This thread, as well as the others of the same kind, I find to be hysterical. I have one question to ask: WHO CARES? These are athletes we're talking about here people! They're NOT role models. They're not heroes. They're not brain surgeons. They're not politicians working on nuclear test-ban treaties. They ride bikes fast for a living - from point A to point B. They hit baseballs and throw touchdowns. Who cares what they use to get there? Flyer, you loser, why all the hatred and animosity? From the tone and style of your posts, I'm surprised if you even own a bike, let alone how to work one to make it go forward.
Why care? I'm not a doper. I never would consider it. Nor am I an advocate. But these are professional athletes. They do many many things that "normal" people wouldn't do. Do you want to ride a bike every day for hundreds of k at a time and maintain an unbelievably strict diet and have no other life than on the bike? Not me, sorry. Much like those of us who work 90 hours a week - many people just wouldn't do it, but you do to get ahead in certain professions. Is the stress of certain professions a health risk? Sure it is. Do firefighters and policemen and soldiers put their health at risk to do a job? Sure they do. There are tradeoffs to everything worthwhile in life. If the pros want to use drugs and advanced nutrition and insane training to get to the top of their chosen profession, and they've figured out a way to get by the tests (which they surely have), then why not? Do you think you would like to live life on their diets and training and 3% bodyfat and surely constant crashes and advance onset arthritis? Not me, I'd rather expend my energy towards other things. It's a choice and a tradeoff - I will never win the TDF. Oh well. It's a choice everyone must make, and if the playing field is indeed as level in cycling as it would seem to be, then what exactly is the problem?
Is it "cheating" that has you all riled up Flyer? What exactly is cheating but a set of rules made up by others who think they know how to promote the idea of "fair" play? Do you advocate rules in war? I shoot first then you and so on and so forth? How about in business? Employees are only allowed to work so many hours. Or how about in science? You're only allowed to use so much of your intelligence and not allowed to study to enhance your knowledge.
There are of course exceptions to all of the above (Geneva Convention, workplace safety compliance, etc.), as there are in cycling. For instance you're not allowed to get into a car and drive past all the other riders to gain time. These exceptions are made to keep the activity within the bounds of war, business, science, sport (you can't use a bazooka to launch home runs in baseball). But no drugs for athletes looking to squeeze every last bit of performance from their bodies? Come on. You'd have athletes all with 20% body fat on 30lb steel bikes with early 20th century hardware before you know it. What's next, limits on training? Only allowed to ride a certain distance per week? It's like the conversation on the UCI minimum weight rule. It's all completely ridiculous. Ride what you ride, do what you do - who cares? You want to be a pro cyclist? Well then, you're signing up to the risks inherent in the sport. And if you want to be the best and you're not incredibly gifted, or lucky, or both, then you know what you have to do. Life's a ***** - deal with it or go work in McDonalds.
This discussion is retarded. Let the athletes do what they do best - entertain - and not care how they get there. I don't. LA is an incredible specimen of fitness, intensity, and endurance. Do I care how he did it? No. Am I sure there are other cyclists using more advanced methods of doping and drugging and finding the loopholes? Sure there are. He just happened to have a good base and a good combination of whatever, to rise to the top of his sport. Science, training, technology - all is and should be fair play. Afterall, if I'm not mistaken the goal is still to win isn't it?
