Seriously. An admitted doper and after all that’s happened he is still asked to comment? I’m not trying to be a troll, but why wasn’t he droppeed from coverage as quickly as Rassmussen? Is he more credible because he was a doper?
Given the documented history of the sport I have to wonder if strict application of your criteria would leave the commentary team as intact as you might hope. Speaking of which, was anyone else amused by the interview on cyclingnews with Breukink? I guess his seemingly slightly apologist slant towards Skeletor makes some sense in light of the events surrounding PDM in 1991-92.
Didn’t read the interview, but I’ve had a feeling that Paul and Bob seem slightly less willing to criticize the dopers. Their comments are generally more about why they’d think they wouldn’t get caught than why they would dope to begin with.
because they need someone more incompendent than Trouthead…to make him look good from all of his outrageous/stupid comments
.
Get over it.
Huh?