I mean, let’s face it. This is not new, but has been going on since the birth of cycling. Yet it is only very recently that there has been so much effort put forth to try to stop it. And it’s because of that, that cycling now seems to be taking such a public image hit. I’d say, just as it has been throughout its history, cycling would be just as successful as before and will be again, when viewers once again become blissfully unaware of whether cyclist are doping (although they undoubtedly are), or they just legalize it.
Is being blissfully unaware worth killing a few cyclists every year with drugs?
“Is being blissfully unaware worth killing a few cyclists every year with drugs?”
Yeah, probably. Cheating should carry a price, regardless of the mechanism for its enforcement. Maybe if we turned a blind-eye we’d either see the peloton dope themselves into a correction (perhaps spurred by a death or two) or we’d learn that when it’s well-managed it’s not harmful (or at least less harmful than racing for 20 days in a row).
The cheaters are worse for the sport.
If there were catchers and no cheaters, then things would look good, except for the occasional false positive and overly aggressive catcher.
If there were cheaters and no catchers, you’d have more cyclists dying and that ought to be bad for the image.
But, since pro cycling is in the entertainment business, they could be a lot more sensitive to the image they put out there. They could try more amnesty, probation for first time offenders, and other behind the scenes approaches. Not saying that’s the ethical thing to do – just that it might be smarter from a $$ perspective.
Dopers. Without dopers, the catchers would be out of a job (at least their current one…glass-half-empty people will always find some cause to crucify people over).
It’s all about the big picture.
The dopers.