Dan L wrote:
Dan M the Second wrote:
I'd go into why Wigggins and Sky are clean, but who here really cares?
Go on, I do..

(1)  My understanding is that testing has got better and better over the years, but alongside that they have 'biological passports' which record blood test results over months and years.  It is much much harder to get away with it now than it used to be, and pretty much the only way is to take the same things in the same quantities every week (or day / month) year after year so that your white blood cell count (etc) doesn't have unexplainable ups and downs on it.

Also it is my understanding that some have said that Sky must be cheating because you cannot win convincingly like they have without it.  The flip-side is that based on publically available data it would appear that current stage winners are putting out less power over shorter distances than 10 or 20 years ago, and that if you were to chuck a decent but nothing special rider from 1995 into this years race there's every chance he would be doping and as a result annihalating the current best riders in the race.

Also Sky's success is basically down to money (buy the best riders - goo chance of doing well) and the theory of aggregating numerous marginal gains (often using technology) which has been the cornerstone of UK track cycling success over a number of years.  It's not like they're a bunch of no hopers with no idea who've suddenly started doing well.

(2)  Rather than coming from a traditional pro cycling background where doping was rife, Sky are closely linked to team GB and are new team - to be found guilty of doping would basically destroy the team and british cycling (including olympic track) and all those who would be criticised as being massive hypocrites fro their anti-drug stance.