OK, let me see if I understand this. DeLuca has been banned from the WC and faces a 4 month suspension. The basis for these action are that his hormone levels are out of whack. We don't have a 'positive" doping test, yet he's banned because it looks like he's been doping. So, since we do not have a doping positive, we can only ban him for 4 months because it looks like he's doping. Because if he's doping its a two year suspension and a 4 year from pro cycling events.
Am I the only one that thinks this make no sense? Cyclists now can be suspended because it looks like they are doping? Is a strong break away win now evidence enough?
Even though I believe that doping is common in the pro peloton, this is too much the "doping Nazi's" Enough. Prove it or let the riders ride. That or just do away with pro cycling (and high level amateur cycling also).
Am I the only one that thinks this make no sense? Cyclists now can be suspended because it looks like they are doping? Is a strong break away win now evidence enough?
Even though I believe that doping is common in the pro peloton, this is too much the "doping Nazi's" Enough. Prove it or let the riders ride. That or just do away with pro cycling (and high level amateur cycling also).