Quote:
Originally Posted by Dottore
According to the NYT, part of LA's strategy is to roll-over on senior functionaries and administrators in the sport world-wide (who knew of the doping and tolerated it) in order to manoeuvre himself into the position of "key witness" in the various lawsuits likely to follow.
This sounds like both a sleazy and very high-risk strategy — and that would fit right in.
|
I think you are right to assume that he is doing it for personal gain, but if one wants to clean up a sport you are going to have to go to the top of the chain. It can't stop at one guy. Until we make the punishment severe at the sponsor and aminstration levels doping will never stop. It is ALWAYS worth it for sponsors and governing bodies to condone doping because they get all the benefits without any of the risks. Sponsors who want to win and governing bodies who want fans (to make money) will always find an athlete desperate enough to dope. Just look at MLB and what they let go on to get fans back to the sport. That homerun debacle with Bonds, Mcguire, & Sosa was all condoned and supported by the teams and the league.
Many people have suggested that Lance's cancer was the result of steriod use, imagine being so desperate to go back to a practice that should have and nearly did kill you. If he was willing to risk losing his life to win, what rule could you use to stop him? The only thing I can think of is that the risk for the sponsor and the sport is so large that they wouldn't take a chance at allowing doping to take place on their teams.
So I say if the captian is going down, the ship ought to go with him.