User "numberonealcove" posted:
Honestly, what do cycling journalists and cycling fans want from the guy, other than to be less good than he is? His life would be easier if he wasn't so excellent — if he was ****tier at riding bikes fast. If he denies doping, well that's what Armstrong used to say too. If he points to the number of times he's been tested, that's a lame dodge, and again, Armstrong. If he recognizes — rightly — that there is no way for him to win these rhetorical games and refuses to answer questions, then he's truculent, defensive, and is clearly hiding something. In other words: Armstrong. These are the options available to him. Each worse than the last. The way out of this cesspool of a situation, it seems to me, is for journos and fans to recognize there is a testing regime and therapeutic use exemption rules in place. As long as a rider stays on the right side of those rules, shut up about doping. If you believe the rules are too lax, then advocate to strengthen the rules. All other issues besides are essentially unknowable. And therefore we should pass over them in silence, as we are speaking from ignorance. Don't **** on this kid from a height because you have a vague feeling in your bones that the sport is unfair. It's so hard to love this sport at times. Cycling fandom primes you to prefer mediocrity over excellence. We love to scrunch up our faces and wag our fingers at wrong-doers, like common scolds. That's the really sport for many of us — competitive moral superiority.