Crmurphy wrote:
As most of the people throughout this thread have been saying, most of the Peloton was doping for 10+ years and likely still are doing so. Given that, how is proving that Lance doped and he is a "cheater" of any value?
If a sufficient case can be brought to show doping, and playing a major role in organized doping, then the value is in showing that cheaters eventually get caught. It also shows that drug use is not tolerated. Compare and contrast with the NFL where drug use is tolerated (though not strictly allowed).
Quote:
You argue that if we opened the playing field to allow anyone to take any drugs they wanted that the young athletes would not be able to compete...that to me seems rediculous. Below we will walk through an example.
That's a terrible example. Not only is it entirely speculative, but you assume systematic doping through the entire peloton at the start of Lance's pro career. Except for Lance, of course.
Think for a minute about how grass roots sport feeds the pro ranks. In your PED free-for-all scenario use would be almost guaranteed at the pro level, rather than now where (in road cycling) there is an egregious amount but there are still clean riders. Rather than treat road cycling as a special case (because of a chequered history) think about triathlon, or marathon running. If PED use was officially endorsed then more folks would do it. There would be varying amounts of drug use between people, but the pointy end of the sport would be almost guaranteed to be dripping with EPO (or similar).
So then how do top amateurs get into the pro ranks? By being faster and better -- so drug use to get there is more likely. After all, it's okay in your scenario.
That effect ripples down to the base of the sport where the majority of people likely won't take PEDs (out of respect for their bodies, among other reasons). Given this, it's very unlikely that a new young talent would make it to the point of being "spotted" and provided with resources so they can dope and perform at the highest level.
It's also totally morally reprehensible to suggest that that's in any way better than the current situation.
Quote:
(1) Adequate PED policing so nobody had the ability to cheat the system or be "ahead" of the sport's policing; or,
(2) No performance enhancing drug rules.
I would choose #1 EVERY TIME; however, you can't do that. Instead you have a flawed system that only catches a percentage of the population that is violating the rules, while allowing others to flourish by being "ahead" of the rules perpetually.
Yet you're arguing against trying to keep #1. Enforcement will only get you so far. In other sports, where the culture doesn't tolerate drug use, system #1 works well enough. Yes, some people will always cheat. A culture of clean sport is the biggest weapon against drug use and is what you're arguing against.
Quote:
In doing this, you're the one that is actually arguing for a system that rewards some at the expense of others.
Whereas you're arguing for a system that does what exactly? Rewards those who supplement their training with a targeted drug regimen...
Quote:
I'm simply suggesting that until you have the ability to ensure that we are all on the level playing field, you step out of the wy and allow us to level it ourselves...
echappist is the primary voice of wisdom on this thread, so I'm going to bow out and leave things in his capable hands, but this is why there are rules: so the individual isn't controlling how the game is played. If PED use is tolerated (let's stop short of allowed), then those who choose to use are changing the sport for those who don't want to.
Clearly we fundamentally disagree, so I'm going to drop it there and ride my high horse to work.
</html
----------------------------------
http://ironvision.blogspot.com ;
@drSteve1663