5 ms·
They're still fighting a losing battle. The business of cycling dictates that they remain ever vigilant and attempt to catch dopers and keep the sport "clean",
by skeeter2020 2y ago
They're still fighting a losing battle. The business of cycling dictates that they remain ever vigilant and attempt to catch dopers and keep the sport "clean", while the science of what the atheletes are trying to do suggests they should just accept the reality and not police legal vs. illegal. It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point?
- skhr0680 2y ago> It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point? The point is to not die or be in a wheelchair by the time you’re 60
- matwood 2y agoIf that's the goal, then you might as well get rid of all contact sports - drugs or not.
- alistairSH 2y agoProbably a case to be made for doing that. At least with martial arts/combat sports, American football, and probably rugby (mostly related to brain damage, not broken bones/joints).
- pyrale 2y agoAlso to make it a sports contest and not a pharma contest. It's the same reason there's a minimum weight for bikes used in the race: people tend to disregard security when making lighter bikes, and the cost of experiments means that some competitors exit the sport because they can't compete on funding.
- Jean-Papoulos 2y agoAdmiring what human dedication does, not what human drugs do.
- alistairSH 2y agoI'm not sure I'd call it a losing battle. But, I agree vigilance is necessary. But, I also view anti-doping measures as more of a safety issue than a fairness issue (maybe 60/40-ish). First priority - prevent athletes (and their coaches/sponsors) killing or crippling themselves with chemicals. Second order - guarantee some baseline level of fairness (because without it, the fans go elsewhere). This isn't really different than rules in motor racing. Gotta keep the drivers safe first, and keep the race entertaining (nobody outside Italy wants to see two Ferraris dominate every F1 GP).