Darryl Webster said:Peeps often comment that cycling gets a rough ride ( no pun intented!) re doping and is doing more than almost any other sport to clean up.
There may or may not be truth in that statement. However it realy isnt a "defence" is it?...its more a cry of "its not fair".
And perhaps it`s not, but then neither is doping and the extreeme cardiouvasculer nature of endurance cycling "benifts" more than possibly any other sport from the use of EPO.
Due to extreem high risks associated with EPO and a substantial number of deaths of young riders in circumstances that indicated EPO use this sport had to "be seen" to act.
Via the Biological Passport it has "appeared" to do so buts its become apparent that theres been cover ups and the passport has been used as doping regulater rather than a preventer.
How other sports bare up to scrutiny realy isnt our concern is it?. Should we allter integrity standards to the lowest tollerable standard?
I recently asked a pal of mine who`s realy into football what he thought of doping in football...he replied it didnt bother him and he didnt know any fan who was bothered. The perception seemed to be that doping cant give ya the skill to be a footballer..and I guess he`s right.
Cycling`s drug issue is cyclings drug issue. Whatever other sports do or dont two wrongs do not make a right.
while it cant give the skill it readily gives the muscle tone and the ability to sprint for 90+ minutes which is a big part of the modern game of football. the pace of the game has got very fast.
i do agree with what you stated about doping in cycling being cycling's problem.