***Please don't move this to the "Pro" forum. I don't know those guys over there and I'd like to have a civil discussion with the folks here about pro cycling.***
I honestly don't care that Armstrong used PEDs. They ALL do. It has been part of cycling since the early 1900's. Human beings aren't designed to ride bicycles at top speed over mountains, 120+ miles per day for weeks on end. A single day event lasts longer than any other sporting event. A football game lasts about 3 hours with all kinds of breaks. A marathon is done in about 2 hours. Maybe an Ironman Triathlon comes close...but those guys don't do those 10 days in a row.
I think professional cycling is entirely too arduous. No other sport even comes close. I mean, 5 hours a day of constant racing for two to three weeks? Imagine the NFL scheduling three or four games a week. What if the NBA schedule had series that lasted 15 consecutive days? It wouldn't take much more than a few days before players started dropping like flies. You would practically require PEDs just to keep up.
What if cycling races were shorter? Maybe 40-50 miles a day with days off in between for rest.
Cycling has a huge
PR problem right now and I think LA is going to blow the roof off of it. The Olympics are even talking about dropping the sport entirely due to widespread doping. I think it's a bit ridiculous for cyclists to race in these grand events and expect them to do it naturally. Humans aren't designed to do that. Would shorter events with more rest reduce the use of PEDs?
Thoughts?