You know even though this thread has been disparaged as silly/stupid/etc, it's actually turning out to be a fairly good thread--there are lots of interesting arguments here.
I don't disagree that doping is harmful and cheating and therefore contrary to what sport is supposed to be.
However the hard truth is cycling (eg the athletes, the sponsors, and the fans) has shown very little will to actually reform the sport.
Think about it peoples. Ever since 1998, cycling has been closely associated with doping. Chronicles of doping argue that doping because noticably more intense sometime in the early 1990s.
Yet the very men that pioneered these changes remain at the apex of the sport. McQuaid, Verbrueggen, Riis, Bruyneel, Echevarri etc. Even Saiz will be back soon--after all it was unfair to exclude him while Riis and Bruyneel got to go on as before. Most cycling fans make excuses for these characters. Or they argue among themselves about who is worse, failing to grasp they are all the same. If doping were so immoral, then where is the solution for freeing cycling from the iron grip of the doping DSes and doping doctors? Surely all of you realize there is no hope of reform with these men at the helm. But since all of these characters are easily forgiven for their transgressions, obviously dope and doping is not quite as immoral as some are making it out to be.
You could say that it's up to the cyclists themselves to reform their sport. Well, all indications show that the cyclists don't consider doping cheating. The only cyclists who are genuinely ostracized from the sport after being caught doping are those that decide to confess the truth about their doping to the public. You could say the cyclists only act this way because of necessity, but that necessity is driven by sponsors and fans in addition to the requirements of sport.
My point? Cycling fans care much less about doping then they care about their sport not being publicly associated with doping. And professional cyclists don't seem to view doping as cheating. Yes, most pro cyclists probably wouldn't support legalization in the sense of unlimited dope consumption. However its a good bet pro cyclists would support a testing regime that allowed limited doping. The only reason such a regime is not publicly discussed is because its bad publicity. So 'omerta' becomes the golden mean--the preferred solution for both cyclists and fans.
Yes of course, we can all agree that theoretically, it would be better if athletes didn't use dope. But in order to achieve such a lofty aim, fans and athletes and sponsors would have to get off their asses and try to support races that are actually clean. But as of now, the link between every major figure in cycling and doping is so strong that the testing regime lacks all credibility, and the fans know it. There isn't any genuine will to clean up this or any professional support, nor does anyone have an answer to the fact that doping docs consistently triump over the testers.
Now i grant there are worse things in the world then forcing atheltes to live a life of lies and hypocrisy--as is the status quo today. But one potential virtue associated with legalization/toleration that is too lightly dismissed is the opportunity for the athletes and everyone else associated with the sport to speak forthrightly about dope and doping, and for real knowledge about doping in sport to get out into the public sphere. As long as the rejection of toleration is as knee-jerk as it is here, then we won't ever get that public discussion. Athletes will get to keep on lying and fans will get the comfort of their illusions--everyone wins!
So here's some food for thought. Is it not plain that 'omerta' and the knee-jerk rejection of toleration or legalization are closely related attitudes that support and reinforce one another? Athletes won't talk about doping for a very good reason--because it brings bad publicity onto the sport. Which in turn reinforces the status quo, which is continued doping. The root cause of this (omerta) is anti-doping moralism. History shows us people's attitudes were not always this way--once upon a time attitudes towards drugs in sport were much different.
I don't have an answer to the problem. But to get an answer, we are going to have to start thinking out of the box and consider some new ideas.