Cap'n Squirrgle Wrote:
To quote my buddy Tim, who rode pro from like 90'ish to 98'ish, "they're all doping. If they don't, they don't win." It raised the bar, so that if you wanted to stay competitive, you had to do something. And he rode with the heavies - 96 US Olympic team, Lance, everyone.
I've heard the same kinds of things from my pro cycling friends. One of my friends rides Cat 3, and he's been awfully discouraged this season so far because it's been very tough for him (he upped to Cat 3 from Cat 4/5 last year). I can tell you for a fact that he does NOT dope. He seems to think that everyone is just doing so much better than he is. He hasn't mentioned drugs yet, but he's also my age (well, 38) and I think he's beating himself up a bit because most of his teammates are 30 or younger.
The only thing I can say about all of this, and it's certainly not a defense for doping-- these pro guys got where they were because they were the best of the best. They weren't always using drugs; there was talent and skill there far before all of that. So if it did turn out that all of the pro cyclists on the Tour are doping, doesn't that kinda even out the playing field in a way? If they're all doping but they're all good, they're still competing, right? But I tend to believe that they're not all doping, which of course makes it very unfair for the honest cyclists who are not.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'clean sport' anymore. I do have a passion for cycling though, so I'll always tune in to watch these guys.
edit: oh and btw? Rasmussen might get booted too... he hasn't shown up for 4 of his random drug tests in the past:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24072007/ ... -boss.html