Why is Doping Bad? It should be Legalized and here's Why:

[VeloFidelis]

Regarding the NFL reference; we make no effort to protect the players from the real long term effects of the sport (which are statistically mind boggling), so why should we protect cyclists from themselves and the effects of their choices which end up affecting their long term health.

I will admit that my blood doping timeline may be off and my references are somewhat anecdotal, but Emil Zatopek the Czeck runner and Olympian was linked to Blood Doping in the 50's, although Google gave me almost nothing. And I recall reading Anquetil's biography and references he made to a team mate regularly transfusion his own blood.

So a question to you; If the UCI or WADA is to attempt to create a blood value criteria to establish a baseline for an international athletic performance standard, would they not need a blood history extending several years to accurately asses an athletes current blood values? Is that even possible? or is a medically supervised program still the safest option for the riders?

 

[bikeGURU]

BigBoat, you don't seem to be getting the point of the other posters suggestions of why legalizing doping is a bad idea.

It is about safety and health of the riders and the desire to have fair competition. Their is no question that legalizing doping would result in more health concerns/deaths because riders would start doping earlier and more people would be doing it and they would all be taking more drugs. The teams with more support and medical know-how would go beyond what is considered legal and they would still be pushing the limits and 'cheating' compared to the less advantaged cyclists. That would mean the less supported riders would have to push the envelope as well but do it without the support needed. Same thing that happens now except everyone would be taking more.

Legalizing means that you have no controls and no limits on what people can do. If you do have limits and controls then you have the same issues that exist in the current system. Why wouldn't people race at 60-70% and hope they don't get dehydrated before the end of the stage and can get the crit down before they die in their sleep. Do we want to go back to the days of athletes wearing heart rate monitors and doing jumping jacks in their rooms at night to keep the blood flowing and hopefully make it through the night alive??

It is illegal in any country in the world for a doctor to support doping in sport.
There is no way a doctor would be allowed to heavily medicate people with perscription drugs or transfusions without a medical condition. This is especially true when one goal would be to increase crit levels above what is normal and considered healthy, so a doctor would actually be causing harm to the athlete by providing drugs and that is certainly not allowed and hopefully any doctor with any morals would not be involved.

If we follow your idea all the pro-tour teams should get out of the wind tunnels and start picking up drug companies as sponsors and become test agents for new drug trials. What better promotion could you have for a drug company than a rider totally jacked up breaking away from the group and cresting Alpe d'Huez 5 min faster than Pantani and then getting up the next morning and winning in a 250km solo breakaway over 4 HC climbs with another summit finish. They wouldn't have to pretend after the stags, they could have the dialysis machine at the finish line and do the interviews while the blood was being taken out and replaced with a new batch for the next day. The jerseys would have little vials in the back pockets in place of the image of clif bars that Garmin has. They wouldn't put the race winner on the podium they would bring up the doctors and researchers to receive the awards and kisses from the 'enhanced' podium girls.

When you legalize something you open the floodgates and anything goes is the new rule. At the youngest ages riders would be doping because that is what is expected once they are older. You can't have controls and limits when it is legal and supported/encouraged by the organizations in charge of the sport. The anti-doping efforts may seem like a constanly losing quest but they are not, they maintain some control over what people will do and keep things from getting completely crazy. Even if we can maintain the current status-quo that is a victory and I think we actually have less doping now compared to 10 yrs ago.

In response to the discussion of blood doping in the '50 and 60's I'm not sure when it started en mass but was certainly in full force by the mid '70's with Viren and other runners. I would be shocked if the cyclists of the 60's and 70's weren't seriously into blood doping (Merckx, etc)

 

[BigBoat]

BigBoat, you don't seem to be getting the point of the other posters suggestions of why legalizing doping is a bad idea.

It is about safety and health of the riders and the desire to have fair competition. Their is no question that legalizing doping would result in more health concerns/deaths because riders would start doping earlier and more people would be doing it and they would all be taking more drugs. The teams with more support and medical know-how would go beyond what is considered legal and they would still be pushing the limits and 'cheating' compared to the less advantaged cyclists. That would mean the less supported riders would have to push the envelope as well but do it without the support needed. Same thing that happens now except everyone would be taking more.

Legalizing means that you have no controls and no limits on what people can do. If you do have limits and controls then you have the same issues that exist in the current system. Why wouldn't people race at 60-70% and hope they don't get dehydrated before the end of the stage and can get the crit down before they die in their sleep. Do we want to go back to the days of athletes wearing heart rate monitors and doing jumping jacks in their rooms at night to keep the blood flowing and hopefully make it through the night alive??

It is illegal in any country in the world for a doctor to support doping in sport.
There is no way a doctor would be allowed to heavily medicate people with perscription drugs or transfusions without a medical condition. This is especially true when one goal would be to increase crit levels above what is normal and considered healthy, so a doctor would actually be causing harm to the athlete by providing drugs and that is certainly not allowed and hopefully any doctor with any morals would not be involved.

If we follow your idea all the pro-tour teams should get out of the wind tunnels and start picking up drug companies as sponsors and become test agents for new drug trials. What better promotion could you have for a drug company than a rider totally jacked up breaking away from the group and cresting Alpe d'Huez 5 min faster than Pantani and then getting up the next morning and winning in a 250km solo breakaway over 4 HC climbs with another summit finish. They wouldn't have to pretend after the stags, they could have the dialysis machine at the finish line and do the interviews while the blood was being taken out and replaced with a new batch for the next day. The jerseys would have little vials in the back pockets in place of the image of clif bars that Garmin has. They wouldn't put the race winner on the podium they would bring up the doctors and researchers to receive the awards and kisses from the 'enhanced' podium girls.

When you legalize something you open the floodgates and anything goes is the new rule. At the youngest ages riders would be doping because that is what is expected once they are older. You can't have controls and limits when it is legal and supported/encouraged by the organizations in charge of the sport. The anti-doping efforts may seem like a constanly losing quest but they are not, they maintain some control over what people will do and keep things from getting completely crazy. Even if we can maintain the current status-quo that is a victory and I think we actually have less doping now compared to 10 yrs ago.

In response to the discussion of blood doping in the '50 and 60's I'm not sure when it started en mass but was certainly in full force by the mid '70's with Viren and other runners. I would be shocked if the cyclists of the 60's and 70's weren't seriously into blood doping (Merckx, etc)

I just dont agree...You see, you talk about "fair competition", etc. I've said, only the top 50 guys or so can dope heavily on the Tour. Thats not fair one bit! Bro, we have a Tour rider on this forum riding the Tour; he's indicating this too if you read his posts. Its not fair the rest of the field has to dope with drugs like HGH just to keep up. If they wanted to ride clean that is.

Why not just allow everybody to dope, make it even, and call it a race! Your right tho, Lance should have Dr. Ferrari written all over his jersey anywats. As is all the Tour riders in the top 10.

As far as Merckx blood doping, there's NO WAY he did! Now Dr. Ferrari talks of doping individual riders during the 1980s... and that certainly went on with a couple guys, Viren himself says differently on your take:

http://www.byjamesraia.com/articles...-And-Running-After-All-These-Years/Page1.html

 

[longrun]

What better promotion could you have for a drug company than a rider totally jacked up breaking away from the group and cresting Alpe d'Huez 5 min faster than Pantani and then getting up the next morning and winning in a 250km solo breakaway over 4 HC climbs with another summit finish. They wouldn't have to pretend after the stags, they could have the dialysis machine at the finish line and do the interviews while the blood was being taken out and replaced with a new batch for the next day. The jerseys would have little vials in the back pockets in place of the image of clif bars that Garmin has. They wouldn't put the race winner on the podium they would bring up the doctors and researchers to receive the awards and kisses from the 'enhanced' podium girls.

I like this!
Maybe the first week of the Tour and anticipation of week two has an influence.

 

[_nm___]

bikeGURU said "It is illegal in any country in the world for a doctor to support doping in sport", but i am not sure this is true. look at doctor fuentes, the judges don't seem to think that he did anything illegal.

also, there is a very interesting bit in the official report to the investigation into the t-mobile team doctors (bottom of page 42 and beginning of page 43 (http://www.dopingkommission-freiburg.de/Abschldopussbericht.pdf)).

quickly translated: "i know that the university of Freiburg (...) have expressed the view (...) that it is perfectly acceptable to use performance enhancing drugs so long as they do not cause any harm to the health of the athletes. And basically, the home secretary shares these same views. The methods that have been tried and tested (...) in other countries should not be kept back from our athletes. Because this is the only way for us to keep up with the world's sports elite. And we do want to keep up".
this speech was held in the 70's by a secretary of the west-german home office who was passing by to inaugurate a new building at the university of freiburg.

zooming back 35 years later, doping is now illegal in germany (thanks, in part, to doctor fuentes) but i am sure the politicians are still eager for their sportsmen and women to keep up, and win medals. and thus there will be politicians who use their influence in many kinds of ways that hurt the anti-doping movement.

so within the system there are forces at work that try to impede progress. i think this is basically what eric boyer (cofidis) says in this interview to the newspaper l’humanite (http://www.humanite.fr/Eric-Boyer-Pour-moi-c-est-l-ecoeurement-total). but he is not narrowing it down to just politicians. he is talking about the UCI, race organisators, sports directors... and to him this is just a losing battle.

And it gets a little more complicated if we throw drug testing and blood profiling into the mix. some drugs are only detectable for a short period of time while others are not detectable at all. as for the blood parameters of a professional athlete, they vary so much between the altitude, the heat, the cold, the training, the racing and the recovery, i would be surprised if it wasn't possible to use drugs (or other products) to simulate these natural, roller-coaster variations while looking no more than just "suspect". And according to the law of diminishing returns, it will cost more and more effort to the UCI in order to catch fewer and fewer riders. Probably just another losing battle.

Anti-doping is expensive. It is much more expensive than doping. Saunier-Duval were planting trees. Imagine how many more trees a team would plant if it put all of its anti-doping money into reforesting dry land.

And why does the French tax payer have to pay for the UCI’s biological passport? Aren’t there any more important losing battles to finance in France? Like the one against unemployment, for example?

Anti-doping should probably be sized down, financially, politically and also in terms of publicity, so as to be more in proportion with what it can really achieve.

Alternatively, this could all be turned into a self-regulating circle where anti-doping does not exist, only law suits: there is a WADA List of prohibited substances, there is an extensive sample collection (urine, blood) at the end of each race, the samples are stored for ever in the World Anti-Doping Fridge, they are not tested. It is up to a rider to sue another rider for fraud at their own costs in a regular court of justice if /she feels that he/she has been cheated. Wealthy riders would probably donate money to WADA to help them develop new drug detection methods.

Jan Ullrich was actually sued in Bonn for fraud (by anti-doping cruisaders). By extension i assume that the scenario of a rider suing another rider is possible in Germany (and possibly some places else in the world).

if a complete legalisation of doping did not leave defenseless those who want to compete clean, i would vote for it.

 

[Cobblestones]

quickly translated: "i know that the university of Freiburg (...) have expressed the view (...) that it is perfectly acceptable to use performance enhancing drugs so long as they do not cause any harm to the health of the athletes. And basically, the home secretary shares these same views. The methods that have been tried and tested (...) in other countries should not be kept back from our athletes. Because this is the only way for us to keep up with the world's sports elite. And we do want to keep up".
this speech was held in the 70's by a secretary of the west-german home office who was passing by to inaugurate a new building at the university of freiburg.

The context in 1970 was the existence of East Germany which although smaller than West Germany, used to win more medals at the Olympics. It's hard to believe, but during this time, sport was much more politicized than today and then, too, there were no illusions about how victories had to be achieved.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I just dont agree...You see, you talk about "fair competition", etc. I've said, only the top 50 guys or so can dope heavily on the Tour. Thats not fair one bit! Bro, we have a Tour rider on this forum riding the Tour; he's indicating this too if you read his posts. Its not fair the rest of the field has to dope with drugs like HGH just to keep up. If they wanted to ride clean that is.

Why not just allow everybody to dope, make it even, and call it a race! Your right tho, Lance should have Dr. Ferrari written all over his jersey anywats. As is all the Tour riders in the top 10....

BB, I think from the above that you are making the argument that because we can never eliminate doping in its entirety that it is better to legalize it.

I have no problem if you hold that view - we can agree to disagree.
I have already outlined my counter argument and will just add one more point - which ties in with __nm__ observations.

Doping or cheating can never be eliminated - but that does not mean we should not try.
BB you say the top 50 dope - and for this argument we will use that figure.
I actually believe that that figure can be reduced significantly and indeed we saw great strides being made in the 2 years after Operation Puerto in 2006. Even though I have reservations about the biological passport ,I believe it is much more difficult to dope with impunity as was done in the 90's.

Here's a question -do you believe the UCI has done everything it can to eliminate doping? ...(thought not!)
Professional cycling can change its way's because it has happened before.

The day that Pro Cycling changed was Thursday May 25th 2006 - two days after Manolo Sainz was arrested.
Pro cycling - like all pro sport's - is fueled by money. The commercial interest dictates everything - and the Pro rider is just a billboard pawn that can be easily discarded to protect the King.
It took Tommy Simpson's death in 1967 before controls - which were inept -were introduced. I first learned of blood doping shortly after the 84 Olympics and I first heard the name EPO in late 1990 and yet the cycling powers turned a blind eye - even as the death toll from the new drug was on the rise. There was no will to change so a test wasn't developed until 2001!
There was no change either when we got a peek inside the back of Willy Voets Fiat and only a handful of riders have been caught through Operation Puerto.

On May 25th 2006 Liberty Seguros pulled out of Pro Cycling - suddenly the King was vulnerable.

In an instant - the same people who had ignored and often facilitaded sophisticted and widespread doping networks made sure they were seen to change their practises. Implicated riders were dropped - Ullrich and Sevilla were sent home by the same management who sent the rest of the team to Frieburg.

In the two years after Liberty pulled out there was more done in the fight against doping than in the previous two decades. But in the last year the momentum has wained - an example being the UCI, when they refused the opportunity of retesting the Giro samples for CERA.

At present however I believe it is only a matter of time before we have a new "Liberty" team scandal. After the Festina team was caught in 98 Festina watch sale's soared and they invested more money in the sport, but today's modern corporations protect their clean image so doping is no longer tolerated. The powers that be will be forced to implement the rules that they have hesitated to do over the last 12 months.

There is no one solution to the fight against doping - longer suspensions, heavier monetary fines, more and tighter controls, and the removal of the 'old guard' would probably be on the list - and I would argue that if this was implemented that it would be only the desperate and stupid who would dare take the risk.

The new generation of cyclist could perform at their best without being forced to make that difficult choice that is still there now...and that '50' could be reduced to single digit's.

 

[rhubroma]

I have reread your post - are you suggesting that recreational drug use is the same as PED's in sport?!
If that is the case then there is a massive difference - its a Friday so (hypothetical) if you want to go and do a line of coke or shoot some heroin then it doesn't effect me.

But if we are competitors in a sport and are at the same level and you start to dope then it does effect me. The advantage that you will get directly effects my livelihood - this then forces me to make a choice, dope or not dope.

As for your 'morals' and "hypocrisy' argument - all I can say is that I have no morals, so that probably does make me a hypocrite

But they're all allready doped anyway, and it is pointless to try and stop them. That's been my only point. Time to change strategies...

 

[rhubroma]

One problem with legalizing doping is that sport is often a way of living vicariously for the fans. This is especially true for cycling because most fans participate in the sport in some way or another. If doping is openly legalized then it breaks the connection between the fans and the pros.

So the current system is better? Where some fans know the sport is riddled with dopers, but either don't care or choose to look the other way? Whereas the other, let's say, naive tifosi, think the athletes are on bread and water only, so, if doping were legalized, they'd risk being morally corrupted?

And high school kids in America are already taking steriods in preparation for the high school football season and have since I played back in the 80's. Are they doing it because the pros do, or for there own personal glory?

I'd rather live in a world where there were less rules and more personal responsibility (and less hypocricy), like Amsterdam.

 

[Epicurus]

I'd rather live in a world where there were less rules and more personal responsibility (and less hypocricy) , like Amsterdam.

I agree. But we need more mental maturity to achieve such a state.

 

[BroDeal]

So the current system is better? Where some fans know the sport is riddled with dopers, but either don't care or choose to look the other way? Whereas the other, let's say, naive tifosi, think the athletes are on bread and water only, so, if doping were legalized, they'd risk being morally corrupted?

In the U.S. I am not convinced that the average fan knows that the sport is riddled with drugs. And I am talking about a largely U.S. perspective. What percentage of U.S. fans accept that Armstrong doped? I don't know, but I suspect it is a lot lower than my experience with like minded friends and Internet forum members would indicate. Legalize doping and then there is no question that dope is being used.

My point is will the fans at large view the sport the same way if they absolutely know that all the pros are doping? Even here we still get the "Evans is clean" or "Wiggins is definitely not doping" or "Sastre is Mr. Clean." What if all doubt is erased? What is the effect on the fanbase then?

 

[BroDeal]

I agree. But we need more mental maturity to achieve such a state.

So you are saying we are bascially screwed.

 

[BigBoat]

Mental maturity means accepting reality as it is. Cycling fans need to accept that the riders dope. WADA needs to accept that they will LOOSE and are loosing.

Drug testing is pure PR and has been since Tom Simpson, the only reason there EVER was testing in the first place. As of, They did not test for stuff like cow blood acto, insulin, IGF-1, HGH, Synacthen, human blood, eHG...

Still dont on a lot of counts. New drugs & synthetic blood comes out all the freakin time! Why continue to dilude ourselves. Its a big FAT joke. Allow them all to jack to 57-60% and then we see a show like we've not had since 1998. Pantani was a freak, Riis, etc. They all won their Tours at 59%. Lance did an does >> But with Lance he races in a field thats not fully jacked and against teams that are weaker doping & talent wise. So why dilute down his victory to pop, and cytomax and "hard work." They all work pretty damn hard. Look at Felliu, he's pretty damn skinny and he aint' gonna with the TDF...

The 2009 Tour is F-ing boring. LOL! Lance probably is paying Contadoper to ride slower, and he didnt listen. Now Lance is going to have to use some Dr. Ferrari "tricks" up his sleeve to teach this little *****;; who the damn boss is!

Cheers

 

[BroDeal]

Mental maturity means accepting reality as it is. Cycling fans need to accept that the riders dope. WADA needs to accept that they will LOOSE and are loosing.

Drug testing is pure PR and has been since Tom Simpson, the only reason there EVER was testing in the first place. As of, They did not test for stuff like cow blood acto, insulin, IGF-1, HGH, Synacthen, human blood, eHG...

Still dont on a lot of counts. New drugs & synthetic blood comes out all the freakin time! Why continue to dilude ourselves. Its a big FAT joke. Allow them all to jack to 57-60% and then we see a show like we've not had since 1998. Pantani was a freak, Riis, etc. They all won their Tours at 59%. Lance did an does >> But with Lance he races in a field thats not fully jacked and against teams that are weaker doping & talent wise. So why dilute down his victory to pop, and cytomax and "hard work." They all work pretty damn hard. Look at Felliu, he's pretty damn skinny and he aint' gonna with the TDF...

The 2009 Tour is F-ing boring. LOL! Lance probably is paying Contadoper to ride slower, and he didnt listen. Now Lance is going to have to use some Dr. Ferrari "tricks" up his sleeve to teach this little *****;; who the damn boss is!

Cheers

You might want to seek professional help, Flyer. You get crazier every week.

 

[rhubroma]

In the U.S. I am not convinced that the average fan knows that the sport is riddled with drugs. And I am talking about a largely U.S. perspective. What percentage of U.S. fans accept that Armstrong doped? I don't know, but I suspect it is a lot lower than my experience with like minded friends and Internet forum members would indicate. Legalize doping and then there is no question that dope is being used.

My point is will the fans at large view the sport the same way if they absolutely know that all the pros are doping? Even here we still get the "Evans is clean" or "Wiggins is definitely not doping" or "Sastre is Mr. Clean." What if all doubt is erased? What is the effect on the fanbase then?

I think society would be all the better for it, as it wakes up out of its stupor.

There seems to be at stake here a moral issue, no? Well I believe that a society whose power structure tries to severely regulate social comportments, because it can't allow people to simply take responsibility for their own actions for fear of becoming obsolete, but not the stock market: is a sick and perverse one, because it has lost sight of what's really important and what true immorality is.

Then there's the question of most everybody being terrified of having all the little children (and not only) loose their innocense. Innocense is so boring. And it breeds stupidity on the one hand, and hypocricy on the other

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But they're all allready doped anyway, and it is pointless to try and stop them. That's been my only point. Time to change strategies...

All doped?! ... Christophe Bassons - at the 90's at the height of EPO with no safegaurds or control over it didnt 'load his cannon'!

While I agree there is a lot of hypocricy brought up in the whole doping arguement in general - I certainly never brought up morality!

 

[rhubroma]

All doped?! ... Christophe Bassons - at the 90's at the height of EPO with no safegaurds or control over it didnt 'load his cannon'!

While I agree there is a lot of hypocricy brought up in the whole doping arguement in general - I certainly never brought up morality!

A case where the exception simply confirms the rule.

And you didn't have to bring up a moral issue, for that's what is at stake here in the perceptions of most.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A case where the exception simply confirms the rule.

And you didn't have to bring up a moral issue, for that's what is at stake here in the perceptions of most.

Well not with me - go back and have a look at my posts.

And I find it amusing that on the 'Lemond' thread you brought up his 'innocence' in not knowing the ways of the ingrained doping culture in cycling.
My point has always been that there are a lot of Lemonds with natural talent but who cant compete -or feel they can't - unless they join the arm's race.

 

[fatterboy]

legal doping

If all the top teams could use EPO it would be a more level playing field in the TDF and other top road races. Right now less than a third of the pack can blood dope with their own blood. With epo legal, everybody could.

Open doping would mean open medical advise, increased safety, and less underground doping leading to possible fatalities.

So lets discuss. he he he

I know there might be flames...So what.

I read a report on Elite sports people ,from 1980 to 1990 average age of elite sports person was 10 years longer the the average person from 1990 to 2000
they lived 10 years less why? DRUGS in sport this is the reason we should not have free for all doping and I would turn off cycling if this happened ,Idont mind when dopers get in our sport as long as they keep catching them.

 

[workingclasshero]

I read a report on Elite sports people ,from 1980 to 1990 average age of elite sports person was 10 years longer the the average person from 1990 to 2000
they lived 10 years less why? DRUGS in sport this is the reason we should not have free for all doping and I would turn off cycling if this happened ,Idont mind when dopers get in our sport as long as they keep catching them.

well to be fair, people over the age of 70 seldom contribute anything to society. good riddance i say. one of the good things about doping then i guess

 

[Epicurus]

So you are saying we are bascially screwed.

Mental maturity means accepting reality as it is.

I tend to agree with BB ...

When i confront a situation (e.g. cycling), i begin by considering the current state as the basis.
If my starting point is my "personal ideal world" then i'm not going anywhere. I'll be doomed to be a griper and a pessimist.

I don't object to doping in professional sports, as much as other guys.
It's all about entertainment for the fans and money for the athletes and the sponsors.
If i was as disgusted with today's competitive cycling as many people in here, i wouldn't watch at all. I would prefer to ride my bike and think positive. Where is the fan if i don't approve most of the practices of the cycling network? Waiting for the big change?
It's like being in love with a girl and she doesn't like me. Not very propitious...

There has to be a golden section, between antidoping agencies and athletes. No overreactions, no threats, avoidance of pompous statements etc We're talking about sportsmen, not criminals.

 

[R.0.t.O]

I see it differently actually. I dont see that their is a speed limit in Pro Cycling. For example, Dekker was far slower than Menchov and Evans 2 clean riders that beat all the best dopers. Armstrong is clean and was far faster than Basso and Ullrich who were blood dopers. Chris Horner is a clean rider but he went far faster than the guilty rider Jimmy Casper who finished last place in the Tour de France.

Sastre is clean and he is much faster than Ricco and Schumacher. Lance Armstrong says he knew Kohl doped because Kohl went from a donkey to a racehorse. Bradley Wiggins is a clean rider and he rides faster than Kolom did. Millar is now clean and he solod ahead of the pack at a far greater level than anybody else today. Cavendish is totally clean and is slightly faster sprinter than the previously suspended Pettachi who doped. Zabel used EPO but he was slower than Cippolini who was a clean rider.

Jesus Manzano was not a very good TDF rider, he only could get 40th or so overall. He used over 40 drugs and was still beat by top clean riders like Christian Vande Velde and Zubeldia who are clean.

Matt Decanio's Italian teamate took too much epo and had his hematocrit to high, he had to drain off 300ml of blood into a coke can so he could start a race. Decanio was a clean rider and beat him.

A clean Lance Armstrong dumped the doper Floyd Landis' 800cc blood refill down the toilet in front of Floyd during the 2004 Tour de France because Lance wanted his clean team to stay un-doped and Floyd to stay with Postal instead of Phonak. Floyd rode better the cleaner he got whereas the totally clean Lance Armstrong dominated the Tour de France 7 times.

Svein Tuft is a clean rider, he beat Schumacher and other dopers in the TT championshift despite finishing 26th years previous. So its possible to gain 20% horsepower clean.

Empirically, If there's no need for doping (this is very obvious based on all the clean champions like Lance Armstrong, Bradley Wiggins, and Christian Vande Velde) then there should be no objection to legalizing doping which does not hurt clean athletes. Dopers are slower than the top clean riders. Clearly doping hadicaps athletes, it is no kind of cheating.

That's awesome. Great work.