JMBeaushrimp said:
Whoa, buddy...
So clean riders have no right to complain unless they're willing to speak out? And 'the present system effectively makes speaking out taboo' (your quote)?
I'm entirely missing your argument...
As to your quote of: 'The attitude is ingrained in the culture and history of the sport'. So? All of culture has some obsolete ingrained beliefs that have out-lived their welcome. The attitudes change through force once it has been commonly believed that those attitudes have no more relevance (or are actually self-destructive to society or the culture in which they're prevalent). IE: emancipation, the sufferagettes, reconcilitation commissions, etc, etc.
I'm still not clear whether you think riders should speak out or not, and whether doping should be fought against. Clarify?
I don't have clear opinions on those subjects (the solutions for which are dependent on context)--I'm more interested in attacking attitudes and opinions that I think are unhealthy and/or counter-productive (I enjoy playing the devil's advocate). I'd certainly prefer an open environment where doping is rejected. But the facts on the ground suggest that desire is utopian.
The orginal point was that the riders do not consider doping cheating--which I don't believe is very controversial at all tbh. I was trying to illustrate why that is---not defend doping per se. I suppose I'd also add that the desire to gain advantage is to some extent 'natural', and 'force' can only go so far in supressing these desires.
If the riders feel their safety and integrity are being compromised, then they should speak out. But it's not productive or possible to do so in the current environment. Prohibition (and its companion, omerta) is a big part of that environment. I have argued that, paradoxically, the very people who demand zero tolerance tend to be the ones who reinforce the status quo and make the maintenance of omerta cycling's #1 priority. Sponsors and fans cry out for reforms, but are easily palliated by phony measures, which end up reinforcing the omerta code. I confess I wish fans were more interested in helping the cyclists ennoble their sport than they are in condemning the latest sacrificial goat offered up to the public.
As I see it, pro cycling has a public attitude (zero tolerance) and a private attitude (tolerance) towards doping--in private, cyclists see themselves as unfairly persecuted by the authorities for persuing a noble occupation.
Once again, I don't have any answers. Maybe the status quo is best, and we should have faith that eventually the science of testing will catch up with the science of performance enhancement.
But my private opinion is that in order for healthy change to be possible, attitudes need to shift. Broadly speaking, emphathy is better than condemnation, and more conducive to dialougue and healing. No matter how unhealthy you consider pro cycling's attiude towards doping, it's necessary to make a greater effort to understand and emphathize with it, if you wish to heal it.
It's in this context that my own attitude has shifted. While anti-doping measures and regulations are absolutely necessary, the quest for a dope-free sport is a utopian and occasionally dangerous desire, which frequently head-butts with human nature. I find it sad and unfair that leading sports figures are required to compromise their integrity by actively lying about these matters, but I also understand the necessity of it, and that there are worse things in the world then sports icons lying. I believe much of the friction has been caused by the rise of new media making the old ways untenable, and no really satisfactory new model has been introduced, partially because modern morality will have no compromise with PEDs, and partially because its much harder to hide the PED use now.
This issue ought to be about the health and well-being of professional cyclists balanced with the importance of promoting cycling as a healthy lifestyle. What it SHOUDLN'T be about is catering to the vague moral feelings of society at large. I'd like a dialougue on whether it is possible to come up with a rule-set that the atheletes themselves can get behind and help self-enforce. To have that dialougue, then I think we (eg passionate cycling fans) need to be much more open to toleration/legalization. Otherwise OUR attitudes constitute another excellent argument for the status quo.