NYT article on doping in cycling

[fiamme red]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/sports/cycling/11iht-cycling11.html?src=recg&pagewanted=all

Imagine that, around two years from now, a panel of judges in Switzerland rules that contrary to what millions saw on television last weekend, the New York Giants did not actually win the Super Bowl. Sorry, Giants, please Fedex the trophy to Boston.

That is more or less the situation that the universe of professional cycling confronts after a Swiss court ruled in the past week that the winner of the 2010 Tour de France, Alberto Contador, had used a banned muscle-building substance. Contador was stripped of his title, and the runner-up, Andy Schleck, was named the winner...

[Elefantino]

Read that.

Interesting that they put forth the notion that HTC went under in part because of suspicions about Contador. Not sure I buy it, but I don't not buy it, either.

[tsarpepe]

By NYT standards, this article is primitive. It goes out to say 1) that it is fans that pushed cyclists to drugs and 2) asks in bewilderment, why would professional cyclists spend all this time and money defending themselves against doping allegations. Let's see, could it be because that's their livelihood? Because outside of cycling there's nothing for them to do? And because an indictment in fact puts you out of cycling?