Originally Posted by El Diablo Rojo
Some how the thread that Doc Ray started yesterday got zapped. I thought it was relevant so here we go again....
Just out of curiosity, who
really believes that doping is substantially worse in cycling than other sports?
I can understand why Americans have that impression, since OP implicated a large number of cyclists, and the winner of the 2006 TdF (i.e. the only event most people know about) is accused of doping.
At the same time, the doping issue in US baseball has gotten so bad that Congress threatened to pass
federal legislation if the sport doesn't clean it's act up. I'm not aware of any Congressional hearings into road bike racing yet....
The line about getting your blood drawn at 6am is pretty telling. This would never happen in any other sport but is allowed in cycling. WADA and Dick Pound have a 'special' interest in cycling.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: cyclists are subjected to blood tests to check their hematocrit levels. EPO boosts your hematocrit, but if it gets too high, you can induce heart failure.
If cyclists weren't willing to take potentially lethal doses of EPO, the blood tests would not be necessary. I think it's pretty clear where the blame lies for this one.
I might add that one likely reason why baseball apparently has a massive doping/amphetamine problem is because the player's union is exceptionally strong, and has resisted frequent testing and strong penalties for years. I'm not clear on who benefits from a strong union that resists frequent testing, other than the dopers....