I'm not about to walk away from a sport I DO love simply because it would remove incentive to support if I did so - that would be self-defeating. Then development and growth would simply stop.stampedingviking said:He has already directed his venom against (some of) those who deserve it.
What gives anybody the right to hurl accusations around without any hard proof (being anti-British and anti-Sky is not proof).
The OP should also have a rant against the (millions of?) viewers who sit there every year lapping up the TdeF and other races; if you weren't responsible for the viewing figures sponsors would start asking questions/pull out because it would no longer be worth their sponsorship $.
It's not just the riders, it's YOU, the faceless habitual viewer who is to blame.
But it's a bit of a straw-man argument - I didn't ask the riders to dope. I didn't ask the sponsors to let them dope. I didn't ask the teams or staff to let them dope. I have done exactly the opposite.
The riders? They are the ones who have tolerated, who have kept silent. We saw it again today. Quotes about RdG are very sparse right now, and at a time when media would have been hunting for them. I can only speak for myself, but I would have been hunting anyone out with a pen and pad, a laptop, a microphone, a camera to condemn someone who's apparently stupid enough to go buying drugs, and with vitriol. Especially if I'd just been made to look like a fool after lambasting critics.
This is not my doing. This is the doing of those whose inaction still reverberates around the world. People need to take responsibility for the hand that feeds them, not just say "I don't do it" and presume that absolves them of blame. It's such a morally objectionable argument to make that it's insulting to be insulted by them.
I believe (although I don't have the stats to hand right now) that both spectator numbers on the road, and TV viewing numbers have increased exponentially since Landis was busted, and I believe last year after Contador.stampedingviking said:What I meant (probably didn't make too clear) was if the numbers of spectators reduced because of 'scandals' at what level would it become uneconmic or would sponsors just continue anyway?