…opinion that is ( you can listen if you have work to do):
…opinion that is ( you can listen if you have work to do):
Tomas…having never spoken to you, and hence having never heard your voice, you don’t sound like I thought you would. Not good or bad, just different. Kudos on another editiorial. I enjoy your musings.
From a business standpoint, is it wise to place editorials and opinions on your website Tom since your are in the business of selling and are a retailer?
That’s a good question, and one we have pondered before.
Realistically, my armchair editorializing is what you’d get if you and I were in the store chatting about the same topic. I try to have strong but well-conceived opinions in the editorial section. I think people appreciate a perspective if they think it is well-developed, even if they disagree with it.
There will always be a segment of the population who either doesn’t like me or disagrees with me. That’s normal. As a person, I’m not going to dilute or change or conceal my opinions about our sport in an attempt to sell something. That’s what we have the glossy magazines for… 
The intent of the editorial page is info-tainment. Hopefully it inspires and informs and provokes thought and debate. Sometimes it inflames.
My biggest concern would be if people stopped reading (or listening) altogether.
Interestingly enough, the most read page in the history of our website was an editorial called “An Elite Athlete” about our involvement in the Iraq war written in about 45 minutes on the night of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Several *million *people read it and a story about it was featured on Inside Triathlon’s website and on MSNBC and in Knight-Ridder newspapers. The opinion was very polarized but became a mini-rallying point for mlitary athletes around the world. I felt good about putting that up.
My response to these things has been unidealogical: early in the current Tour I followed the evolution of each stage eagerly, and Cancellara coming out from the midst of the peloton to pass the sprinters in Stage 3 was one of the most exciting things I’ve ever seen in a sport. But as first one and then another rider tested positive, I just lost interest. I didn’t make any reasoned decision, I wasn’t outraged - I just noticed that I no longer cared about this event.
And yet, a couple of days ago on a 140km hilly ride with a friend, doping in cycling was the main subject of conversation whenever we had a chance to talk.
People are so varied that there will always be those for whom their own variety of cheating is OK, even as they censure others. People’s motivations are just as disparate - if I cheated I would be cheating no-one but myself, but how many people are going to maintain that philosophy when their livelihood depends on getting to, and staying in the peloton? How many would rather go into the Tour dirty than not at all, such is the allure of the its glorious name? How many feel that the price of being able to take part in the Machiavellian cameraderie of even a tough group ride can never be too high, even if their unaided body would never be able to keep up?
Cycling at this level is already dangerous - you WILL crash, and some crashes “may result in serious injury or death” - so OF COURSE people don’t care about ingesting or injecting risky substances. The tough old Euros probably think ‘fairness’ is for girlymen, and the peer pressure of the bad boys is formidable.
In movies and tv in North America a culture is revealed that also thinks fairness is for kids, and grown-ups ‘play hardball’: how popular are “Superheroes” with their unfair advantages! Almost all of my favourite tv shows find torture to be an important and necessary part of information-gathering, and circumstances are always contrived to make it urgent and ‘the right thing’.
I’m glad I live a relatively uncomplicated life - I rarely have to make decisions with a moral dimension outside of parenting two relatively nice kids. But all around…
.