Drugs Are Bad
I'm sick of defending cycling. I'm pissed that Ricco, who is only one of the most exciting and personable riders in the field, got caught doping. So here we are again.
Cycling's problem is not that it is dirty. Cycling is no more dirty than the NFL. In fact, it's probably far less dirty. It's just that cycling is actively trying to stop drug use, which is a public relations mistake. Cycling has probably the most rigorous testing of any sport in the world, and the stiffest penalties. They also test far more often and randomly. Add it all up, they actually catch drug cheats and do something about it. So drugs dominate the headlines.
The NFL, by contrast, has a sham of testing program which the players openly violate. The average offensive lineman has grown over 50 pounds in the last 15 years, and become quicker. We're supposed to believe there is nothing chemical to this great leap forward. Shawn Merriman gets caught doing steroids, and he's still named the NFL Defensive MVP. He serves a short suspension, and he's back doing Nike commercials. Not to pick on Merriman, because if you believe he's the only one in the NFL on steroids, I have a bridge to sell you.
So cycling actually caches drug users and does something about it. American sports, as a rule, just sweep the problem under the rug. Yet cycling is considered dirty? This defies all logic.
Cycling is actually doing something about drugs in sport. And their reward is to be universally derided. Why should any sport even attempt to clean up drugs in their sport when they can keep pretending the status quo is drug free?
We've criticized the anti-drug forces as akin to Victor Hugo's Javert, maniacally pursuing the wrongdoer to the point of absurdity. I still think there is some truth to that, but I fully support their decision to ban the entire Saunier Duval team. But the drugs don't make a guy a good cyclist. There is no injection that turns you into Eddy Merckx.
Cycling's problem is not that it is dirty. Cycling is no more dirty than the NFL. In fact, it's probably far less dirty. It's just that cycling is actively trying to stop drug use, which is a public relations mistake. Cycling has probably the most rigorous testing of any sport in the world, and the stiffest penalties. They also test far more often and randomly. Add it all up, they actually catch drug cheats and do something about it. So drugs dominate the headlines.
The NFL, by contrast, has a sham of testing program which the players openly violate. The average offensive lineman has grown over 50 pounds in the last 15 years, and become quicker. We're supposed to believe there is nothing chemical to this great leap forward. Shawn Merriman gets caught doing steroids, and he's still named the NFL Defensive MVP. He serves a short suspension, and he's back doing Nike commercials. Not to pick on Merriman, because if you believe he's the only one in the NFL on steroids, I have a bridge to sell you.
So cycling actually caches drug users and does something about it. American sports, as a rule, just sweep the problem under the rug. Yet cycling is considered dirty? This defies all logic.
Cycling is actually doing something about drugs in sport. And their reward is to be universally derided. Why should any sport even attempt to clean up drugs in their sport when they can keep pretending the status quo is drug free?
We've criticized the anti-drug forces as akin to Victor Hugo's Javert, maniacally pursuing the wrongdoer to the point of absurdity. I still think there is some truth to that, but I fully support their decision to ban the entire Saunier Duval team. But the drugs don't make a guy a good cyclist. There is no injection that turns you into Eddy Merckx.
posted by Poseur at 10:48 PM
2 Comments:
I don't think Saunier was banned. What I read is that the team management decided to withdraw. Maybe they were strongly pressured behind closed doors, but I don't know.
Why do you support throwing the whole team out? If we have a single athlete breaking the rules as opposed to the whole team, why should all the other guys suffer too? Do you wish that Liquigas had been banned because of Beltran or Barloworld because of Duenas?
Poor Barloworld--they've had so many guys crash out that they might not need to be banned. I think they are down to 4 men, pre-Alps. Yikes!
Speaking of Eddy Merckx and other cyclists from decades ago...doping didn't just start as a cottage industry in 1995. I wonder how much the pantheon of greats was mixed up in dope. Jacques Anquitel took speed and everyone knew about it--no rule against it. Merckx raced in the 60s & 70s--when drugs were like water and testing was non-existant. Joop Zotermilk was a TdF winner who got caught doing in the late 70s. Pedro Delgado was on steroids when he won the Tour, but the particular drug wasn't on the list of banned substances.
I have no evidence that Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Fignon, et al were doping, but I'd say it's highly unlikely that non of them were.
But doping is still bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home