Lake Palmer aka Monk wrote:
Yeh the gist is correct, but you've made out your Big Bobby Balco or something.

Actually the gist isn't correct as Dan M was alluding to specific reasons why Wiggins is clean, not just why cyclists in general are clean.

Otis - Well there was this one time I had a fly in my soup and that is a true story, it was only one those really tiny ones though, looked like a spec of basil, might even have been a midgy but waiter waiter there's a midgy in my soup would not have cut it.

Surprisingly even though I shouted it out nobody else actually wanted one.
My post was about cyclists in general and the sky team in particular.  I await dan m's insight into b. wiggins in particular - but i suspect that his allusion to wiggins was more an allusion to sky.

Don't get the BBB reference but I will say my post was a hastily written few paragraphs based on the fact that I am pretty sure I know more about pro cycling than most on this site - in no way was i claiming to be an expert on pro cycling and i certainly never claimed to be an expert on the science and history of drug testing.

I am pretty sure the gist of the wiggins allegations are 'he's a winner and you have to take drugs to win in cycling'.  The counter argument is 'everyone has slowed down, drugs are a lot less prevalent in cycling now and he is at the front because he is very good, as is his team'.