What an excellent argument for omerta. But it doesn't shed any light on the ethical concerns of the cyclists and whether they consider doping cheating. Maintaining the illusion of clean cycling is part of cycling's sales pitch--that's about as far as consumer driven ethics effects cycling.Thoughtforfood said:Um, in a consumer driven market like that, those people putting their money in get to decide the ethics. That's the way it works. Whether the guys doing the doping think they are cheats or not is irrelevant. If you think you will convince the general public that its cool to dope to win, you fundamentally misunderstand the current friction. If people are unwilling to spend their money in relation to a sport they see as corrupt and filled with cheats, then those people who don't believe they are cheating when they dope will have to find a new line of work.
For better or worse, cycling fans are more concerned with cycling appearing clean then cycling being clean. If cycling fans were only prepared to pay for a clean sport, then they wouldn't support the status quo and the continued domination of the old guard. Omerta and prohibition go hand in hand--supporting and reinforcing each other.
I don't have an answer. But I believe any genuine reform has to start with an honest (and public) dialougue between the cyclists and the doping enforcement authorities, instead of the top-down mafia-life system we have today.