But as a confession, Vaughters’s essay is a self-serving pile of PR—a textbook example of how public figures use the media to cultivate their images and influence the stories that get told.
[Seems like both sides are wrong in opposition to the old joke. The cheaters give themselves a pass (as they did in the first place) and the “let ’em do as they please” public i wrong as well. Recently, in the London games, a swimmer discussed how other swimmers were taking an extra dolphin kick that is against the rules. because the judges don’t use underwater cameras to adjudicate, it goes unpunished and ignored. And clearly the ethos taught to the vast majority of athletes is wrong. In the drive to teach them to give their all, they’re taught that “all” means “whatever it takes”. This are two very different ideas. And the germ of the solution is in this article. “In 2003, I interviewed Vaughters for a Bicycling article about doping. ‘People tend to forget that this is how cyclists earn a living’ “. Perfect. So here’s the new rules, with tweaking to keep the edge cases away. If you’re caught cheating and convicted by a panel that includes your peers etc. etc. you’re stripped of all your earnings as a professional athlete and the companies related to athletic performance. There. That should fix it. (Any lawyering to work around the system is punishable by having Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem in your bedroom every morning.)]
Some more thoughts:
That’s like those dorks who say they want to win the lottery so they can make the world a better place. Next time you see them, they’re broke, drunk in a gutter, and covered in venereal sores. Athletes hate fairness. They want an edge, a leg up, a lighter bike, faster wheels, cyanide in their opponent’s coffee, anything to get ahead of the competition. Cycling was a cheat-filled sport long before EPO, and it will be one long after.