basilic wrote:Tinea, I'm not sure what your point is. Sure, lots of people are only mildly interested in cycling, and their interest has waxed and waned with LA's rise and fall.
But airwise commented about the forum regulars who persist in doubting Sky. He thinks that there is plenty of evidence that the pros are clean, and that people who doubt that are "overly protective of their emotions", ie irrational. That's where (reasonably rational) people can disagree. Pro cycling has thoroughly earned the distrust of many spectators over many years. Being somewhat skeptical seems very rational (to me), especially as long as the circus is run by the same people, with the same governance, as before.
Not sure what your point is.
I simply agreed with airwise.
You're not compelled to agree. But if I read the same thread as you, I see some pretty shrill and baseless claims being thrown around in here. On quite a constant basis.
The optimal word though is "overly". I'm not without scepticism, just not overly so.