He faked his career, then got called out after some time, this topic really isn’t worth all the effort that was put into it
He faked his career, then got called out after some time, this topic really isn’t worth all the effort that was put into it
I mean there are several books and movies written about Armstrong and the like, cycling is full of drama and people apparently like it because Armstrong has a huge fanbase and is still very successful/wealthy despite all his exposed corruption and doping.
I am sure there are plenty of serious amateurs who are clean and honest but to this day I cannot watch professional cycling of any kind, they are all doping and cheating one way or another just using the excuse "well everyone else is doing it".
(adding link to reddit analysis just to be useful https://old.reddit.com/r/Velo/duplicates/uegizk )
The thing is that cycling has just not enough money/influence in contrast to other sports. Just one example, in operacion puerto, which exposed blood doping of many cyclist. When there were strong indications that many of the so far unidentified blood conserves belonged to Real Madrid players, political influence quickly led to the whole investigation being cancelled.
I'm not defending doping in cycling, but it is extremely naive to believe that sports with several orders of magnitude more money involved dont have rampant doping.
I met him at an unsanctioned/non-UCI race he showed up at during his ban but before he came clean. Weird experience, he obviously won the race and most people were supportive but it was such a weird scene. You could practically feel the tormented aura of guilt/shame/embarrassment coming off him. IIRC he had won that race as an amateur prior to doping as well.
I maybe misremembering or misquoting.
Most people to my knowledge think the exposure of this damaged baseball seriously, and maybe irreparably. It at least made fandom more local; World Series ratings are half what they were 20 years ago during the bulk of the steroid frenzy.
Soccer for example has none significant doping controls and it's obvious that every top player is doped to the gills. There is probably not a single clean one in top clubs. NBA is just a joke as well as is tennis.
About the only sport org other than cycling that tried to do something about the problem is the UFC. Before/after photos of some fighters are just amazing (they are way smaller/less muscular after introduction of doping protocols) even though you can still get away with some doping (some is difficult to detect or very short lived).
You're missing out on some awesome displays of athleticism because of this wrong idea. At the top level doping has been stamped out more than in any other sport.
On the other hand I could name some huge mainstream sport associations that don't follow the WADA code and implement suspiciously lax doping controls, but perhaps that would derail the thread.
He would be broke if he hadn't hit the jackpot with a $100k Uber investment.
Wouldn't it be safer for everyone if it was all out in the open?
If obligatory, then it starts killing people. Consider football and concussions.
And then there's marketing. A certain amount of risk is accepted in sports, and is part of what makes it attractive to fans and sponsors. But when someone actually dies at an event, it overshadows everything else that happens. If that becomes a regular occurrence, fans and sponsors who pay for the coverage will begin to lose interest.
Part of the reason for rules in sports is to make a sport interesting for the fans, e.g., by preventing each match from being decided by a single factor that is predictable ahead of time. Financial sports already have financial rules. Pharmacological sports need pharmacological rules.
> chances are that it was unthinkable for a player to even be a contender for the elite level without doping.
Which is really the case for most sports today.