So once again the "world is rocked" by a cyclist riding flat out for 3 weeks over some of the hardest terrain in the world and using drugs.
Firstly my impressions of the Landis test (honestly I'll get to a point eventually). He used testosterone. He got caught. His defense is that he went drinking the night before after his crap ride demoralised him so much.
So after an atrocious day in the saddle he either (assuming he did use drugs):
A. Got drunk, decided to use the drugs and damn the consequences. Well we've all been there (well not the drugs but the stupid choices made bit).
Problem: If no one is using testosterone where did he get it from.
B. Got drunk with someone else who had access to testosterone and together they decided to do the deed (again we have all been convinced or convinced others to be daft).
Problem. Same as before, where the hell is this testosterone coming from if no one is using drugs?
C. Had easy access to illegal drugs and was under the impressions he wouldn't get caught.
No Problem. Testing is primarily doone on a ratio system and so, provided you get the epi and the test balanced you are sorted. If this is the case presumably everyone is doing it. Slight issue in that he buggered up (his ratio was 11:1 purportedly. Bigger issue the testorone apparently DNA tests out to plant based (wtf? plants have testosterone) instead of human.
C. is the only option that stands out as believable.
So we now have pretty much everyone using some kind of substance to get through this race.
And people say they can't watch it anymore because it takes the purity out of the race or something.
Drugs are illegal in this context. Logically it looks like a lot of people are using them _anyway_.
Given the worlds incredible success in fighting drug use amongst those who just want to get loaded I have issues believing a war on drugs which help people get really really rich could ever work.
So we either maintain this farce of a campaign fighting doping with half hearted measures or we take a leaf from the body building world.
We have the "Mr Natural" and the "Roids anonymous" competitions. The RA comp purportedly has drug testing. But we've all seen the youtubes of those guys. The Mr Natural actually has pretty good testing (word of mouth from soemone involved, hence not provable).
Testing is easy. Hell statistics alone find most drug cheats.
But imagine if we openly allowed drug use (instead of turning a blindish eye).
You're a cyclist in the tour (substitute whatever sporting event you want) and you have a load of cash and want to get more. Is there even a slight chance that pharmaceutical companies will sponsor the tour?
"Our new drugs improve immune system" (most cyclists that get sick at the end of the tour just have repressed immuno and a cold kills them).
"Our new drugs improve haemoglobin activity" (up a hill and down, need oxygen to do it fast).
and so on.
And how many people in the world would use these drugs if they were available and _safe_?
Probably lots.
If there is huge money going into the drugs the development and competition will probably churn out better drugs.
If it is just people that are going to die soon anyway using them, well let's just say aids drugs have not got the sponsorship of, say, a telecom company.
