by -Adam- » Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:20 pm
While the article does indeed have it's holes in it, some of it is spot on.
I.e, like I said on the nada for Astana thread, why exclude one 'dirty' team, when most of the others are just as dirty? One rule for one, another for everyone else?
And secondly, why do the riders put up with all the mud that gets thrown at them? I think it's a fairly established fact now that doping has historically been a team organised procedure. Now obviously the riders had a certain degree of choice, but how much? If they didn't do it they were out of a job. Many of them had risked everything to become pro, and to lose out for not doping just someitmes didn't seem like a viable alternative. The riders, especially the likes of the new boys, must stand up and make themselves heard.
There is absolutely a bigger issue here than just drugs, which I think was one of the main thrusts of the article. If everyone was proved to be clean, the UCI etc would still be the same old antiquated bodies. Cycling must realise that proffessional sport is a business, and industry. And therefore a professional body must be in charge.
I agree that the article was perhaps a little hot headed and to a certain extent biased (aren't we all?), but actually some of the points were absolutely true.