<https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threads/what-would-it-take.12356/>
<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Following on from the Clinic Attitude thread and comments on there about burning the sport down to the ground to start afresh I'd like to ask people one question:\n\nWhat would it take for you to be convinced that cycling was clean?\n\nCould you also include your own position instead of just posing the question?\nTo be honest I'm not sure I have one. I'm more interested in understanding at what point people on here (especially the hardcore cynics) would say 'job done'.\n\nBasically - what would convince people that the war on doping has been won?\n\nWould a long run with no positives be considered as proof that cycling was clean? Would the removal of people like McQuaid persuade you? If the UCI hived off drug testing to, say, WADA, would that make you think that it was a clean sport?\n\nI guess my point is that if people have reached a point where they don't believe anything they're told and have settled on nihilistic cynicism as a default position, is it possible that they can reclaim a degree of faith?"
<https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threads/what-would-it-take.12356/>