I know this is a very naive thought, but all of my coaching and competition experience has been on the high school level and what probably was equivalent to D2 or D3 in college. When athletes use performance enhancing drugs, don't they realize that they didn't really win? For me, there would be no satisfaction in knowing that I didn't really earn that medal or trophy, and I would feel that I didn't deserve the accolades. There would be no pride in the accomplishment. If all my opponents were doing it and I was at a disadvantage, then I wouldn't feel that they had really beaten me. I realize that there is big money involved even at the college level, but at the levels with which I am familiar, it just seems illogical.
Next level athletes are not logical !! when surveyed and asked this question , ''if taking steroids could help you set a PR in your event and assure you a championship , even if it took a decade off your life , would you take PEDs ?'' 90% said yes , w/o hesitation . a made for TV movie came out starring josh Brolin when he was about 18 (say 1981 ?) , it had an anti steroid theme as brolin's character started juicing and setting records yet croaked at the end yet steroid use became more prevalent AFTER this film .
I understand and you are right, but it doesn't say much for the sport, or any sport, if doping can be that rampant and not be enforced. So basically, the sport is drug-cycling, and Lance is the best at it.
An accurate summation.
Are these guys allowed to use anti-inflammatory drugs during the race? What about an asthma inhaler? I know these things are usually legal, but wouldn't they also enhance the performance of someone with tendonitis or who has asthma? I'm just curious how stringent they are. I've heard hockey players can't use sudafed for some athletic enhancement that escapes me now.