Friday, February 9, 2007


Outside of being fat, slow, and unable to emulate Paolo Bettini in any other category but hair loss, the most frustrating aspect of cycling is doping. It is not so much that people cheat and it is unfair and sucks. The most frustrating aspect of doping, is my inconsistent reaction to it. Musseew has been under suspicion for years and it doesn't phase me, but Gaummont and VDB get no slack. Hamilton seems like a rerun of Virenque and I can't generate any sympathy, but some how for Landis I hold out hope?? Why? How? Landis was on Phonak-how many dope scandals can one team have? How much house cleaning to only have it resurface? It might be easier to maintain a consistent line on dopers if the governing agencies gave any sign of consistency or even having their shit together. And don't even get me started on Armstrong-he should be a success story beyond reproach, but because he is and because so many corporations depended on his results, it's hard not to be cynical. If trek and oakley can work together on the "project one" stuff, why can't a bunch of chemists and pharmacists do the same thing on the drug side?

The real kick in the nuts, is that doping casts a shadow on ALL performance. If a guy rides well who has previously been mediocre -he must be doping. If a guy rides poorly after a good season-he must be doping. If a guy excels in any unusual way a question hangs in the air.
And for that sense of doubt and failure to revel in achievement, I can fall fully into the dopers suck camp. Because they do suck.

No comments: