Originally Posted by
harlond
I don't invest in the notion that anyone is clean, but I'm wholly skeptical of the idea that you can tell whether someone is doping by their results. Somebody has to win the race, and dominant riders appear in every era of cycling. I don't know of any reason they should be absent now.
On the other hand, the advantage that doping products can give now seems bigger than the gap in talent. If a rider like Kolobnev is caught and it's been a while since he actually won something, it's hard to believe that someone who's totally dominating classics is clean (yes I know that you have to take tactics into account and that this season for example Kolobnev and Rodriguez made mistakes in that area... but just look at how Gilbert won San Sebastian, can't really explain it by him outsmarting others, or take the Eneco Tour stage before which he told everyone where he'll attack).
Also, were any of those dominant riders clean? Some of them might have been using less effective stuff but they were doping too.
And by the way, though classics are not GTs and perhaps it's easier to believe that someone who's dominating them is clean- the only other rider to win Ardennes triple in a single year is Davide Rebellin...
(I kind of wonder- even though I hate the guy- what Paul Kimmage thinks now, some years after he talked with young and angry Gilbert who couldn't find his place in cycling being sure it's because others are doping.)