rekrunner wrote:
What do you think is treated differently here? This quote was implying that since we know that all nations in cycling used EPO
As I wrote, the evidence. The evidence for the statement below ("in cycling EPO abuse was universal"), and the one you just gave above, is imho weaker than the evidence for widespread blood doping in athletics both pre-1990 and post-1990. For example, in the retested 1999 samples of the TdF, "only" 12 out of 60 included EPO (20%), and 6 of those 12 were from Armstrong. For comparison, 54% of the medals in the 1500 and 11% in the marathon were tainted as per Seppelt's leak - which included only years with EPO tests, and some with the ABP in full force, so runners would have had to be more careful than the cyclists in 1999.
And that's just the TdF, while much less EPO abuse has been found in track cycling, or in the Giro and the Vuelta.
As cited before, blood doping seems to have been worse in running than in cycling in the last decade, which is the only direct comparison that we have.
We can also ask the Ovetts...
Yet in case of cycling, you use absolute terms such as "we know" and "all nations" and "universal", whereas in running you continuously act as if there is no evidence, especially when it comes to your favorite runners and nations.