Tyler's Book

[Cloxxki]

This fascinates me. As I read Tyler's book, I was really interested in the role of Haven, and to be honest, I struggled with it. I know it could be explained away simply as a wife doing whatever she needed to in order to support her husband, but I don't get it. I sure as hell wouldn't help my partner hide from the police, so I wouldn't help them hide from drug testers. Morally, I don't see a big difference. I don't understand facilitating behaviour that has the potential to do massive harm to your partner... medically, mentally and spiritually. I don't quite see that as love.

Not speaking about Tyler/Haven specifically, but I wonder how much the partner plays in the psychology of the doper. If a partner actively facilitates doping, or at the very least is aware and remains silently supportive, how much harder does that make it for a doper to quit? By doping, the rewards are greater, the lifestyle is better, the fame is bigger. Is there a fear within the doper that their relationship is tied to the amount of success they achieve? After all their partner is supporting the behaviour that makes it all possible. By coming clean, and potentially sliding down the success ladder, is there a fear that along with their results deteriorating, their relationship will also? Or does the relationship become so entwined with the charade, that once the charade is over, the relationship is as well? Tyler alluded to this last point, but didn't go into as much as I woud have liked.
Does the doper, either consciously or subconsciously, seek out a partner that they know will support their doping?

I would be interested if there have been any books that have addressed the role of partners in doping because I find it a fascinating topic and one that I don't think is explored enough.

Don't underestimate the power of a woman's love. When they invest, they invest. They decide on their man, and they dig in. This WILL work. They go far in supprting/continuing the relationship. Totally accept violence, etc. Only when they manage to get out, they can really see how daft they were.

I've not been able to even find good info on Haven, it's too common a word for a Dutch IP address to get anything it seems. Anyways, she seems to have been in a similar position to Kik. Just no kids to show for it to offset the damage and hardships.

Having said all that, I wonder if I could even support wives of criminals being punished for their roles in husbands' crimes, as they don't know in advance what they're going to invest in. They get in, commit, and then get their deal.
Some raise the level of their husbands' fraud/crimes, some just do as they need to keep him safe or happy.

 

[Jalina]

Don't underestimate the power of a woman's love. When they invest, they invest. They decide on their man, and they dig in. This WILL work. They go far in supprting/continuing the relationship. Totally accept violence, etc. Only when they manage to get out, they can really see how daft they were.

I've not been able to even find good info on Haven, it's too common a word for a Dutch IP address to get anything it seems. Anyways, she seems to have been in a similar position to Kik. Just no kids to show for it to offset the damage and hardships.

Having said all that, I wonder if I could even support wives of criminals being punished for their roles in husbands' crimes, as they don't know in advance what they're going to invest in. They get in, commit, and then get their deal.
Some raise the level of their husbands' fraud/crimes, some just do as they need to keep him safe or happy.

Some women maybe. I'm a woman and I would sell my soul for no man. Maybe that is why I don't understand it, because I cannot relate.

Just in regards to your last paragraph... isn't that the similar excuse of the doper? They get in, commit, then get their deal? Doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished.
Everyone has choices.

 

[webvan]

Good points about wags but why not mention Betsy, she was the exact opposite and it didn't prevent Frankie from hitting the cookie jar too, albeit not for so long and not to such extremes but he was older and not a potential TDF winner.

 

[Jalina]

Good points about wags but why not mention Betsy, she was the exact opposite and it didn't prevent Frankie from hitting the cookie jar too, albeit not for so long and not to such extremes but he was older and not a potential TDF winner.

Yes but from what I understand, when she found out, she put a stop to it. Didn't facilitate, didn't silently approve. Made it very clear it wasn't acceptable to her. The most interesting thing to me is that their marriage survived where so many others didn't.

That leads me to another question... does the doper at some point look at their partner and wonder.. "Why didn't you try to stop me? Why did you help me potentially damage myself?" Does that play a part in the disintegration of things? I can't find anything that addresses these type of questions. Like I said, I was hoping for a broader dicussion of this part of things in Tyler's book.


Just to explain my interest in this... this was my area of interest at uni, sports sociology and particularly the sports marriage/relationship. Steve Ortiz has done extensive research on sports marriages (mainly NBA, NFL, MLB), but little to nothing on the doping elements. Can't find anyone else that's done ANY type of serious research on sports relationships except where it is in the context of the partner also being coach.
I reckon the roles of partners in doping is something that needs to be looked at and understood as part of the overall picture.

 

[RichWalk]

Just to explain my interest in this... this was my area of interest at uni, sports sociology and particularly the sports marriage/relationship. Steve Ortiz has done extensive research on sports marriages (mainly NBA, NFL, MLB), but little to nothing on the doping elements. Can't find anyone else that's done ANY type of serious research on sports relationships except where it is in the context of the partner also being coach.
I reckon the roles of partners in doping is something that needs to be looked at and understood as part of the overall picture.

That's a heck of subject to try and broach, as soon as you try and analyse the spectrum of human nature with regard to pretty much anything you are going to struggle to work out a provable rationale.

 

[fepate]

Some women maybe. I'm a woman and I would sell my soul for no man. Maybe that is why I don't understand it, because I cannot relate.

You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. A lot of people may disagree, but I believe that morality is relative. For example, a soldier in a war zone has a different sense of right and wrong compared to when he is with his family safe at home in a first-world industrialized country. Similarly, the dopers of Tyler's era were convinced that the drugs were a necessary and standard part of preparing for races. It was even sanctioned by the sport's governing body behind closed doors. They didn't feel that it was that wrong. And the wives lived in this warped world so they didn't see it as selling their souls. It was merely what had to be done to survive. Sure, not something pleasant, but far from the extreme negative perception espoused on this forum.

 

[Jalina]

That's a heck of subject to try and broach, as soon as you try and analyse the spectrum of human nature with regard to pretty much anything you are going to struggle to work out a provable rationale.

Yeah, it's not like I'm doing anything serious in that area. I've moved on to other things professionally, sports governance and business wasn't really for me. Sports sociology was a small part of it, but is still definitely something that interests me.... if someone else does some research I'll happily read it!

 

[Jalina]

You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. A lot of people may disagree, but I believe that morality is relative. For example, a soldier in a war zone has a different sense of right and wrong compared to when he is with his family safe at home in a first-world industrialized country. Similarly, the dopers of Tyler's era were convinced that the drugs were a necessary and standard part of preparing for races. It was even sanctioned by the sport's governing body behind closed doors. They didn't feel that it was that wrong. And the wives lived in this warped world so they didn't see it as selling their souls. It was merely what had to be done to survive. Sure, not something pleasant, but far from the extreme negative perception espoused on this forum.

Sorry, but to compare the choices facing cyclists with the choices facing soldiers? Really? That's laughable. From what I read in Tyler's book, even though he tried to talk himself into believing it was all ok, deep down he knew it wasn't. If everyone is sure it's all ok, why are they lying about it to their parents and family? That alone tells us that they know it's wrong. I don't buy into the "everyone else was doing it, so I had to" line. I don't buy it from my kid as an excuse when he's in trouble, so I won't by it from adults. Adults who should and do know better.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. A lot of people may disagree, but I believe that morality is relative. For example, a soldier in a war zone has a different sense of right and wrong compared to when he is with his family safe at home in a first-world industrialized country. Similarly, the dopers of Tyler's era were convinced that the drugs were a necessary and standard part of preparing for races. It was even sanctioned by the sport's governing body behind closed doors. They didn't feel that it was that wrong. And the wives lived in this warped world so they didn't see it as selling their souls. It was merely what had to be done to survive. Sure, not something pleasant, but far from the extreme negative perception espoused on this forum.

This is pretty much my view (despite your assumptions of the perception espoused on this forum). Let's call it contextual morality rather than relative morality though, just to avoid confusion with moral relativism which is a slightly different concept.

The simple fact that so much of normal life gets sacrificed by pro athletes might also play a role. Couples living that lifestyle must get used to setting aside many societal conventions and instead adopting the conventions of their peers. That habit probably makes it easier to fall into doper/enabler behavior without necessarily thinking all the implications through carefully.

It was pretty obvious that Kik and Haven would have been involved. The one I'm still curious about is Stephanie Mcillvine.....no squeak that she was a mule yet, maybe that 7hr grand jury grilling was just about witness tampering after all...maybe. She just seems quite entangled and invested in the whole mess, which begs an explanation IMO.

 

[trailrunner]

That leads me to another question... does the doper at some point look at their partner and wonder.. "Why didn't you try to stop me? Why did you help me potentially damage myself?" Does that play a part in the disintegration of things? I can't find anything that addresses these type of questions. Like I said, I was hoping for a broader dicussion of this part of things in Tyler's book.

They detach themselves from the morality of their decision and get consumed by trying to evade capture. I don't get the feeling that Tyler or Haven thought too much about whether doping was morally right or wrong. Instead, they were too busy trying to sneak around.

And that defines the role the partner might play. If the partner believes if it to be morally acceptable, which Haven apparently did, then they will stand by their man. If they do not think it is morally acceptable, then they won't. Bottom line - Haven didn't think they were doing anything morally wrong.

 

[Maillot Vert]

Betsy was quite vocal against Frankie's doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is pretty much my view (despite your assumptions of the perception espoused on this forum). Let's call it contextual morality rather than relative morality though, just to avoid confusion with moral relativism which is a slightly different concept.

The simple fact that so much of normal life gets sacrificed by pro athletes might also play a role. Couples living that lifestyle must get used to setting aside many societal conventions and instead adopting the conventions of their peers. That habit probably makes it easier to fall into doper/enabler behavior without necessarily thinking all the implications through carefully.

It was pretty obvious that Kik and Haven would have been involved. The one I'm still curious about is Stephanie Mcillvine.....no squeak that she was a mule yet, maybe that 7hr grand jury grilling was just about witness tampering after all...maybe. She just seems quite entangled and invested in the whole mess, which begs an explanation IMO.

I think it also touches on social proof. And the participants (ie the riders and to an extent their partners) are removed from "reality" per se. Life for the pro rider is nowhere near "normal" as perceived by society as a whole. It is a fantasy - riders even describe it as " a dream come true " - an ongoing one, and therefore, I would argue, suspending moralistically acceptable behaviour becomes easier to do.

Stockholm syndrome is real - not that this is an example of that specific syndrome, but is an example of the psychological impact certain situations, particularly ones of intense physical and mental pressure - can induce.

It is probably not what I would do, but I can understand helping your partner with their doping, with doing what they need to do. I think it is a lot harder to understand the change a rider at Tyler's level goes through - physically.

I have a friend who got close, and was obsessed with weight. He got to that point Tyler describes - the translucent quality - and he stopped sweating. I think at that point the caring kicks in harder than the "don't cheat" values - particularly if the rider is going to do it, and you know he / she has committed.

Reading Rough Ride is an eye opener, if you can get pass the "sorry for himself" first few pages.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Regarding the positives for TH and FLandis, how can you tell where the incompetence ends and the corruption begins?

The preponderance of the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of "negative" doping controls are erroneous. Why should we not expect the same level of incompetence with the "positive" test results? Based on my close examination of the WADA data published in FLandis' "Positively False," I remain convinced the only thing positive about that result was the incompetence of the lab tech.

Then there's TH's positive(s) for homologous transfusions. Tyler unequivocally states he never did and never would. If true, that leaves just two possibilities. Either Dr Feelgood Fuentes gave him a bag of someone else's blood, or WADA botched that analysis as well. I'll leave it to your own Occam's razor to decide whether it is more likely that the famous Dr Fuentes made such an elemental blunder, or that the WADA lab blew yet another one.

Those I think primarily are attributable to WADA's overreaching. I think either the medical technology does not exist to do what they claim they can (with a high degree of certainty), or they do not properly manage the processes at their disposal (= are incompetent). Regardless, I think there is ample evidence that they have promised a function they lack the wherewithal to perform.

However, none of that in any way rules out the possibility of higgery-jiggery on the UCI's part.

Contador's positive for Clen, OTOH, has higgery-jiggery written all over it.

 

[fepate]

Sorry, but to compare the choices facing cyclists with the choices facing soldiers? Really? That's laughable. From what I read in Tyler's book, even though he tried to talk himself into believing it was all ok, deep down he knew it wasn't. If everyone is sure it's all ok, why are they lying about it to their parents and family? That alone tells us that they know it's wrong. I don't buy into the "everyone else was doing it, so I had to" line. I don't buy it from my kid as an excuse when he's in trouble, so I won't by it from adults. Adults who should and do know better.

But the issue is that adults are always doing things they know are wrong. And they talk themselves into thinking its an acceptable wrong even though they "should know better" whatever that means. Let's take another example: road speed limits. I haven't met anyone that doesn't routinely break the law when it comes to speeding. It's a socially accepted behavior that's not viewed as that wrong and it's ok so long as you don't get caught. You can go from there to cheating on exams in school, cheating on taxes, in relationships, etc... Don't tell me you don't have friends you respect that have done such things even though they "should have known better." You yourself have probably done things that you now regret. Come on, it can't be that hard to imagine the wives helping with doping in men's cycling if you're honest and realistic about how adults behave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Regarding the positives for TH and FLandis, how can you tell where the incompetence ends and the corruption begins?

The preponderance of the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of "negative" doping controls are erroneous.

This is a shortcut summary of WADA's side of the situation that is just not correct.

-There are three states of some tests, negative, suspicious, and positive. As the anti-doping rules are written, a suspicious is a negative. Are there false negatives? Yes, but the system is not designed to protect against them. It's designed to eliminate false positives.

-There is no doubt some of the test protocols are complicated and prone to error. This is an open issue, but not one that invalidates testing.

-Contador's clen positive test is a simple true/false state for a compound that does not appear naturally. The one that caught him was many, many times more precise than prior tests. Contador did not plan for a far more precise test.

-In Landis' case, I do believe it may be a false positive. This is said from someone with little knowlege though, so it is worth nothing. Within the context of the UCI, Landis's lightning speed processing and their bend-over-backwards allegiance to Wonderboy suggests there were other motivations. It's impossible for a joker like me to know way out here where the positive came from. But it sure is suspicious.

Do not mistake athletes doping to test precision limits for WADA doing a bad job, or the IOC/UCI designing an elaborate testing system to use as they see fit.

 

[Merckx index]

For example, a soldier in a war zone has a different sense of right and wrong compared to when he is with his family safe at home in a first-world industrialized country. Similarly, the dopers of Tyler's era were convinced that the drugs were a necessary and standard part of preparing for races.

Oh, come on. Where that analogy falls apart is that while it’s true soldiers operate under a different morality than citizens, everyone is aware of this difference, and pretty much OK with it. While there has always been a strong anti-war movement, most people accept that wars are inevitable, and that soldiers have to kill under some circumstances. Soldiers do not have to lie about the fact that they kill others.

This contrasts sharply with doping, where the outside world has been consistently lied to. UCI is not saying to the public, yes, these riders are doping because they have to. They are putting out this message that doping is wrong and that dopers will be prosecuted. The military analogy to this, which is clearly absurd, would be a clear-cut order from the President that any killing by soldiers is wrong, and occasional prosecution of soldiers who are shown to have killed.

The better analogy would be atrocities such as Abu Ghraib, where soldiers have mistreated captives, or other incidents where civilians are killed or raped. I have no doubt that some of the soldiers doing it have the feeling that they have to do it, that it’s a necessary military action. But, like dopers, they know it’s wrong, and they know they will be prosecuted if they get caught.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of "negative" doping controls are erroneous.

You are conflating “erroneous” with the inability to detect most cases of doping. The difficulty in detecting doping doesn’t mean the labs are incompetent. On the contrary, the large number of false negatives is mostly the result of very strict criteria put in place to minimize false positives. It would be possible to detect far greater numbers of dopers, but to do that would be to increase false positives, and we have already seen the amount of squawking that goes on here if it’s so much as suggested that one rider out of thousands might be a false positive. You can't have it both ways. If you want innocent riders to be protected to the nth degree, you have to accept that the great majority of dopers will not be detected.

Either Dr Feelgood Fuentes gave him a bag of someone else's blood, or WADA botched that analysis as well.

As discussed elsewhere, most likely his blood was mixed with someone else’s during the frozen storage process. This is quite plausible if there were a lot of clients.

I invite you to provide an example of WADA “botching” an analysis. Floyd’s T/E was thrown out, but that analysis was not botched.

 

[clotho2]

Interest in details..yes. Rumors of GH being Lance's bully boys putting the heavy on others. Not sure where I read that. Would love to know more. Tyler's book shocked me with details of how involved the wags were.

I think for me one of the saddest things about this entire doping scandal is realizing George Hincapie is involved. Somehow I romantacised Hincapie as nothing more than the super domestique he always appeared to be. Always there protecting armstrong, he seemed to be the 2nd in command in the TEAM. So I was shocked to read in TSR that Tyler only mentioned him in passing and never as one of armstrong's close traveling and drinking buddies.

My goodness even after Tyler left and Floyd came in Big George was still not mentioned as a traveling and drinking buddy(from Landis interview with Kimmage) with armstrong.

I'm interested as well to read what George had to say; what he actually thought of armstrong.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

...You are conflating “erroneous” with the inability to detect most cases of doping. The difficulty in detecting doping doesn’t mean the labs are incompetent.

They exist for the purpose of controlling doping in sport. To that end, they test athletes who are doped yet they fail to detect it. Whether you term this "incompetence" or not is irrelevant because the WADA are failing to meet their primary and essential obligation. That smacks of organizational incompetence, irrespective of the (in)efficacy of their testing.

...You can't have it both ways. If you want innocent riders to be protected to the nth degree, you have to accept that the great majority of dopers will not be detected....

Is that not a concession that my assertion is correct, that the medical technology to do what WADA purports to do does not exist?

How does any anti-doping program protect the non-dopers when so many dopers go uncaught and unpunished?

 

[Merckx index]

They exist for the purpose of controlling doping in sport. To that end, they test athletes who are doped yet they fail to detect it. Whether you term this "incompetence" or not is irrelevant because the WADA are failing to meet their primary and essential obligation. That smacks of organizational incompetence, irrespective of the (in)efficacy of their testing.


Is that not a concession that my assertion is correct, that the medical technology to do what WADA purports to do does not exist?

How does any anti-doping program protect the non-dopers when so many dopers go uncaught and unpunished?

You are correct that limits of medical technology are a major part of the problem, but this is quite different from claiming that it "botches" analyses. These limits are not WADA's fault, but in order to link these limits to organizational incompetence you add "what WADA purports to do". I'm not aware of WADA providing anywhere a guarantee that it will identify all or even a majority of dopers. It says it works towards a vision of dope-free sport, it does not say that it has achieved this, or even that it expects it ever will.

If you want to argue that the dopers will always be several steps ahead of anti-doping efforts, fine. If you want to argue that we should stop pretending that we can ever eradicate most doping from sport, fine. But I don't see the point in blaming WADA for what is mostly beyond its control. At best, you can argue that we should give up entirely on anti-doping programs, but to blame the specific agency responsible for them for what has nothing to do with the way the agency is set up or run misses the point.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They exist for the purpose of controlling doping in sport. To that end, they test athletes who are doped yet they fail to detect it. Whether you term this "incompetence" or not is irrelevant because the WADA are failing to meet their primary and essential obligation. That smacks of organizational incompetence, irrespective of the (in)efficacy of their testing.


Is that not a concession that my assertion is correct, that the medical technology to do what WADA purports to do does not exist?

How does any anti-doping program protect the non-dopers when so many dopers go uncaught and unpunished?

How do you detect autogolus blood doping?

Also, WADA do not do tests per se, they apply a standard for the many labs.
And WADA have also recognized the limitations of just testing alone - which is why they have also worked with law enforcement in broadening the net to catch dopers.

 

[Jalina]

But the issue is that adults are always doing things they know are wrong. And they talk themselves into thinking its an acceptable wrong even though they "should know better" whatever that means. Let's take another example: road speed limits. I haven't met anyone that doesn't routinely break the law when it comes to speeding. It's a socially accepted behavior that's not viewed as that wrong and it's ok so long as you don't get caught. You can go from there to cheating on exams in school, cheating on taxes, in relationships, etc... Don't tell me you don't have friends you respect that have done such things even though they "should have known better." You yourself have probably done things that you now regret. Come on, it can't be that hard to imagine the wives helping with doping in men's cycling if you're honest and realistic about how adults behave.

"Should know better" simply means understanding right from wrong? Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that for many doping isn't that black and white, but IMO it should be.

It's not that I can't imagine why a partner facilitates doping, but that's my point, we can imagine why, because we haven't heard anything from any partners in any sport as to their "why". We are only guessing. I struggle with it, because I would never do it. Perhaps that comes from how I view doping. Maybe it's easier to facilitate if the individual views it as beneficial and helping to achieve, perhaps it then becomes easier? All I think about is what can and does go wrong. I couldn't participate in helping my partner do anything that I view as self harm. And I view doping as just that. These are the exact qestions I have and wish were answerable. How exactly does the partner view the doping? How do they justify it to themselves? Is there something in it for them? Does it give them more power in the relationship? We can guess, but we haven't heard anything directly from any partners in any sport (that I can find). And those that refuse to facilitate, is it simply on the basis of it being wrong, or is it more about not wanting to potentially see their partner harming themselves?

I don't think it's always a simple case of standing by their man. I don't believe it's simply keeping up with everyone else. I believe it to be a lot more complex than that, and I believe the partners reasons for facilitating may be very different from the athletes reasons for doping. But until we hear something directly from partners, we will just be guessing. I should send Steve Ortiz an email and suggest a new research study...

And sorry for the mini hi-jack of the thread. The answers were something I was looking for in Tyler's book, but unfortunately didn't find. In fact, the book just raises more questions.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Should know better" simply means understanding right from wrong? Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that for many doping isn't that black and white, but IMO it should be.

It's not that I can't imagine why a partner facilitates doping, but that's my point, we can imagine why, because we haven't heard anything from any partners in any sport as to their "why". We are only guessing. I struggle with it, because I would never do it. Perhaps that comes from how I view doping. Maybe it's easier to facilitate if the individual views it as beneficial and helping to achieve, perhaps it then becomes easier? All I think about is what can and does go wrong. I couldn't participate in helping my partner do anything that I view as self harm. And I view doping as just that. These are the exact qestions I have and wish were answerable. How exactly does the partner view the doping? How do they justify it to themselves? Is there something in it for them? Does it give them more power in the relationship? We can guess, but we haven't heard anything directly from any partners in any sport (that I can find). And those that refuse to facilitate, is it simply on the basis of it being wrong, or is it more about not wanting to potentially see their partner harming themselves?

I don't think it's always a simple case of standing by their man. I don't believe it's simply keeping up with everyone else. I believe it to be a lot more complex than that, and I believe the partners reasons for facilitating may be very different from the athletes reasons for doping. But until we hear something directly from partners, we will just be guessing. I should send Steve Ortiz an email and suggest a new research study...

<snipped for brevity>

Firstly - what "wrong" with doping?
Now I admit, I am being somewhat facetious as I am strongly anti-doping, but I could ask 10 people that question and get 10 different replies.
More importantly - I reckon I could break down almost every arguement they put forward, bar one.

Probably in most cases a spouse or partner comes along after the athlete has doped, or is already established. The spouse would no more about the daily toil of being a professional. It is not black and white, but neither is it complex.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

Then there's TH's positive(s) for homologous transfusions. Tyler unequivocally states he never did and never would. If true, that leaves just two possibilities. Either Dr Feelgood Fuentes gave him a bag of someone else's blood, or WADA botched that analysis as well. I'll leave it to your own Occam's razor to decide whether it is more likely that the famous Dr Fuentes made such an elemental blunder, or that the WADA lab blew yet another one.

I'd lay money on the former. I think even Tyler finally realized is that maybe doping doctors aren't the best doctors. The dude was dealing with a 100+ clients when he was busted. How was he supposed to remember that many dog owners?

 

[thehog]

I'd lay money on the former. I think even Tyler finally realized is that maybe doping doctors aren't the best doctors. The dude was dealing with a 100+ clients when he was busted. How was he supposed to remember that many dog owners?

To clear this matter up once and for all; using dog names makes perfect sense and works very well.

The names translated the same in all languages. They were a constant for the multitude of clients for different countries.

Tyler couldn't use his dog name Tugboat because everyone knew it. So he used a number sequence from his friends phone number. This is where it fell down.

Everytime he recounted his number for a delivery he was translating the number via broken Spanish to a dslexic. It inevitably got mixed up.

 

[trailrunner]

How exactly does the partner view the doping? How do they justify it to themselves? Is there something in it for them?

We've already answered your questions: they did not think that it was morally wrong (except for Betsy). Once they reached that decision, it was just another aspect of being married to a bike racer, like filling water bottles before a ride. It's not that complicated.

Does it give them more power in the relationship?

You are over thinking this. Substitute "filling water bottles" for "doping" and you have your answer.