My impression of initial reading of the article on the race was that the male winner had been downplayed in the article, but upon second reading I get less of that sense. Complete omission of the male winner in the gallery article screams to me as editorializing by selective omission. Both pieces are under the "Latest News" heading. I do think if you were to ask Herbert if he was giving the male winner short shrift in his coverage because no one is rooting for his success in triathlon due to his pro cycling doping background, I think the answer would be yes. I don't expect Herbert to be so candid, because he cannot be, but that's my guess.

I think they should have gone the other way and put his picture up there with the caption Ex-Doper wins race. We shouldn't be hiding or ignoring his past. We should embrace it and get it out there for all to see.
M~

Most substances are not PEDs, most substances people think are PEDs are still not actually PEDs. When you come to substances that truly are - like anabolic steroids - you have to consider whether the benefit is something that is worth doing. In almost any conceivable endurance sport anabolic steroids are useless. Unless you are using them to 'cut down' but that process would be a death sentence for an endurance athlete since you essentially starve yourself when you 'cut down'.

The more actual scientific evidence I see regarding PEDs the less impressed I am with them. Besides my already established attitude that no drug should be banned for almost any reason for adults; the evidence is weak that they do much of anything at all. Then we get into the very ethereal discussion on what is a PED, should we be banned from eating broccoli and spinach? The most powerful PED, simply put, is food. Elite athletes are under a different set of pressures than amateurs and it is akin to an arms build-up. Even if you don't need that shiny new missile you might as well have it because the other guy might have one. That, in of itself, is not evidence that PEDs actually work or that they are a good idea.

To someone else's point; doping certainly doesn't make you 'evil'. Stupid, maybe. Greedy, probably. Evil, that is a much different judgement indeed.

I generally had the same impression as you. Keep in mind that ST staff is not huge. In an ideal world, there would be 2 articles. One that just reports the story/race results without delving into the background of the winner, the other would be a separate editorial article that provides an opinion piece on a former doper playing and winning.

If you think doping only starts when they get near the pro ranks, you are sadly misinformed.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

A picture gallery is always listed as a lifestyle piece and not news or otherwise. So who is in and who is not is either up to what is available or suits the style of the author. But I am sorry to have disappointed you.