The worst thing about doping - Lying

[Dr. Maserati]

Whatever works!
And yes, catching them early would deserve priority. Those already lying will not give up what they have until they are contronted with a positive test, and options to weigh.

The WADA code has proven very ineffective in keeping people from doping. The sports is stuffed with hardcoredopers, who came back to their old level. They learned how to not get caught. The sport is so educational...

The 4 years for aggravating circumstances seems to rarely happen. We say 8 for Papp, but that's media-conscious ruling more than anything, albeit fair.

Cyclists are just like people. They are born with morals. The system has proven more effective to convince aspiring pro's to dope (break WADA code, start the career of lying) more than it has had people determined to take on the doped peloton while clean. There are cases, but rare as hens that lay gold eggs. The rest keeps its mouth shut, or temporarily opens it when the doc has a special vitamin pill.
The system has the moral overhand. It needs to be broken.

"Cyclists are just like people"?
Ah, cyclists are people - and people are different, some have morals, some don't.

Your difficulty is you assume that people share your view of what morals are.

It isn't the WADA code that is the problem - it is how it is implemented, and when those of questionable morals are the ones implementing the code then it means that many left in the sport are those without morals - so they would ignore any type of moral crusade.

Don't tell me what won't work. Tell me what will.
Words are powerful. They make us believe in war. Defend agressors. And volunteer selling yellow wristbands.
Time that words were used to actual good! And why not start with the most rotten aspect of sports. And why not pick cycling. They all tweeet. Let's get it viral. How many tweets will you write, if it will keep one young guy or gal from agreeing to dope?

Why not point out that your viral campaign won't work? I thought you respected honesty?

Doping is a systematic problem - concentrating on the athletes will have very little effect. If you wish for a change, then putting realistic penalties for those in charge would be a better place to start.

 

[BotanyBay]

Cloxxi,

All we can have impact on is the consequences of their behavior and perhaps the methods used to bring them on. I don't think we need an ad campaign or a social media campaign. We already have a morality system in-place where it is well known that people are against this, and that there are consequences. If these people decide to be so selfish as to risk these consequences, there is little we can do to prevent it. Just stay vigilant. Maintain your boundaries and keep them well-publicized. When someone does something contrary to your values, don't cower and hide. Say something. That's being vigilant. When you see a bunch of kids on the side of the road vandalizing a building, call the cops. Always stay vigilant. Maintain the boundary. Not just for you, but for everyone.

The problem hasn't been an increase in nefarious behavior. The problem has resided in a lack of vigilance. The innocent are the ones dropping the ball. No one seems to have the guts anymore to make value judgements and let others know that they even HAVE any values. We as a society do very little to maintain our boundaries. We let them erode. Everything else is just the natural consequence of that.

The goal is not to eliminate evil. That's an unrealistic goal. The goal is to maintain balance. And we only get that through our collective vigilance.

 

[BotanyBay]

Such virtue and righteous indignation. Here's a thought: Take care of yourself. Concentrate on your own deficiencies. Improve your own moral fortitude. When you reach the highest levels of pious purity then you can lead by example. One thing I have noticed about those people who are at those high levels is they don't judge or denigrate others.

This is the attitude that gets us what we've got today. A selfish internalization and unwillingness to communicate our personal (and societal) boundaries to others. Society has never worked by trusting that everyone will eventually lead by example. They won't.

It's called having boundaries. Communicating the boundaries. Getting a sense of what the boundaries ARE and then adhering to them.

But to tell everyone to just stick to themselves, not judge the actions of others and to "just be the best you can be" is just pure poppycock. That's essentially the crux of anarchy.

 

[thehog]

Problem is its not lying. Not when its accepted and overlooked by the governing body.

The way to look at it is imagine your workplace now…

Say you can work for about 6 hours per day before getting tired. You need the extra 10%. Others maybe in your situation but you don’t know and they start to secretly dope so they can work an 8 hour day – which surpasses your 6 by two hours. This means they’re more likely for a pay rise or promotion. What do you do? Now we all know it’s not right to take drugs by the HR department policy. Whilst they perform tests on certain people it only occurs infrequently and often you’re informed ahead of time when a test is coming to flush out the drugs in your system – so there’s little chance of being caught. Occasionally HR heads down the mail room and they test the guys down there because they sometimes get a positive test for an entry level drug along with the fact they mail room guys don’t earn enough to know how to cover they’re tracks. With this environment the high achievers start to get real good – there are more and more people working full 8 hours days. Those who would get tired after 4-5 hours are now a long way behind so they start to dope so they can get out 6-7 hours out and not look like they’re so far behind – along with trying to keep their jobs.

With all of this sometimes somebody who is medium tier or higher tier gets caught. Not by HR but by the police who find drugs on an employee’s bag during a random search on the public transport system. What does the employee do? Confess? Blame HR? Blame everyone else? HR say they have a very strict doping policy and shows stats of the number of tests they perform. Every other employee who wants to keep their job says nothing. The employee caught goes down and gets caught up in lengthy court battle and police proceeding over the drugs find – what choice do they have but deny and take the chance they may get off or get to come back and start earning again.

You get it now? It’s not lying its survival. It’s not like these guys can afford to lose their jobs in cycling and go and become a doctor – they have no fall back – they have to keep their jobs. Put yourself in their shoes – what would you do?

I've been thinking about what to me is the worst about doping.
Having been a competitive cyclist, and now moving into other sports, I've at times dealt with visual cheating. Riding diving under a course barrier to overtake 30 people in one go on a singletrack jam, for instance, got me really mad. I was just as fast a rider, but had a better start, and still got stuck in traffic. Such is mountainbiking, deal with it, don't cheat for it.

We all know that doping could be a factor among those beating us to the line. There's always someone who'll sacrifice more to reach the same goal. Breach moral standards, take medical risks, and subsequently risks of being caught.
If we think doping tests will catch all events of doping, we are apparently near-podium finishing, but still very naive professionals. Everywhere else, it's just plain stupid. You need testing to get cheaters. A lot of it, in fact.

What keeps coming back though, and seems humanly worst than the cheating itself: the lying.
Doping leads immediately to incomplete truths, and when an athlete is asked for it, an outright lie.
Lying is totally allowed in everyday life, and in sports. Only when under oath, in a court of law, do athletes and entourage get in trouble when lying about doping. And even then, there may not be sports-related consequences in the form of a ban or fine.

Not only doping use itself is a lie, but due to the very nature of PEDs and methodes, every sports performance after the first offense becomes a lie. Your body and credibility are forever unfairly advantaged and scarred, the essence of fairplay is gone.

Athletes seem to think the lies about their dopage are not really lies, just part of being a professional atlete. It seems to me this notion must be addressed more than the morals of doping itself.

In these days of social media, what can we the fans do to address doping, to get to the minds of dopers? Launch a non-budget fairplay campagne that reaches even the coldest of elite sports' hearts, make it go viral on Twitter, Facebook, etc, addressing all our ideols and not-so idols??

The lying, it just gets to me. Lying is wrong whatever it's about. When you commit something you can't openly speak about in public, it should never be considered worth it. Nothing is worth having to lie to fans and family. Especially not if your sportsmanship is a significant part of your image, and this goes for nearly ALL elite-level sportsmen. Sport is big, but not worth lying for. Say it, tweet it, whatever.

Please offer your thought on how to address the lying. Make athletes see the seriousness, before they sell their sports souls to the evil that is doping.

Thanks,
J

 

[Berzin]

Personal responsibility, and holding the athletes' feet to the fire is all well and good, but it does nothing to dismantle the organization behind the scenes that is bigger than any one rider.

The doctors, the director sportifs who constantly manage to get recycled despite the obvious shenanigans they've been involved in (Bruyneel and his "super-team" make a mockery of sporting justice), the dug suppliers and the governing body who is very selective over where and when to pounce, and the joke that constitutes drug testing are all by far much more important than catching a single solitary rider out there.

Those who get caught remain silent for fear of retribution and the fact that they'll never get another job within this crooked system once their suspensions have been served.

Even when you stay silent and keep lying, there is no guarantee that anything will change. Landis is a prime example of this, which is probably why he decided to blow the whistle. He remained quiet about what went on at US Postal and when he returned, there was nothing for him in the European peloton. Meanwhile, Armstrong comes back and gets a rather dubious second place at the Tour. I'm sure that must have been the last straw for "Roid Floyd, so he decided to go public.

Only when the details of this investigation is made public will we see a chance for cycling to clean out the bile and maybe start with a brand new set of convictions based on sporting ethics and not who has the best drug doctor and the connections to skirt testing protocols.

 

[BotanyBay]

Berzin,

You know how I know that vigilance works? When I see people like Wunderboy and his crew go to extensive lengths to try and determine who some of us are. The machine you speak of is far more fragile than people tend to realize. Why else would they hop on the jet and burn $15k worth of Jet-A?

You speak as if Bruyneel is some fat-cat sitting pretty in his mansion. Fact is, just like Pauley Walnuts, he carries a shovel in the trunk of his car on a daily basis. Being crooked is a lot of work.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

without reading much of the thread. you never lied? you never cheated on a math test? I dont think you should focus to much on the fact that people lie, everybody lie, in every part of the world. Not just in cycling.

 

[thehog]

without reading much of the thread. you never lied? you never cheated on a math test? I dont think you should focus to much on the fact that people lie, everybody lie, in every part of the world. Not just in cycling.

That was the point of my post. Put the situation into your own world and then judge on doping. Too many here treat doping like crimes against Christ – its mealy survival. Keeping a job. I agree the Armstrong case is unique but for the majority of cyclists its part of what they do. It’s not the massive moral or ethical dilemma most on this forum think it is.

 

[ludwig]

I think a lot of riders lie because they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they tell the truth.

Maybe Pro Cycling needs to implement a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Would eliminate the need to lie.

LOL I think that's more or less what has been implemented once cycling got disenchanted with increased testing and convictions post 2008. The hardest thing is getting the journalists to play along.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Don't tell me what won't work. Tell me what will.

Retrospective testing, administered by a competent and impartial ADA.

 

[ludwig]

I've been thinking about what to me is the worst about doping.
Having been a competitive cyclist, and now moving into other sports, I've at times dealt with visual cheating. Riding diving under a course barrier to overtake 30 people in one go on a singletrack jam, for instance, got me really mad. I was just as fast a rider, but had a better start, and still got stuck in traffic. Such is mountainbiking, deal with it, don't cheat for it.

We all know that doping could be a factor among those beating us to the line. There's always someone who'll sacrifice more to reach the same goal. Breach moral standards, take medical risks, and subsequently risks of being caught.
If we think doping tests will catch all events of doping, we are apparently near-podium finishing, but still very naive professionals. Everywhere else, it's just plain stupid. You need testing to get cheaters. A lot of it, in fact.

What keeps coming back though, and seems humanly worst than the cheating itself: the lying.
Doping leads immediately to incomplete truths, and when an athlete is asked for it, an outright lie.
Lying is totally allowed in everyday life, and in sports. Only when under oath, in a court of law, do athletes and entourage get in trouble when lying about doping. And even then, there may not be sports-related consequences in the form of a ban or fine.

Not only doping use itself is a lie, but due to the very nature of PEDs and methodes, every sports performance after the first offense becomes a lie. Your body and credibility are forever unfairly advantaged and scarred, the essence of fairplay is gone.

Athletes seem to think the lies about their dopage are not really lies, just part of being a professional atlete. It seems to me this notion must be addressed more than the morals of doping itself.

In these days of social media, what can we the fans do to address doping, to get to the minds of dopers? Launch a non-budget fairplay campagne that reaches even the coldest of elite sports' hearts, make it go viral on Twitter, Facebook, etc, addressing all our ideols and not-so idols??

The lying, it just gets to me. Lying is wrong whatever it's about. When you commit something you can't openly speak about in public, it should never be considered worth it. Nothing is worth having to lie to fans and family. Especially not if your sportsmanship is a significant part of your image, and this goes for nearly ALL elite-level sportsmen. Sport is big, but not worth lying for. Say it, tweet it, whatever.

Please offer your thought on how to address the lying. Make athletes see the seriousness, before they sell their sports souls to the evil that is doping.

Thanks,
J

Good post and topic. It makes me think about the accounts by Landis, Hamilton, even Millar that emphasize the personal and psychological costs of lying to everyone around them. Certainly everyone can agree this is a horrific price to pay. But if doping/lying is the only way to be a pro cyclist, the reality is there's always going to be athletes willing to pay that price.

I agree to a large extent with opinions above that indicate moralizing absent proposing structural changes often has a negative or destructive impact. However, the fact is the OP is stating plainly what most cycling fans (and probably most pro cyclists) actually believe. The doping/lying certainly destroyed my interest in pro cycling and has always kept me from wholeheartedly recommending the sport to others, in spite of its immense grandeur and beauty (though I have no reservations recommending bike culture in general).

Certainly sportsmanship is important. But far more important is reforming the system to an extent where sportsmanship and integrity are possible without losing one's job. Legalisation or toleration of doping is the most direct route. We've more or less moved back towards toleration with fans/journalists looking the other way. Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective I guess.

If you want to enforce the ban on doping, then you need to reform the entire financial structure of the sport. Basically, there would have to be less reward for winning races (since winning requires doping). Each rider would get paid more or less the same, while ENTIRE TEAMS and especially sponsors would be penalized when doping happens. Even sponsorship/advertising money would need to go into a common pot. Granted, socializing the sport to this degree seems like a hard pill to swallow. But honestly I don't see any other way, because expecting the science of testing to catch up with the science of doping seems unrealistic at this stage.

 

[joe_papp]

aggravating

...The 4 years for aggravating circumstances seems to rarely happen. We say 8 for Papp, but that's media-conscious ruling more than anything, albeit fair...

Not sure exactly what you mean by media-conscious, but regarding the aggravating circumstances option, there was a case in which I was involved as one of the primary witnesses and the accused doper absolutely met the criteria for that additional penalty w/o doubt. It was just egregious his violation and he was not contrite in the least - didn't even see the possible benefit to himself of faking contrition. Yet the agency prosecuting the case wouldn't seek the 4yr ban b/c they didn't want to be seen as going after cycling (whatever that means). So the one example I know of, when there were aggravating circumstances that warranted 4 vs. 2 year ban...the penalty wasn't even requested/suggested!

 

[Cloxxki]

Good post and topic. It makes me think about the accounts by Landis, Hamilton, even Millar that emphasize the personal and psychological costs of lying to everyone around them. Certainly everyone can agree this is a horrific price to pay. But if doping/lying is the only way to be a pro cyclist, the reality is there's always going to be athletes willing to pay that price.

I agree to a large extent with opinions above that indicate moralizing absent proposing structural changes often has a negative or destructive impact. However, the fact is the OP is stating plainly what most cycling fans (and probably most pro cyclists) actually believe. The doping/lying certainly destroyed my interest in pro cycling and has always kept me from wholeheartedly recommending the sport to others, in spite of its immense grandeur and beauty (though I have no reservations recommending bike culture in general).

Certainly sportsmanship is important. But far more important is reforming the system to an extent where sportsmanship and integrity are possible without losing one's job. Legalisation or toleration of doping is the most direct route. We've more or less moved back towards toleration with fans/journalists looking the other way. Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective I guess.

If you want to enforce the ban on doping, then you need to reform the entire financial structure of the sport. Basically, there would have to be less reward for winning races (since winning requires doping). Each rider would get paid more or less the same, while ENTIRE TEAMS and especially sponsors would be penalized when doping happens. Even sponsorship/advertising money would need to go into a common pot. Granted, socializing the sport to this degree seems like a hard pill to swallow. But honestly I don't see any other way, because expecting the science of testing to catch up with the science of doping seems unrealistic at this stage.

Thanks Ludwig, great angles.

If teams were truly held responsible for doping occurance within the team, they'd be forced to hang out together, sleep on larger hotel rooms with more men. No secretive seclusions with selected staff and team members. Only aggressive and intelligent OoC testing will put pressure on that. Yeah, reduce prizes, and use more for anti-doping. Not that you'll see that happening as long as the UCI is here.

I did lose my joy for the sport because of my insights to doping. What's glorious about an acceleration uphill if your doc is a Ferrari and the other guy's is a Daf?
And don't ever say that know the truth is a bad thing. If the truth is bad to know, reality needs changing.
I see my own accomplishments, especially in the races where I had the honor of being beaten by the absolute very best of the world, in a different light. I lost by miles mind you. Laps. But still, I now understand how they "did it". I was a bit of an ergotest miracle locally, but I was just blown away by those guys in races. No way I could train for that if I were mentally prepared to do it. But add 10% of aerobic power output to what I had there (>500W, certainly on-season), and things would have surely been different in races. Or just deduct 10% from the race winner's aerobic capacity, nearly the same thing.
Rather than being lapped in a Superprestige (I sukk at skinny tire riding), I might have been in a mid-fielder on good days. And hey, that's a really big deal.
I now only read the Clinic. I follow cycling results via what people post on here which is suspect, and I don't seem to miss out on much. I don't even watch the TdF (don't have a TV in the inhabited part of my house), but just from the doping connections, I know many names and teams, I know how stages unfolded.
I chose to learn the truth behind the lies, as it's better than to remain ignorant and wave a silly flag sporting a silly armback. Been there, done that.

 

[Cloxxki]

Not sure exactly what you mean by media-conscious, but regarding the aggravating circumstances option, there was a case in which I was involved as one of the primary witnesses and the accused doper absolutely met the criteria for that additional penalty w/o doubt. It was just egregious his violation and he was not contrite in the least - didn't even see the possible benefit to himself of faking contrition. Yet the agency prosecuting the case wouldn't seek the 4yr ban b/c they didn't want to be seen as going after cycling (whatever that means). So the one example I know of, when there were aggravating circumstances that warranted 4 vs. 2 year ban...the penalty wasn't even requested/suggested!

Thanks for chiming in Joe, good behind the scenes insigts.
Obvosuly I am not as well read into criteria and actual long sentences as you are. I meant to express that I got the feeling that your case was somewhat used to set an example, or used to portrait setting an example. If my bad English comes across.
It's rough for you that racing won't be an option for a while, even though you've eventually changed teams to help fight what you used to support. If I'd been in your shoes, I hope I would not feel misjudged. From a long distance where I am sitting, it seems fair. I am glad you didn't have to "do" time though, there's bigger crooks to fill the prisons, even within cycling. I do hope no-one will follow your examle, or will be able to get away with it for so long. It's almost funny that you were. Opening a webshop selling EPO is like the opposite of lying. How much more open do we want it to be? Someone is making money marketing the #1 PED hurting our favorite sports, online!

 

[doperhopper]

professional lies

Well, it's everywhere, many times lying skills are real core of the profession - from politicians through bankers or insurance agents up to "alternative doctors"... why the cycling have to be THE clean profession? Especially if most of other sports just take it (doping, etc) as part of the show.

 

[joe_papp]

Thanks for chiming in Joe, good behind the scenes insigts.

My pleasure, happy to contribute as long as the discussion is civil and on-topic, which this thread obviously is.

Obvosuly I am not as well read into criteria and actual long sentences as you are.

Go here and check out the WADA code around page 66 and you can see how they qualify violations and determine sanction (there's a handy little matrix, even). Article 10 starting on page 51 deals w/ sanctioning an individual. It should be required reading for anyone w/ an interest in doping, I think!

I meant to express that I got the feeling that your case was somewhat used to set an example, or used to portrait setting an example...

Ahh, ok yes I understand. I think you're right: the USADA realized the value in making an example of me - but not in the typical manner whereby only the negative is emphasized. Clearly I deserved a significant ban, but the degree to which I've cooperated and genuinely come over to their side needs to be recognized and highlighted to others so that anyone in a position to cooperate in a case sees evidence that USADA really does recognize that cooperation per the terms of the WADA code (10.5.3 Substantial Assistance...).

I've had such a good relationship w/ USADA that we barely even had to negotiate the penalty. I think the WADA Code stated that someone in my position facing a life ban (for trafficking after already having committed a violation and served a ban as an athlete) who provides extraordinary cooperation can get a reduction down to 8 yrs. But even still, potential witnesses might want to see examples of the agencies actually going ahead and reducing penalties per the Code so they feel there's less risk of getting a raw deal like the one Bernhard Kohl got from NADA, where they increased his ban AFTER he cooperated (talk about a disincentive for the next guy to help).

It's rough for you that racing won't be an option for a while, even though you've eventually changed teams to help fight what you used to support. If I'd been in your shoes, I hope I would not feel misjudged. From a long distance where I am sitting, it seems fair.

I feel more or less the same - that it's "fair." USADA followed what the Code specified and I avoided a life ban but still get pasted pretty hard w/ many years on the bench:

"If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this section must be no less than eight (8) years."

I am glad you didn't have to "do" time though, there's bigger crooks to fill the prisons, even within cycling. I do hope no-one will follow your examle, or will be able to get away with it for so long.

I'm glad I'm not in prison as well. I was quite scared there for quite awhile that I might end-up in prison b/c of how long the case was dragging out for and the major changes in the public's feelings during that period and how it could've influenced my sentencing. Still, one of the reasons why I've been so open and honest about how terrible the impact has been on me outside the sporting context is to encourage anyone thinking of going down the same path to realize that the potential risk is way more than just a time-out from your sport.

It's almost funny that you were. Opening a webshop selling EPO is like the opposite of lying. How much more open do we want it to be? Someone is making money marketing the #1 PED hurting our favorite sports, online!

I won't go into it here in any detail but there were definitely conflicting sensations regarding all that. On one hand the positive feedback from many very successful athletes about how great the service was and how they valued it and how it made it so much easier for them to obtain product was stimulating from the perspective of an entrepreneur. But later the shame of that same success weighed heavily on me when USADA asked me to testify at Floyd's hearing and I wanted to help them but hadn't yet figured out what I was going to do to extract myself from the Chinese relationship.

What really shocked me was how many non-professional athletes wanted to dope themselves and were actively seeking to buy EPO, and how we never had to encourage anyone to dope to make the business. The demand was already there. I know that what I did, when it blew-up, it hurt the sport, but it's strange to think about how little concern the end-user had for that possibility. I agonized over what I'd become involved in and what I was helping others to do, but never did I have a client who was anything other than wholly-committed to doping themselves, regardless of level.

 

[Cloxxki]

Thanks for the unexpected candid answers Joe.
A professional interviewer couldn't expect much better feedback, and you just wrote it down here.
I think you have a talent beyond sports and PEDs. If you are good at taking a product, making it available, and providing a-class info, make customers hapy, you can do that again with another product. Your natural drive to make things happen which made you a competitor in a tough sport, can help you get a more honerable future going. As you have webshop experience, by all means find a product you can believe in, and you can become an authority in. Heck, start building webshops for people, aid them in setting up the logistics of world-wide distribution. You may find that a break from cycling isn't all that bad. There's a world out there we barely get to see looking out from the inside.
Whichever path you choose, good luck!

 

[DirtyWorks]

...Too many here treat doping like crimes against Christ – its mealy survival. Keeping a job... for the majority of cyclists its part of what they do. It’s not the massive moral or ethical dilemma most on this forum think it is.

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Even if Wonderboy is convicted and it survives appeal, the sport won't be any better off.

The current environment rewards the cheating and as a consequence restrains the growth of competitive cycling entertainment. More than just driving away peloton talent, the value system of the knaves running the sport discourages growth.

The cheating liars on the business side of competitive cycling as entertainment don't see it that way, of course.

 

[ludwig]

That was the point of my post. Put the situation into your own world and then judge on doping. Too many here treat doping like crimes against Christ – its mealy survival. Keeping a job. I agree the Armstrong case is unique but for the majority of cyclists its part of what they do. It’s not the massive moral or ethical dilemma most on this forum think it is.

The thing is, the media tends to portray those convicted of doping offenses or who confess to doping as exceptions and criminals, which in turn reinforces the (misguided) moralistic attitude among fans. If the media portrayed the facts in their proper context, allowing fans to draw informed conclusions, then this would threaten the livelihoods of everyone involved in pro cycling. Cycling journalists, like everyone else, don't want to upset the cart. Police and state authorities are in a similar boat--if they bust a dope ring and instigate a scandal then that could hurt the prestige of their local riders, or it could endanger the profits (and taxes) that events like the Tour produce.

Bottom line is financial considerations drive the entire process. Cyclists are not going to be interested in moral concepts that require them to sacrifice their financial future, prestige and security. To reform the mess we need to take away the massive financial reward for doping and the power to influence others that goes along with it.

 

[ludwig]

If teams were truly held responsible for doping occurrence within the team, they'd be forced to hang out together, sleep on larger hotel rooms with more men. No secretive seclusions with selected staff and team members. Only aggressive and intelligent OoC testing will put pressure on that. Yeah, reduce prizes, and use more for anti-doping. Not that you'll see that happening as long as the UCI is here.

I'd love to see a new governing organization that would be accountable to WADA. While its unfortunate to have to dictate spartan living and spartan salaries (they don't have to be THAT low, but they couldn't be TOO high) to these athletes, the bottom line is the profit motive distorts the sport and its ideas about proper sportsmanship. The temptation to dope is just too strong if it means the difference between a middle-class existence and a millionaire's existence.

And don't ever say that know the truth is a bad thing. If the truth is bad to know, reality needs changing.
I see my own accomplishments, especially in the races where I had the honor of being beaten by the absolute very best of the world, in a different light. I lost by miles mind you. Laps. But still, I now understand how they "did it". I was a bit of an ergotest miracle locally, but I was just blown away by those guys in races. No way I could train for that if I were mentally prepared to do it. But add 10% of aerobic power output to what I had there (>500W, certainly on-season), and things would have surely been different in races. Or just deduct 10% from the race winner's aerobic capacity, nearly the same thing.
Rather than being lapped in a Superprestige (I sukk at skinny tire riding), I might have been in a mid-fielder on good days. And hey, that's a really big deal.
I now only read the Clinic. I follow cycling results via what people post on here which is suspect, and I don't seem to miss out on much. I don't even watch the TdF (don't have a TV in the inhabited part of my house), but just from the doping connections, I know many names and teams, I know how stages unfolded.
I chose to learn the truth behind the lies, as it's better than to remain ignorant and wave a silly flag sporting a silly armback. Been there, done that.

I wished more fans shared your attitude. Surely nearly all cyclists are well aware that a system that requires them to lie ceaselessly to media and fans is distorted or messed up. A person who has to lie all the time is (generally) an alienated person, a person dissatisfied with himself, a person who feels forced to misrepresent reality in order to thrive or survive. It takes one hell of a strong individual to keep from self-destructing under that level of stress and that level of contradicting whatever morality one was raised in.

The material condition of athletes makes them akin to warriors and gladiators--deep down, these people prefer stoic and/or spartan value systems. Lying is not an easy task for such men. Personally, I tend to prefer those cyclists who simply stick to old-school omerta (eg silence) and refuse to propagandize for the status quo, even when such propagandizing goes hand in hand with media exposure and fan approval.

Unfortunately, truthful accounts of these issues makes the vast majority of fans uncomfortable. And it certainly makes the sponsors uncomfortable. Some who are aware of the issues simply have no idea where to begin to help, and so they retreat to irony and keeping a distance.

No system is perfect, and it's an offense against prudence to expect perfection. That said, doping in cycling is so messed up that you wonder why the riders don't rise up against the system. I suppose they fear they would just be replaced with new faces if they were to speak about such a taboo issue.