actually the interview was more balanced than I thought it was going to be. Its a fair point that at this stage, after 100 years of "assistance" no one in cycling has the right to be assumed clean. Mind you Ive yet to read on here a Brit (or a Kenyan) saying "yes hes doping" do its nice to see national bias still holding good...
I'm British, but it's difficult to understand this thing about nationality. When Froome opens his mouth he speaks with a South African accent, and it's doubtful he's ever spent much time in Blighty, so it could be construed as a flag of convenience. Based on the way people talk, then the first Brit on this Tour would be Dan Martin (British Junior RR Champ; speaks with a pronounced Birmingham accent, but chooses to ride for Ireland, principally because all the funding went in to track, not road).
Froome: I could say yes, he's doping, but I don't know, so as I've said in earlier posts, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt until proved otherwise, which is my reading of JV’s comments. And I would do that regardless of nationality. I’ve followed every Tour since 1967, so the doping issue is nothing new to me, and nothing surprises me.
We also need to understand where British sport has come from. In the 96 Olympics, we won 1 gold medal. At the last 2 Olympics, it’s approx. 20 times better. The UK Govt put money into sport and reaped the benefits, but it’s about results. I think the catalyst for cycling was largely based on the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) of developing talent. The Brits envied the way the Aussie track team were so much better. The road was seen as far more complicated.
Then Sky came along and funded it to a level much higher than the other teams and I believe that’s why they are getting the results. However, I think in view of the witch hunt currently underway against everything Team Sky, I believe they have to divulge all their records to WADA. But even then, people’s prejudices will never be assuaged judging by some of the rants on here.