I think BigBoat just falls into the realists' camp, given that illegal doping will never be defeated so it is pointless to put up this charade. And, in this sense, his suggestion is perfectly legitimate.Alpe d'Huez said:You don't really think people would stop at EPO, do you? Or at 50 hct, do you?
What about Cat 1's? Cat 5's?
My hct is naturally about 41. BroDeal's is about 50. What do we do then? Give him a TUE for expanders to keep things "fair"? Or is he just SOL?
Agree EPO is much safer than blood doping, but this is no answer. Turd's answer is the correct one, even if nearly impossible to get completely true.
But most people can't handle such a reality, as it goes against everything they believe to be morally upstanding. But in this, they are reasoning much more with their sentimental selves, than rationally, because it is irrational to believe, let alone think, that doping can be defeated by the so-called anti-doping war.
It's the same with the so-called drug war in general. First of all because you can't force someone that wants to alter their mindset to not take drugs, simply because they exist. The moment something exists, people will take recourse to it, whereas the only way to make sure that they won't is to totally eliminate the supply. But there are too many special interests to do so, especially by the same governmental miltiary and police forces who are supposed to be in charge of making sure that the drugs don't hit the market in the first place. Money, money, money, money. And fun. Don't underestimate the good time aspect in why drugs will allways be popular. It's the same with doping with the various mafia suppliers, unscruppulous lab producers, corrupt medical administrators, slimmy rider agents, tangential payments, governing sport bodies who don't want the lid to be totally blown, covering-up courts, conflict of interests, ineffectiveness of the tests, etc., etc.
And they work, so will always be used. I have always though that a better, simple because more useful, way to deal with drugs is to simple legalize them. On the one hand, the market would finally be placed under the control of the legitimately elected governments and not, as it presently is, in the hands of the various mafia and paramilitary organizations. The taxing of legallized drugs, could then provide a financial source for drug education programs in the schools and, above all, sociallized detox centers for the adicts. It may not eliminate the problem, but it would treat it without the hypocricy which is leading countless numbers toward serious drug dependency as we get under the current situation, with the effect that, taking the moral taboo off drugs (like the alchohol drinking ages, which just creates more young achoholics) you eliminate the prohibition factor. Anytime government tries to prohibit something, for reasons of public morality, that often creates a psychological reason to do the thing that's being prohibited. Without it such a psychological factor is eliminated and probably a major stimulus to break the rules.
But it is the morality factor, which is hypocritical, that prevents any real good from being done.
In any case, I have to agree with BigBoat and consequently not with the UCI, which is an inept institution filled with hypocricy and thinks only of its own profit than what would actually be the corrageous and decent thing to do. The way doping, its cultural reality, is being effected under the current management, is that the best paid riders have access to the best products, doctors and in the end, lawyers, who make their lives infinately easier for them than the low paid athletes who are forced to take great sporting risks (and probably health ones as well).
Naturally there would be the same risks in legallized doping as their are in illegal doping. But no system is perfect, though the current one stinks and is destined to only get worse in the future.