What's that thread? And the OP is supposedly a reformed poster? Has Usain Bolt ever tested positive for blood dope? I don't think so. So comparing him to a proven doper is doping allegation. I thought it was against the rules of this forum? Is it OK to suspect a sprinter while it's not OK to suspect a tennis player? Double standard again?
I find it amazing that Pharmstrong still makes debate 7 years after being busted. It's high time we turned the page. There are many more things to say about cycling and many more cheaters to be busted. He does not deserve so much honour and fame. All he deserves is despise and forgetting.
On topic, as someone already mentioned, he's ridiculously talented/gifted, that's not something you can inject.
This post is amazing. It implies that a talented athlete can dope. We'd turn a blind eye on it.
There's no hierarchy in doping. Valverde might've been very talented as a youngster, that is no excuse for doping. Quite on the contrary it's even an aggravating circumstance
. I, of course, won't justify a nobody doping but it at least can be explained. He gambled and lost.
Originally Posted by Johnny Groove
He is more likable than Armstrong. In interviews, with sponsors, etc.
Plus sprinting really fast for 10 seconds, it looks more, "human" or possible to do for normal people, at least compared to biking for hours on end.
1: So what? A likable athlete can perfectly prove to be a doper. That's not incompatible.
2: You don't dope because of the hardness of the sport. You dope to enhance your performance, whatever the sport.