Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McM
Or, another way to look at is that they busting amateurs is a way of addressing a problem at its start.
If only professionals are tested, it sends the message that amateurs can dope without impunity. Does anyone believe that an amateur who dopes will immediately stop doping when they reach the pro ranks? Stopping doping means stopping doping culture. And that means creating a culture of non-doping when racers are young.
And what's wrong with giving the public what it wants? Amateur racing fees generate more revenue than professional fees (if only because there are more amateur racers), so why shouldn't that money be put to serving amateur's requests?
|
I don't disagree with the concept that USADA is giving the public what it wants. It's smart business.
As far as addressing a problem where it starts, that seems a lost argument when reading about a 50-year old woman.
I'm not sure how many amateur cyclists dope their way through to the pros. If I recall, most pros are folks that had some innate talent anyway, and ended up doping once they got there.
Seems to me that the more memorable stories pushed by USADA involve these Masters types. The guys I suspect of juicing in my area fit this mold. Riders that are staring down the barrel of their own mortality and can't accept the effects of aging on their race results.