ChrisE said:I responded to your question about "condeming". Then you wrote I was depraved in a rambling post.
Perhaps within that rambling post I should have responded about why others got sanctioned and LA has not? I have stated my opinion before about OP, but to rehash I was not a fan of sanctions because of it. Neither was I a fan of Valverde getting universally canned due to CONI.
If people get caught by AAF's, or others witness doping real time and report it then I am all for it. That is pie-in-the-sky but this all falls down to the riders.
Face it, most riders have no problem with doping and entered the pro ranks with their eyes wide open, and benefited from it. Recall the remarks of TH about the sadness and sense of cooperation to circle the wagons within the peloton when somebody got caught. Now, those that have gotten caught admit years later under desperate circumstances, and the jury is out on whether or not others that have implicated LA will ever get sanctioned in return for their cooperation. As I wrote up-thread this stinks to me.
Because the people in this mindset, that chose to actively participate in and benefit from doping, got caught means all that have doped should have the same fate retroactively? And, the fact that I blame the system and the riders themselves instead of one individual means I am depraved? C'mon rubarb, you can do better than this.
Anti-doping is like a chess game. In order to win the match, if indeed it can be won, one has to sacrifice some pieces to arrive at the king.
My problem with OP was that only cyclists were sanctioned, but not athletes from other sports, which demonstrates how pro sport is just all about money, nothing else. I can only applaud Coni for doing what the Spanish disciplinary board was not able or willing to do.
Any current rider whose testimony will be valuable in implicating Armstrong, even if not sanctioned, will suffer repercussions beyond the benefits for going unpunished, if indeed they will be left unpunished. Hincapie has, for instance, announced his retirement, while he and others have announced thier non-selectability for the Olympics; thus a de facto ban will be served. I can't grasp, therefore, what you are on about in these nonsensical posts: that is what you either cynically overlook or stupidly fail to understand.
As per your last inquiry: systems are made up of individual people, as much as it is easy and convenient to want to label them as abstract entities in the impersonal sense. But since it is not possible to take each of the individuals down all at once, you should know the justice system simply doesn't work that way, hence it is not possible to destroy the entire system by punishing all the guilty simultaneously. However the foundation can be made brittle, or indeed be dealt a lethal blow, if certain key figures be brought to task, which leads to the whole building crashing down. In the case of Lance Armstrong and pro cycling, this is potentially such a case. Because if the accusations being made against him pan out to be confirmed in the arbitration hearings, as should be the case if there is any decency left in the judicial process, then Heine and Pat risk BIG TIME.