Re:
Cookster15 said:
No doubt I will be called naive but in my view doping is bad because it is too difficult to regulate to ensure safe and fair competition. The endless discussion of the entire Clinic is testimony to this. There is never unanimous consensus on the cleanliness of any rider after any strong performance.
But if you legalise doping there is still the safety of riders to consider. Riders have died from doping methods gone wrong. How do you prevent riders and teams from stepping beyond the bounds of what is safe to get an edge? The doping controls take too long to get a result and are affected by timing - when the tests are done. Because of this authorities can prefer to avoid bad publicity rather than prevent cheating. Perhaps if a comprehensive doping test could be done quickly and easily and give an instant results like a roadside police breath test it would work but I don't believe that is currently possible.
Then there is the possibility of genetic doping - how do you stop that? Does the UCI now need to consider getting riders to submit a hair or skin sample for possible future DNA testing to ensure no subsequent manipulation has occurred?
Plus sophisticated doping methods are expensive. The teams with the biggest budgets will always win. Yes bikes aren't cheap but Cycling is still essentially a human sport not like Formula One which everyone knows the best car and team with the biggest budgets usually win.
In my view doping in sport is like regular illicit drugs in society. The war might never be won but you never give up the fight. There should always be disincentive to cheat for the sake of fair and safe competition.
i) professional sport is not safe as a profession. This is an ignorance popularly purveyed alliterationz and held; conceded there are professions and vocations, far more unsafe.
ii) insider outsider rule. I think that the peloton's
self governance finds a neat equilibrium. Now, that qualifier
equilibrium, may be a logical fallacy, salient term is
neat equilibrium.
iii) do you have any right as an outsider, or WADA in Montreal, what endorsement delegated right does this extrajudicial body have?
iv) like someone has already mentioned, there is no ordained right to a place in the professional peloton, if you do not have the legs, you don't get a gig. You have an autonomy, well, a potential autonomy, to choose not to dope, and not to ride with a professional contract had you the legs to command interest from a team. No one is forcing you to dope, no matter the bull$h!t we have heard from Tygart regarding Zabriskie's testimony. He was Floyd's bestmate in cycling for chrissakes, and this tells you something, the friendships are not worth the blood you share in cycling. And Tygart and DZnutz! and their propaganda PR agitprop release about nasty Armstrong, well, they aint Betsy Andreu who may have credibility with her and her family's treatment by Prance, but this PR line from Tygart has shown the sham of the USADA prosecution, if someone like DZ had put his hands on a bible for sworn testimony, 1.I would crack up laughing at the implausibility of this line, essentially risible, and 2. swearing in on the bible would be felicitous with such a bawsh!t answer.
I think the peloton's doping position has found a sweet equilibrium, they know what they are getting into, they signed up to the compact, which does not mean they signed up to dope, but they signed up to this competitive environment. I don't think we have some amorphous stakeholder right to govern their behaviour. So don't consume the entertainment of the sport, or the shwag, or the other products. There is your vote.
Its Chinatown Jake.
Its cycling Joe.