Semus?,What the?
Anyway,

'Really, when it goes the the heart of the motive for the USADA witch hunt that in over the sixty year of well funded, consistent effort by the UCI they failed to bring to the surface. If you believe that you are naive.'

i think you should read the reasons from the USADA before you make comment on the efficacy or otherwise of the UCI - which again is not relevant to your assertion that Big oil/baccy/republkicans have conspired against Armstrong.

'But then again you think a crappy piece of plastic will help save a cyclist against 1500 kg of steal, glass rubber, plastic and explosive fuel. That really is naive'

How is this relevant or pertinent? Tu qoque?

I presume that you have no evidence to support your assertions that big oil/baccy/republican party have conspired against Lance Armstrong?/

I think we can leave it at that.

If EPO etc is sanctioned under medical supervision then why not bikes with electric motors or, indeed, bikes with petrol motors?

Peter Andrew Smith said ; "If EPO etc is sanctioned under medical supervision .... " Clever point, but seriously, because there is already a circuit for those class of vehicles.
The UCI banned tricycles in the early 1930s, because they looked like dominating the Le Tours standard 'safety frame'.
The machine spec is one thing they do actually have total control of.
Humans ..... eh, first doping incident for the UCI was in the late 1950s, first EPO death on Le Tour was 1967.
Seriously, it has taken the US conservative politics "War on Drugs" as they are lossing it on the street, to focus on a soft target sport and the tallest poppy Lance or Livestrong.
Is it a coincidence this all comes out at a crucial time for US conservatives?

Big on conspiracy theories as well? It figures.

The Conversation - We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish.

But for the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.

https://theconversation.edu.au/community_standards

Please step off this type of comment Roy. I have asked you nicely before.

How is objecting to a smear tactic a smear tactic?

Roy Niles said : " How is objecting to a smear tactic a smear tactic?"
"We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish. But for the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument ..... "
That is the amazing thing about humans and cognitive bias we are all capable of, we can leave convenient truth out. [ yes I know I you believe in you hear of hearts I have ]
So for the sake for the sake of robust debate, please step off this type of comment Roy, it can't be that hard. I have asked you nicely before, as has the moderator and another member.

Yes, indeed, motorbke racing is a different sport from cycling and performance drug enhanced cycling is a different sport from cycling. If Lance Armstrong was in a competition for performance drug enhanced riders he would not have been cheating.

Peter Andrew Smith said ; "You are confounding two issues." Look if it is confounding you just remember it is just my opinion.
But the fight with the Republicans started with Livestrong opposing the cigarette bill in California, the electronic trail of this conservative 'witchhunt' stops in 2005 when he changed camps politically and very publicly. Naturally you are entitled to your opinion, but why did the UCI not take this issue up?
Peter Andrew Smith said ; "I nonetheless do not agree that the sport of cycling should become the sport of performance drug enhanced cycling."
This I cannot agree with, by no stretch of the imagination can we say is not already a sport of performance drug enhanced cycling."
This is the problem.
"The elephant in the room" and everyone is in denial it is there.
I do wish like you, it had never gone down this path and empathise with your every comment.

Peter Andrew Smith said " Doping is cheating. " Yes but it is not a crime.
'If' the 'umpire' the UCI changes the 'rules' it will make the current clandestine activity of the pharmaceuticals supplying the drugs lawful in their communities which is now 'criminal' and mean pro cyclists will not 'cheat' with drugs.
The 'Gorilla in the Room' pardon the second use of the parable, is the illegal criminal supply of drugs to these athletes while providing the test methodology and equipment.
Seriously this is industrialised supply is actual criminal activity, unlawful and not just 'cheating'.
Why is there no righteous indignation and 'witch hunt' of these corporate entities in America by the USDA in its "War on Drugs" supported by conservatives in an election year?
If you can not join the dots well .......

Yes, of course, if the supply of performance enhancing drugs is made legal and there is a rule change that allows their use by cyclists then by definition there is no crime and no cheating when cyclists use performance enhancing drugs. Where we are in disagreement is that I support performance enhancing drug free cycling and you appear to support cycling with performance enhancing drugs.

Peter Andrew Smith said " ..... you appear to support cycling with performance enhancing drugs"
Well that may well be your opinion. But let me make it crystal clear, I do not want now or fifteen years ago when I realised they were here to stay, ever want drugs in any sport.
I have gone through the Kübler-Ross model of stages of grief on this issue, that was my journey.
Your personal judgement is your perspective and does not take into account my value system. I feel it is entirely appropriate you and others here are indignant, because I was and understand empathising with the though process, but many here who have followed pro cycling are now more pragmatic.
However this has still been a 'witch hunt' by a conservative opportunistic group of think tanks politically influencing USDA to suit their political agenda. Livestrong and Armstrong are 'scrapegoats', there are other Europeans who have had reputations big enough to challenge over this. Certainly American sport has larger figures who use, American Baseball has and is rife with doping, there a many sports in the US under question The prime difference is that no one in US sport has publicly changed political allegiance condemning conservative health policies and angering the political right.

Peter Andrew Smith said " further support the use of sport as an entertainment business with the sole function of maximising the generation of profit."
Yes, I hear you and empathise, as I said I was once where you are a 'grok' your line of argument and believe it is totally appropriate for you 'value system'.
However, my thinking on the Americas "War on Drugs" the conservatives in this country support, has changed. Personally, I would be happy if they de criminalised the range of 'street' drugs and medically supervised the lot.
Since this is my stance on the wider issue, it would be hypocritical not to apply it to sport.
Even though I would prefer life on our streets and in our sports was free of all drugs. It literally is too late.

For me decriminalisation is a critical part of a harm
minimization strategy. It is not a drug promotion
strategy. Sanctioning the use of performance
enhancing drugs by elite athletes would, I think,
have the unintended consequence of promoting drug
use. Sadly, at least some pharmecutical companies,
may well be only to willing to seize and develop this
new, and potentially highly profitable, product line.
Indeed it would not be at all surprising to see them
using elite athletes to endorse the new product lines
of performance enhancing drugs.

Thanks Daryl, I simply could not have explained it better to Peter A Smith.

I think we are agreed. (1) The current system is deeply flawed. (2) The pragmatic case for supervised PED use is ruled out because of its' unintended highly negative outcomes.

Roy Niles said "Rationalizing cheating as a requisite is a form of cheating." What utter BS.

Cheating is acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. Jason has not gained advantage in professional cycling by explaining the context of the business of international cycling to novices.

Well, apparently your imagination has no stretch, which of course is not your fault any more than your inability to avoid insult as a substitute for reason is. Next thing I suppose you'll do is come right out and say that cheating is not cheating if we all do it, even though we've all been hiding it and lying about it. I suspect that kind of reasoning could also be cheating, but only if you had the ability to know better.
Now if the argument was that cheating is not necessarily bad or unjustified in certain circumstances, I might buy it. You of course aren't physically able to make that argument, but the author of this article should have been.

Roy Niles said : " ...cheating is not cheating if we all do it ..." Now projecting your value system onto mine is a step to far. Its ok for bully the writer of this article, but not ok for me to defend him.
All I called you out on is calling Jason Mazanov a "cheat" because he has written about the context professional cyclist have to deal with on the world circuit. Then when you pushed it, so I pointed out the use of 'correct english' to verify your premise.
Given the UCI have been aware of drug cheating on the professional circuit since the late 1950s and it has been widely published year after year for over sixty years. You and I are hardly able to point fingers if we have been spectators of cycling. How hypocritical is that?

Defend the article away, if the best you can wield is an insult. Although you do have a somewhat inadequate talent for cheating as well - falsely reconstructing the argument to cover your earlier mistakes. So while I've called no-one a cheat up to now, since you've now cheated several times here, I'll be happy to call you one.

By the way, I think professional cycling is a silly sport, and of course it's never been a secret that doping was endemic to it. And what you don't seem to know or understand is that cheating, done openly or otherwise, is still cheating if it's "catch me if you can."
(Although since you're so easy to catch at it, you might want to stick to insulting alone.)

Caffeine in performance enhancing quantities is disallowed. Caffeine is allowed because it is a oscially sanctioned drug.

No worries,
Yes it is curious, I presume that it is a case of being too hard to control, or else their contention from the excerpt above is true.
I presume the fact that it is a social drug has a lot to do with it and also that the performance advantages are quite different to EPO or blood doping, as are the associated risks.

i see the author's point that this also comes down to a matter of viewpoint, what objectively is the difference between caffeine and EPO? I guess caffeine is a foodstuff (or contained therein) whereas EPO is perceived as a medicalised drug (as indeed it is) - even though it is a synthetic form of an endogenous hormone.

This is from 2008...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/08/01/2321478.htm

perhaps after this latest doping controversy has abated caffeine may go back onto the agenda.

Yeah I htink there is an element of the arbitrary that rankles with some people, like 'why can't i use a Human Powered vehicle or have a 5 kilogram bike or use a fairing' the same argument can be applied to doping I suppose.
There are rules that are by nature arbitrary... doesn't make them right, but also doesn't make them wrong. It is only the application of the athlete to them that makes them so, because that's where an unfair advantage comes in.

The 5kg limit and the ban on recumbent bikes were both done for safety, in my understanding.

Super-light bikes are more likely to break and recumbent bikes are a very difficult mix with conventional bikes even on a bicycle tour, let alone a in peleton.

And can we put to bed the idea that recumbents were so much faster? By 1937, just three years after Faure's record-breaking recumbent ride, all but one of his records had been beaten by people on normal bikes. Further, Faure was not a second-rate rider, as the legend has it. He toured Australia as a star of conventional track racing in 1937, not as a reumbent rider or an also-ran.

This is a little off-topic, but so are the incidental comments that misrepresent the issue of recumbents in racing. I disagree with many decisions of the UCI but reckon that they were spot-on with that ban.

John Harland said " UCI but reckon that they were spot-on with that ban." it is a moot point because like the large grid system Edison monopolised we are committed to it. I know from the tricycle side they lasted well outside the ban with good quality competition and riders into the early sixties. Defying the UCIs concept of the safety frame uniformity. But then again I am biased, as I own a velomobile. http://goo.gl/sVI2E

That's fine. I even build recumbents occasionally. They have their place.

My argument is solely about mixing recumbents with conventional bikes in mixed-start racing. The same argument applies to racing pennyfarthings with conventional bikes. Each is exciting to watch but the mixtures are just plain dangerous.

John: 'Pop' goes another non researched 'understanding'. I had heard/read of the trial where no professional rider would ride the contraption and the designer himself, a non cyclist, rode it. and attained speed of over 100 Ks/mls? ph.

Like the green and blue pills in The Bourne Legacy? Actually, I could see things heading down that slope if companies were to pursue performance-enhancing drugs in clinical trials.

I think one of the main arguments against doping needs to be the safety of athletes. I recall an article on The Conversation around the olympics arguing that doping should be allowed, but I completely disagree purely on the athlete safety aspect - if doping were allowed there would be enormous pressure to participate, from coaches, team-mates, sponsors even. For most of the drugs available there is very little safety data. I can see the author here is arguing that only FDA approved drugs or similar would be 'allowed', but every drug has side effects and athletes would no doubt be pressured into risking these side effects.

It's all a slippery slope - knowing human nature, and that side effects or drug interactions of even properly tested or approved forms of 'doping' would be inevitable, I can't see any other future than one where young athletes would be pressured to put themselves at risk if 'doping' were allowed. And that's the crux of it for me - the unnecessary risk young athletes would be putting themselves into in order to attain some sporting glory would be simply unethical.

Janet, the blood passport is a very effective way of detecting transfusions and blood boosting medications like EPO. In practice it's effectiveness is lessened by the uCI's unwillingness to implement it properly, for instance the trigger hematocrit level is 50 when most people have a hematocrit of around 40+/-3. Armstrong's blood passport values for the 2009 and 2010 Tour clearly demonstrate blood doping, the problem is that the uCI do nothing. Cycling could be transformed with 3 measures:
tighten the blood passport values.
remove monitoring and enforcement from every sports peak body and give responsibility to an independent body.
also implement a physiological values passport looking at measures such as VO2 max (that doesn't normally increase) and sustained power outputs. If you examine those values from pre 2009 Tours you can see that the measured results are just not physiologically possible without doping.

I've cycled most of the TdF climbs used in the last 5 years. The difference between me and the pro cyclists is the speed that we climb, what should be the same is that we are both climbing at our limit. When I see riders like armstrong sitting on threshold for 15 or 20 minutes and climb off his bike with only a light sweat and not even puffed so that he's able to give a TV interview as soon as he stops his bike then this is too good to be true. This sort of racing has no interest for me, they may as well be climbing on motorbikes.

Michael Block said ; "soon as he stops his bike then this is too good to be true." I take all your points and agree. But you may not remember Greg Lemond or Eddie Myerx but they could do just that, and Phil Andersons comments told us all he did not believe Armstrong to be in this class of rider when he first met him.
This is the problem a dirty big question mark hangs over everyone.
Even Cadel, because can we be sure his team mates did not dope?
Lemond has behind the scenes been an instigator of the 'witchhunt' of Armstrong, so he has probably been clean. But then again who really knows. Ihave personally seen Cadel Race from very young and have no doubt he has the real physiology. The saddest issue about this whole World Tour is the unrecognised supreme talent Cadel and other like him in this era, must have to match these guys doping.
The UCI either gets serious or just accept they use, I suspect they have accepted they use, and just try their best to enforce the rules.

paul, you've identified the problem now for all riders, if they win then they are under suspicion of doping, if they don't win it's because they used to dope when they were winning. Cadel is an interesting example, his power outputs and climbing times have remained reasonably constant as other GC riders have dropped back to his level. If he were riding at the height of the Armstrong era then he would likely have been just a cycling footnote whilst everyone kept lauding the 'Armstrong miracle'.

Clifford Chapman said : "..commonsense' doesn't do us any favours, does it, and speak for yourself with that other assertion" I find that comment offensive, as I don't its just an opinion. My opinion on this issue matters very little.
Please explain your line of argument. It has gone over my head, and like my comment may be a little cryptic. I apologise mine was. My meaning is simply, we watch and support cycling. Doping has been part of it since the 1950s, the first death from EPO use on TDF was in 1967 it has been an every increasing part of all sport.
It looks hypocritical of 'us' to point to doping now in 2012, after a conservative group in the US supporting the "War on Drugs" decides to 'ping' someone to follow a political agenda.

Well, maybe platform shoes might be the answer.

But, seriously, if common sense tells us that the cyclist who finished second was also on drugs, and so on until the lanterne rouge, what price us as a being? Our bar's standard is pretty low, I'd say, and that's why your 'common sense' makes us a sad little creature. It's like you are saying, if one is cheating, they all are, because they are human beings, hence it doesn't do us any favours, does it?

In terns of your other assertion, 'Truth is we are all guilty of supporting sports that break the doping rules', I do say, speak for yourself. I used to love watching sport and marvelling at the abilities of greatly talented indidivudals, but once drugs and doping, and cheating generally, becomes part of the equation, you can count me out.

Clifford Chapman ; "..... Well, maybe platform shoes might be the answer."
wizzzz, that went clean over my head : /
"Our bar's standard is pretty low," hmmm ... based on the mythological no drugs and rules no one 'uses' unless caught redhanded.
Which in a multi million dollar sport, and million dollar plus yearly contract pro cyclists get is clearly rarely possible. Armstrong was not caught out by the 'umpire' the UCI, but dobbed in by dubiously motivated highly pressured self confessed cheaters.
Clifford Chapman 'Truth is we are all guilty of supporting sports that break the doping rules ....speak for yourself.',
We are guilty of watching these sports and supporting them, are you suggesting we are not?
I hate using analogies because there can be confusion, but here goes. "I once believed in father Christmas, got excited when the 25th came around could hardly sleep, such fun waiting and the excitement of seeing all those presents......
Well Clifford, my Cycling Father Christmas story changed for me in the early nineties. Ask any kid when he remembers he stopped believing, that is me.
I am sorry your story has come to an end with Armstrong. As you said ; "... you can count me out."
I did not like it either and I empathise with you now, but have just grown through the five stages of grief over it and am now pragmatic about it.
I love cycling and thought, the only way to beat these bas.......s, was to get real about aerodynamics and just go faster! Very very fast ; ) http://goo.gl/T9xIU

Don't we do that already?

Being coached in a specific discipline was once regarded as cheating. Now everyone does it and the attitude has changed. However I am very uneasy about liberalising drug usage in sport.

That does not mean that I support the witchhunt against Armstrong. Are we going to take the gold medals from Australian riders who were drugging when they won their Gold Medals in cycling, or other sports? It is not hard to name names.

Armstrong and those around him were already doping at lower levels than those he won his first TdF against. There has been further improvement since.

Only obsessive people attempt to obey the precise letter of the law. Most people do what they can get away with, and what seems reasonable in the circumstances. Drug taking in sport does not reflect malevolence in athletes near as much as it reflects on the liberalism of what passed as drug testing by the UCI.

Just how much would permission of drugs differ? You would still have athletes pushing the allowed limits and that might be harder, not easier, to detect..

John Harland said " Just how much would permission of drugs differ?"
This is so true. possibly the most realistic statement in the forum.
We all need to get over the issue it really has been going on in all sports for decades. All drugs can do harm, but used correctly they can be safe.
The question is really, are we all just being dragged along on this eternal "War on Drugs" the conservative in America are determined to win?

There's two arguments here, Guy. one easy to answer and one quite difficult.
Armstrong is wrong because he broke the rules, that is a pure normative or value based judgement. The rules may be irksome to some, but nevertheless the rules were designed for fair competition. Many riders did not break the rules by virtue of lack of intent or access to the same regime that Armstrong obtained. This means that for the period in question Armstrong had an unfair advantage. \
The second point, which I find difficult to rebut without referring to physiological norms, is whether doping, in itself - without resorting to arbitrary norms- is unethical. The only real way to rebut the argument is to define the difference between training, foodstuffs and dope.
Without begging the question the distinction is that doping by pharmacetical alters the normal physiology of the body, hence it is a drug. This is subtly different to traiing and foodstuffs as they can only alter genetically endoweed parameters to the norms for that person. Drugs extend those norms.
I suspect this comes down to which side of the fence that you fall, either you see doping as no different to other forms of training science or you do. I see it is quite different. The problem is that the rules for the sport are defined not by ethical argument but by what people want the sport to be. If competitors are happy knowing that one has to resort to mediucal intervention to compete than that is what will happen.
As an aside, I am wary of the trickle down to amateur sport (which is already happening with EPO/'roids etc). It i sone thing to have medically supervised doping with EPO/HgH/Steroids/blood etc but it is another thing to have it in the amateur ranks unregulated - and by adolescents. Not the slippery slope fallacy you might think as it is already happening.

Your use of the emotive term 'doping' is already making your position clear! If I thought that term was applicable I'd be on your side, of course. You say "doping by pharmacetical alters the normal physiology of the body, hence it is a drug". But does adjusting the balance of normal body metabolites fit that definition? I can't see how.

If we give someone oral testosterone that is, apparently, bad. If we feed him foods that are naturally high in testosterone that is therefore OK? What sense is there in that? My nephew has no thyroid, and therefore has to have thyroxin to keep him alive and normal. Is he therefore banned from athletic competition? Lance Armstrong has only one testicle, and therefore is deficient in testosterone. So can he not be given supplementary testosterone?

All training and diet regimes seek to modify physiology. Adjusting normal body metabolites is no different. If they take a person "beyond the norms for that person" that will be picked up by testing. If not, they are just getting that person into the fittest state for the event.

All this is something totally different from the bad old days of dosing cyclists up with amphetamines, which actually are drugs.

Your other argument is that Armstrong brole the rules. But actually that is far from clear. The rules changed year by year, and Armstrong's team were certainly up to the minute on that. The most one can say with confidence is that in any given year Armstrong may have broken the rules as they were in force a year or two later.

Peter:
'cheating', in relation to endurance, pushing the limits, attempting the impossible, seeing a different approach as opposed to the 'settled' consensus belongs to those who bring about change.
'
A viewing of some of the"Red Bull clips clearly illustrates this.

Opposed are those who believe in 'rules', fixed, handed down from on high. Commonly espoused by those i professions with a penchant for 'cross dressing', always with notable exceptions of course, an example being Justice Kirby.

But by and large the bv 'authority figures', the uniformed, the believers in some mythical higher authority, and, regrettably some school teachers. Left to them we would still be punishing those who blasphemed, who didn't attend church on Sundays, who indulged in premarital sex --- except in the case of molesting small boys, of course!

Every social advance was the result of those who refused to acknowledge the infallibility of anybody, real or imaginary.

Medicine advanced because there were those who did not accept the 'understood'', as necessarily correct.as exemplified by Dr Marshall and Dr Warren,In 1982, when H. pylori was proven to cure (some?) stomach ulsers.

Yes, society needs the poe faced, authoritarian compliancers, but if we are to live in a vibrant, changing, adaptive society we also need those who can see beyond the rules, the open spaces beyond and go, having no idea of as to where the boundaries are, or if in deed there are any boundaries.

There are many who will die of, or with their certitudes, just as there are many who will die of misjudgement, whose vision was false, who underestimated the power of the unregulated.

The choice is between living life or existing. to each his own.

But the cycling we're concerned with here is a professional sport, and all these sports are games, and all games have rules, and all rules are meant to be enforced by the gamers themselves. And all players in all these games attempt to fool the enforcers by one trick or another to gain an advantage and win the game. Every such game has its own set of "morals," but breaking the rules is a "crime" only if you get caught. Under these circumstances different players will take different risks in violating these rules without the getting caught part. Or in some instances in the NFL, by getting caught on purpose, which should be a violation in itself but isn't. (Example: Deliberately interfering with a touchdown pass to prevent the touchdown should be penalized with an actual touchdown but isn't.)
So of course this has long gone on in cycling, and every player knows that by the rules, it's cheating. But again, only punished if you get caught. Getting caught may also involve getting caught by another player, but this rarely happens. There's a gentlemen's agreement not to rat each other out in most pro sports.
So there's really no question that in a game, when you violate the rules, you're cheating. That's why it's called cheating and not called a crime - it's an accepted practice.
So while it seems the argument made here was that if it's part of the game, it isn't cheating, I'd argue that's simply wrong, because part of the game IS successful cheating.
Armstrong got caught. He received the penalties that were always there for cheating. He didn't like it and he didn't admit it, because for him all this had become his real life. But games are always a subculture of our larger culture. And the larger culture has to operate with different rules, because in the end we have to referee ourselves. And the question now is not whether Armstrong actually cheated when everybody cheats, but whether the larger society will decide that with his lying and profiting from lying, that he has committed a crime or two to boot.

John I think (and of course this is just my opinion) that having 1 rider who is so dominant that it's clear during the opening time trial who is going to win the event (baring misfortune) is not exciting racing. The 2011 Tour is an example of how exciting and unpredictable a Grand tour can be when one rider doesn't routinely dominate through cheating.
Mr Armstrong's bullying is consistent and clearly demonstrated from his dealings with his friends, his ex-wife and fellow riders or the media.

Michael Block Idler said " Mr Armstrong's bullying is consistent and clearly demonstrated from his dealings with his friends, his ex-wife and fellow riders or the media."
In all fairness that is not Armstrong's 'story'. Is this trial by media? Have you given consideration to both sides of the argument? I am old enough to remember what happened to Lindy Chamberlain and very skeptical about 'stories'.

Paul I agree that we do need to be careful:
careful that someone who is 'unlikeable' to many is punished solely on the basis of being unlikeable.
careful that there are facts or at least a reasonable weight of testimony and evidence to back up the claims
careful that we don't lose track of the big picture - what are the systemic factors that allowed and even encouraged cheats and bullies to flourish for so long.

Mr Armstrong sold a series of very seductive interlinked messages: hope over adversity, the transformative power of suffering, the commercial opportunity to make cycling a big sport in the US. The moral of the story is that for those messages to succeed, they need substance behind the style. Mr Armstrong has been given the opportunity to reply to the allegations and evidence (his blood results are pretty conclusive evidence) and has chosen not to contest them for his own reasons. They are very understandable as the best he can hope for here to retain some ambiguity about his guilt, and also an admission of doping is also an admission of perjury with serious personal consequences for him. 'No contest' is his best option, although in that case its unreasonable for the press and community to say 'OK we'll just abandon the whole process then'.

Seamus Gardiner said : "Having a doping peleton seperate to a clean peleton would certainly fix this problem ...."
You would think so, but just one example of doping gone wild is US Baseball, and it has not changed anything. The dopers are still heros. Go figure? I bet the same would happen to cycling, I suspect the the UCI know its an exciting spectacle and have done enough to placate everyone. I think it is time for realisation this conservative "War on Drugs" is a waste of time, they are only cheating doping in cycling, not committing a crime.
Be nice to have it all dope free, but seriously the egg is broken, how can it go back together.