ustabe said:This libertarian-sounding argument keeps coming up, usually from observers who know nothing about the sport beyond the Tour de France (and maybe the Olympic games), or recreational riders who have never competed and have little contact with those who have. They seem to have no patience for the process of fighting doping, so they propose legalization in order to make it go away.
Among my acquaintances and friends, competitors and ex-racers are invariably against doping. They understand how it corrupts competition, that it is dangerous, and that it would be impossible to conduct ethical youth and amateur development programs with legalized doping at the top levels.
For many spectators sport is just entertainment. For those who have participated, though, in any sport and at any level, it is a serious and honorable endeavor. For those who are impatient with doping controversies I'd like to say shut up and enjoy the story, you aren't paying for it anyway.
I guess doping needs to be """""""illegal""""""" so that more young men can be seduced into joining the dope-saturated professional ranks (like Zabriskie, for example). That argument, to me, just reinforces the in-your-face hypocrisy of the "serious and honorable" "sport" of professional cycling. That argument is ridiculous to me.
The only argument that makes sense to me is that we MUST regulate professional cyclists because they are dishonorable people who will literally dope themselves to death to win unless they are carefully regulated. Many of them are literally too stupid to live without adult supervision.
The bottom line is that I agree with you. Doping must be "illegal."