Doping has always existed in some form, but the problem I have today is the economic end of it all. It used to be that a rider of some talent could find success, perhaps doped, even likely doped, in a playing field that, if not completely level, at least wasn't excessively skewed towards team budgets like today. Of course the justification of this today goes under the euphemism of simply being "more professional" amongst the richest teams. By contrast, now if your team isn't well-financed by tens of millions of euros beyond most of the competition, you simply don't have access to the best performance science and hence best doping to stand a chance in the most prestigious races. Everything has thus been reduced to the hegemony of buying power and, in a numbers based era, the game simply loses it's appeal when the money factor takes control. Because the science of performance and therefore doping has become so sophisticated that only the largest budget teams net results. And this is true of all sport today, in which the widening gap between rich and poor teams, reflective of societal trends of the wealth gap in general, has created a kind of class system inimical to even the concept of a level playing field. If great natural talent alone should be determining, then it shouldn't really matter (at least not as much as it does today) whether you're on a 50 million a year budget team or say 30 million a year one in terms of having a chance to play one's cards. Yet of course it does. This has resulted in the proverbial cycling "at two speeds," in a way that simply wasn't the case when I become a rider in the 80s.