Exactly. If doping was so widespread and such a vast conspiracy as has been alleged, then they were all pretty much guilty of doing the same thing, so will all their wins be vacated as well? And if all or most of the elite cyclists were guilty of doping, then the playing field was still equal among his competitors and so Armstrong was still beating his competition.
The agency has never said that Armstrong failed a single test and all the claims against him come from other cyclists who claim that they themselves beat tests or avoided the test administrators altogether.
And isn’t EPO legitimate in its use for people who have undergone chemotherapy? Just asking.
And to be honest, in the world of all highly competitive sports, all athletes are looking for that edge. Some do it with the help of extreme training and diets rich in naturally occurring hormones or non-banned substances such as vitamin B shots or electrolytes and with the help of experts if they can afford them.
Perhaps instead of banning "doping", the USADA should just accept it and oversee its use.
This is exactly true.
- So many of the top riders were doping (and likely are doping) that for the most part this is a non-issue from a competitive standpoint. If they want to clean up the sport, then clean up the sport, don’t pretend that this is righting a wrong from the past. They all did it, but he was still better.
- EPO is not only legal, it is something our bodies produce naturally. That is why it is so difficult to figure out who is using it and at what level. They do things like test current versus past levels and try to test blood counts, but all of those things can be managed. It’s ability to up rbc counts makes it almost the perfect drug for competitive cyclists.
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.