I know I know, if you follow the news (and particularly the sports news) you're probably sick to death of hearing about doping in cycling, but my take on the outcome of the Tour this year is probably the minority view.
The media, as a general rule, are crying "riders are still using drugs, the race has no credibility", etc etc. The first part of this statement is clearly true (unless they've botched the lab tests, of course.) But has the race lost credibility?
I believe the opposite is true. If the rider testing regime was still as lax as it was say ten years ago, no-one would have been pulled from this race. Rasmussen might/would have won the race and Vinokourov would still be hailed as a battling hero. The race would clearly have been incredible if they had been allowed to get away with breaking the rules and had disadvantaged clean riders.
The inevitable result of an effective testing programme is that those who continue to break the rules will be caught and make the headlines, but at least it means that those remaining can feel more confident that they are on a level playing field.
As a final thought though - I do have a small reservation in my head regarding Vinokourov, primarily because I find it hard to believe that he could be so utterly stupid. As I understand it, stage winners are automatically dope tested, along with a sizeable percentage of the rest of the field - so why on earth would you blood dope, take testosterone or whatever then go for a stage win, knowing fine well that you're going to get caught?!
|