Lance Armstrong will confess to Oprah. My thoughts:
When I first read the USADA report, my reaction was “Well, if this can improve the culture in cycling regarding the use of risky drugs to improve performance, then, despite all the ugliness and sadness, it’s overall a good thing.” Everything else, to me, is just noise. I guess I’m just too much a child of the 60s, when the hippie ethos encouraged us to “Do Your Own Thing”. Judging other people for their choices is something I try to avoid. But helping people make better choices – that’s something that does have value.
Some rules in sporting activities merely set the boundaries of the playing field: 60′ 6″, 100 yds, 10′, etc. And some rules are there for the safety of the participants: can’t use the helmet as a weapon, can’t undercut a player off his feet driving to the hoop. Rules against drugs are both. In the 90s, cyclists were dying in Europe from sludge in their hearts – too much EPO. In the 00s, ex football players are committing suicide cause their brains got rattled. Deaths are literally the tip of the iceberg. The damage and the risk is far more pervasive then just a few guys dying; many more will end up with health damaged. Just google risks of EPO to see recent medical studies of its untoward effects WHEN PRESCRIBED IN PROPER DOSES for real medical problems. And don’t get me started on the risks of messing with the body’s hormone equilibrium with testosterone or estrogen.
From my current perch near the end of the life span, I’ve discovered that young men in their teens and 20s (and sometimes on up thru their 40s) are the LAST people we should expect to have a balanced view of what is safe for themselves and others. Hence, the people in charge of a sport create rules for their safety and, presumably, enforce them. Cycling did the former, but not the latter.