"Benjamin Weiner" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > That article made me want to puke about five different times when I
> > > read it. No where does she express an ounce of remorse for the fact
> > > that she cheated.
>
> > Remorse comes from feeling that what you did was wrong. She believes
that
> > all top competitors are doping, therefore doping isn't cheating. While
she
> > has major mental problems, some probably drug induced, she does have a
> > point. There is an old debate in jurisprudence about the validity of a
law
> > that's on the books that nobody obeys. Off the top of my head, I don't
> > recall the precise legal term for it, but at some point the practice
becomes
> > the law. So *if* everyone at her level was doping, and that practice is
> > accepted by the participants, it is no longer cheating.
>
> That's a ******** excuse, or rationalization, on her part. She can't
> _know_ that everyone else is doping.
You do recall that Dickey V. basically said that it was normal preparation
in cycling to use drugs. He didn't consider it cheating. It was
"preparation."
> She does know that it's still
> cheating, and rationalizes her own weakness and abuse of herself and
> the sport by the "everyone is doing it" defense.
It's only cheating because those in control of the sport have said it is.
Consider that some claim that those at the top of certain national sports
federations have turned a blind or complicit eye to the use of drugs (UCI
and US Track and Field, East Germany as a few examples)
>If everyone else is
> cheating, quitting is more honorable than joining the cheaters - what
> is the value of a goal achieved by cheating?
Or, do as everyone else and make big $$$$$$ which is really the goal. The
evidence would support the argument that "cheating" is quite effective in
acheiving the $$ goal.
> Other than getting
> yourself on the Wheaties box, which I don't think TT was ever a prime
> candidate for.)
The pecuniary rewards vary. In TT's case she would have been able to
continue making something resembling a "living" as a cyclist with that
lifestyle intact. With a Gold she might even publish as training
book---wouldn't that have been interesting?
>
> It's widely claimed that clean riders retired in the early 90s because
> they didn't want to keep up with the EPO abuse they suspected in the
> peloton - I think you've cited Hampsten as one, and held him up as an
> exemplar. That was more honorable than joining in the EPO blitz, IMO.
A number of riders did retire at the beginning of the 90s. Hampsten did not
retire because of EPO, IIRC. In an interview with Cycling Weekly in the
mid-1990s, he spoke of knowing of drug use early on and deciding, with the
support and encouragement of Dr. Max Testa, to redefine his goals and make
the most of his natural abilities. He did fairly well by anyone's
standards. Many of the others who go out at that time, were of "retirement
age" anyway. Certainly there has been no problem getting new blood in who
are willing to manipulate their blood.
>
> Now, if Thomas wanted to complain because she was treated more harshly
> than track and field superstars, or baseball players, guilty of similar
> abuse, that might have some validity.
She has.
> But blaming her competitors
> (anyone remember all the **** Witty had to put up with to get to the
> Olympics?) and suing Catlin and the testing lab is BS. TT places blame
> on the testers rather than on the people who introduced her to the drugs
> (whom she could presumably name, which might be interesting).
> Unfortunately, it's not clear that she's learned anything.
I agree with you completely. She should take responsibility for what she did
just like Virenque and Zulle and get on with life. She'll make for an
interesting courtroom presence if she makes it through law school. She made
her decisions and should just live with them.