not prohibited.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-former-doctor-likens-fluimucil-story-to-the-armstrong-days/
Steffen's central point is that if the drug was needed why did Team Sky request the substance from the UK instead of simply seeking out a local pharmacy. Fluimucil is available over the counter in most European countries but not in the United Kingdom.
As for the package, exactly what evidence is there that it is anything other than what DB says it is?
which "thing" that DB says it is? The thing that was destined for Emma Pooley, that thing? And it couldn't have been destined for Wiggins, because he'd already left, apart from the video footage of him still being there signing autographs outside the team bus? The evidence is that previous explanations DB has offered are demonstrably untrue, so his evidence no longer has any credibility.
I thought it naïve that the MPS couldn't understand why he wouldn't take an OTC medicine. There is absolutely no way that anyone as tested as Wiggins would just source of local OTC product in another country due to problems with cross contamination.
So why wasn't it a Sky employee that rushed a package of prescription drugs (that they can't find the prescription for) across international borders? Why was it a BC employee that had to drive from London to Manchester to collect it and back to London to catch the flight, if it was an emergency then surely you'd give the package to someone in Manchester to deliver? Maybe someone actually in your payroll? I assume when he faced the "packed bags yourself" question that gets asked before every flight Cope was honest and said "yes, but I've absolutely no idea what is in this jiffy bag I've been asked to deliver".
She rightly has an axe to grind but some interesting observations here
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/dec/29/nicole-cooke-team-sky-british-cycling
There's quite a few high profile caught dopers (Rasmussen, Millar) who have been swearing to the efficacy of kentacort
and including
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/jaksche-on-skys-tue-controversy-we-used-the-same-excuse-in-my-era/
The rules exist in order to regulate the level of medical assistance in order to create a level playing field.
I'm sure Wiggins appreciates you using his exact phrase. If you've followed the case and the arguments you might ask whether having an injected corticosteroid is appropriate and proportionate to treat asthma/hay fever (they seem to be used interchangeably in Wiggins' defence). It is usually considered a last-resort treatment where the next step is hospital admission, not riding up mountains for 3 weeks.
From
Dr McGrane points out that the British Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology say injections should only be used as a last resort and even then the side effects may outweigh any benefits. NICE guidelines for rhinitis treatment do not mention intramuscular corticoid therapy at all, instead advocating the use of orally or nasally administered cortisone
More troubling is whether the UCI followed its own rules concerning approval by the TUEC – the three-person committee who are charged with signing off TUE applications. When I contacted the UCI in the wake of the controversy surrounding the approval of an emergency TUE for Chris Froome at the 2014 Tour of Romandie, I was told by a UCI spokesperson that “it was common practice that, for straightforward cases such as asthma, allergic reactions, post-infectious coughs, sinusitis, the UCI’s doctor was making the decision.” That doctor was Mario Zorzoli.
From my last link, says it all really:
"It sort of reminds me of the Lance days, when they would come out with a story that the [b]believers would believe[/b] and everyone else wouldn't think twice about except for a handful of people and they would say, 'hey that really doesn't make sense,'" Steffen said.
I'd been a fan since he was a junior.
We used to ride with him when he was a junior, as we were in the same club. He didn't talk much then.
Thinking about it, I've got a bunch of his old track jerseys and skin suits in a bag in the loft.
Get them on eBay before the bubble bursts! Don't be like Planet X with Savilles old bikes.
Lolz
Im a big Wiggo fan but feel slightly uneasy about the TUE saga. The lack of clarity is disappointing and the fact that only exposed by the Russian's even more so. If nothing to hide, don't hide it especially given Team Sky's zero tolerance approach.
I'm not a qualified doctor or scientist either,
Why would that make any difference?
Which is the same thing with the Jiffy bag medical package, if it was just a decongestant why all the lies and shifting answers? And why would you need to administer it immediately ([i]after[/i] the race is finished....)?
Must be amazing to be able to win when you're in need of urgent medication.... 😉
For me the fundamental issues with believing in Team Sky (and therefore Wiggins) are
1. The history of cycling - we're always promised the clean new era, but it is always yet to arrive. Miracle performances tend to be too good to be true.
2. The multiple lies Brailsford has told thus far in this scandal, plus his attempts to bury the story. Why bother if it's innocuous?
3. Sky's recruiting policy has been fairly checkered - why hire Leinders, the most infamous blood doping doctor in the world, plus several other staff/riders with an obvious history of doping.
4. The fact that the whole team is consistently dominating other world class teams and riders, many of whom are known dopers.
5. The transformation of Froome from rider who got kicked out of the Giro for holding onto a motorbike, to the World's best TTer and climber overnight. Even Sky didn't expect this, as he was denied team leadership until it was too late in the 2011 Vuelta, losing to Cobo by a handful of seconds.
6. Ditto for Wiggins - he transformed from a 4 minute rider who couldn't climb, to a 3 week rider staying with Armstrong, Contador, Schleck etc.
7. Wiggins claiming he didn't suffer any illnesses during 2012 to it emerging he required performance enhancing TUE medication just before a Grand Tour, which is only needed in extreme circumstances.
I'd love to believe in Team Sky, but I just can't see how a clean team would consistently dominate doping teams, especially given what history has taught us.
Here's a few questions:
1. The Daily Mail must have some kind of idea of what was in the parcel, so why don't they come out and say what it is, because at the moment it looks like a glorified fishing expedition that's boiling down into an inquiry into medical record keeping.
2. Why has no-one questioned Simon Hargreaves, the independent ENT consultant who recommended the treatment covered by the Wiggins TUEs. Do you think he was suspect and complicit in 'wrong-doing' and if so, what would his motive be?
3. What dodgy substance would a professional race team have openly carried through customs? I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where something suspect would have been entrusted openly to anyone. It would be a mad thing to do.
4. Why does UKAD leak everything to either the Times or the Daily Mail - you know, supposedly confidential information including the provisional results of their investigation into Team Sky a week or so back as published in the Times and referenced by other outlets. What sort of publicly-funded, ethically-based organisation thinks that's acceptable conduct. Why are they not stopping their own leaks? Desperate for a day in the sun (sic) to boost their own profile and fish for more funding maybe?
5. What does UKAD think was in the package? This all comes from an anonymous tip-off to the UKAD whistle-blowing line. They must think there's something seriously wrong to spend this much time and effort on it. If not it's a waste of public money based on - presumably - an anonymous tip-off or an article in the Mail that they presumably must have taken seriously?
6. How is BC supposed to know what is in the package if it's true - and no-one's denied this, I think - that the UKAD investigators have locked down or seized any relevant documentation and, initially at least, told them not to do so. No, Bob Howden didn't come across well, but why would he make that up when it could be easily disproved by reference to UKAD.
7. The select committee? A cynic would say these are grand-standing MPs who know very little about professional sport, but are keen on keeping their profile high. 'Why did you not get the medication from another team doctor?' for example. One of them is our local MP. He told my partner that it was illegal for cyclists to pass a car on the lefthand under any circumstances. Really.
6. Ditto for Wiggins - he transformed from a 4 minute rider who couldn't climb, to a 3 week rider staying with Armstrong, Contador, Schleck etc.
He did that at Garmin (/Slipstream), not Sky. 2009.
Cycling has always been dirty is a crap argument and the peg that people use to hang their own prejudices on. The world changes all the time, that's how history works. It's a lazy, determinist, naive way of arguing. How about some evidence-based debate that goes beyond just making stuff up?
He did that at Garmin (/Slipstream), not Sky. 2009.
Yes, but we still don't have an explanation for this?
I bet you believed in Armstrong too though BadlyWiredDog? If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to make the same mistakes again. Instead of looking at what Sky's PR department comes out with, look at the facts: They're a supposedly clean team which has tried to lie and cover up it's way out of a supposed non story, whilst having a policy of repeatedly recruiting dirty team staff and riders, whilst transforming the careers, performances and physiques of it's riders and dominating dirty teams at a level consistent with US Postal. In my mind this justifies suspicion.
@joeyd, you listed it as a reason for not believing in Team Sky. Do you not believe in Garmin/Slipstream also?
(Just to be clear on my position, I think the overall TUE thing/mysterious package looks decidedly dodgy, but I don't think Sky are much different to several other teams. They're also suffering from their "cleaner than clean" position not being matched with reality)
I believe in Vaughters - he's seems pretty open, even posting on Cycling News' Forums to defend himself and his team - obviously they've had a scandal or two, Tom D etc, but I believe in their team as much as I do anyone. However they've only won one grand tour (off the top of my head) and they didn't dominate that Giro the way Sky have dominated in their victories. Edit: to clarify - I think the team as a whole is probably clean, but this wouldn't necessarily stop the odd rider from cheating.
Essentially I don't really see how clean riders would be able to beat doping ones over a 3 week grand tour, especially as climbing times haven't really slowed down.
I bet you believed in Armstrong too though BadlyWiredDog? If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to make the same mistakes again.
No, I didn't believe in Lance. I wasn't remotely surprised when he was busted. I am a historian though and I think your take on that is simplistic. But I've already said that once.
I simply believe that there are a lot of similarities between US Postal's and Sky's dominance (if you ignore the PR bullsh*t that both spout, and instead look at the actual evidence) and as such think they should be viewed with suspicion.
The time gap between the two eras is relatively small, with many of the same individuals still involved in the sport (whether as riders or team staff) for the situation as a whole to have changed dramatically IMO.