- Mar 7, 2009
- 790
- 147
- 10,180
hiero2 said:Here is another good quote from the article linked
All this negativity - taking a rational suspicion and taking it to mean that everyone is still doping? It misses a major point being made by Vaughters and others. Namely, so what if some ARE still microdosing? The levels of cheating are down to where clean riders can compete again. So, either you choose to believe that at SOME of the people in the peloton are telling the truth, or you choose to believe that they are all lieing.
Personally, since even when the peloton WAS acting in concert, omerta, word still leaked out, and today we are not seeing NO positives, I think it is rational to choose to believe that some of the people are telling the truth. There may be signs that some riders and teams are pushing the envelope, but the envelope is also a lot tighter than it was. And, we are seeing clear signs that this IS, indeed, the truth.
Conclusion. Some riders are clean. Some are not - but the extent to which they push the envelope is not what it was. It would appear that it has been limited enough so that riders who are clean can compete.
And, not saying it can not be further improved, but isn't that, ultimately, the point? You will never have a situation where people are not trying to push the envelope. People are human (tautology). Human nature and failings do not go away. Which is why we have governments and systems - to minimize the impact of the failings. I think that is what is being sought here - to get rid of human nature as part of the equation.
Oh - btw - I am pretty sure Beno will say he chooses to believe that they are all still lieing. I don't think that is even possible, much less likely, but I choose to believe that they are NOT all still lieing. I think that the omerta was only made possible because of the quite limited nature of the existing subculture then. It had a very limited membership, and a relatively stable membership, with a long path to entry, and relatively high barriers to entry. With the commercial success of cycling, that began to change, and continues to change.
Good post, Hiero.
I think we need to take a pragmatic approach (and possibly one the UCI has already taken with the biopassport) in that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eradicate doping, but it is possible to reduce the impact of it, and the levels to which a rider can dope. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the freewheeling 90s. The Armstrong docs were on TV in the UK over the weekend, and I had forgotten how he he often had to brake hard going up and around mountain switchbacks
