Frau Blucher wrote:
So what you're saying is that when someone runs a doping scam on such a massive scale he acquires heroic status?
I sincerely doubt it was solely Lance Armstrong who ran this whole doping operation, if nearly all the top cyclists have been doping themselves then a) Lance Armstrong has been scapegoated, and b) doping is part of this sport.
If the top cyclists are doping junkies then it stands to chance they're all taking the same substances, thus Lance and his competition are technically on the same footing. Besides it looks pretty clear that in the recent past every cyclist took performance enhancing drugs. I mean if Lance's whole team were in on this scheme, then other cycling teams must have known about it (cos' they must have scouts and people spying on other teams), and they didn't seem to be bitching about it too much. Which means they too were concocting elaborate doping schemes just as Lance allegedly was.
Besides, the definition of 'fairness' in a profession sports is a joke. Team GB's athletic velodrome bikers have the best bicycles and helmets in the world due to advanced aerodynamics technology; no other country can match Britain in that regard. That whole industry is kept under close wraps. Is it any wonder why Britain wins so many medals in velodrome events?
F1 cars are never alike because each team can use different materials and even components. The team with the most reliable and fastest car wins; so much for racing talent prevailing.
In virtually every sport there is always some part of it where it can be tailored to suit the individual, no sport is ever truly standardized. If athletes are allowed an unfair advantage through technological or equipment means, why are they penalized due to biological means?
It seems to me that the team or country with the best technology, the best training facilities, and the more money to spend, tend to have the greater number of winners and medals in sporting events. Besides with or without doping, their are athletes who break new records and wipe out the competition; which is pure natural talent. I still think Lance had such talent and if his competition was equally doped up then he won fair and square. Besides the guy suffered from some serious cancer problems, it should have been the end of his career and probably the end of his life, yet he went on to win some more Tour de France titles. If that isn't talent I don't know what is.
Whether he was innocent or just as crooked as the rest of his peers, Lance Armstrong has undergone character assassination. Every corrupt organization makes these ritualistic sacrifices to pretend it's getting serious with its sleaze and wrongdoing. The government does it, the banks do it (think Lehman Brothers), it even happens with respectable sports.
When the dust has settled, some new doping rules will be brought in. Now, either cyclists and their teams 'fess up and admit they were rather naughty and clean up their act (and we'll know it if world records aren't broken for many years), or the big money buys up the USADA and new performance enhancing drugs are used.
If the scandal becomes too big and does not settle down, expect the WHOLE cycling sport and the USADA to be sacrificed (and by that I mean all the corruption is brought to the light) so that the powers that be can sooth public opinion.