onm
■
- Sep 2, 2009
- 5
- 0
Right,
As we all know, 'doping' in sport divides opinion about 80/20; 80% thinking it is bad, and 20% not caring / thinking it is funny / thinking it is cool. Whatever.
I think it would be fair to say the same ratios exist when speaking about performance enhancing drugs in competitive cycling.
This is a fairly simple good vs. evil / 'cheating is bad mmmkay' situation, and can be dealt with in the minds of those who dwell on it fairly simply; if you take drugs which make you go faster in a bike race, it gives you an unfair advantage. There is a big long list of drugs and techniques which if you get caught doing, you get kicked out, etc. Simple.
But how about this...
Say if there was an athlete who came to 'Sport NOW' from 'Sport THEN'. In 'Sport THEN', they were not competitive, but took some performance enhancing drugs which at the time of consumption were not illegal, but have since been banned, would / should that effect anything that now goes on in 'Sport NOW'?
As we all know, 'doping' in sport divides opinion about 80/20; 80% thinking it is bad, and 20% not caring / thinking it is funny / thinking it is cool. Whatever.
I think it would be fair to say the same ratios exist when speaking about performance enhancing drugs in competitive cycling.
This is a fairly simple good vs. evil / 'cheating is bad mmmkay' situation, and can be dealt with in the minds of those who dwell on it fairly simply; if you take drugs which make you go faster in a bike race, it gives you an unfair advantage. There is a big long list of drugs and techniques which if you get caught doing, you get kicked out, etc. Simple.
But how about this...
Say if there was an athlete who came to 'Sport NOW' from 'Sport THEN'. In 'Sport THEN', they were not competitive, but took some performance enhancing drugs which at the time of consumption were not illegal, but have since been banned, would / should that effect anything that now goes on in 'Sport NOW'?