Originally Posted by
SteelerHoo
unless sport is willing to hand down punishments that include durations that negate your ability to make a living and legally enforceable avenues to recoup past earnings, doping is the best economic decision to make.
True... but that would be the worst tactic... especially considering the fallibility of testing.
i don't think you can clean up sport based on ethics and moral suasion alone. the payouts are too high.
Not a chance of that.
but if i, or you for that matter, were on the verge of being world class, what would you do? more importantly, what would you do knowing that the risk of detection was extremely low and the punishment wasn't commensurate with the payout? in my view, that's why doping won't end gradually or just because it's made public in a catastrophic fashion.
The real factors are:
a) The dope works
b) The authorities are unable to keep your competitors from doping.
c) Therefore if you want to win, doping is necessary.
d) The "game" is figuring out how to dope effectively and not get caught.
e) Oddly, so long as testing is consistently meted out, this results in a fairly level and safe playing field in the pro ranks. So far at least.
This situation is not going to change. Live with it.
Most of the problem now is the angst of the "public" who cry "But I don't *want* doping in cycling! I want it gone! I want it clean! Can't we just make it go away if we try a little harder?"
Guess what... nobody *wants* doping... especially the guys who have to do it. But there is no way to make it go away. The harder you crack down and the harsher the penalties, then the greater the benefits of doping and getting away with it.