These three folks to the left (winners of the 2003 Tour de Doping) are all suspected to utilise doping as a means to win the Tour de Doping. So they did (win..), in 2003.Ok, admittedly, I am bored. Who cares really about doping in sports these days? I assume most of us take for granted that many of those at the top know how to create a competitive advantage over rivals, including a doping-based advantage. I sometimes wonder whether we'd all be better off if we permitted doping (at least with regard to substances that are legally available for human consumption) and required those who use such substances come clean about it. Would save us all a lot of hassles and the athletes and their team management a lot of drama. The currently ongoing drama around the Tour de Doping (aka Tour de France) seems all somewhat unnecessary. If this wasn't the cut-throat business that it is, none of this would likely have happened. Of course, one appropriate response to such conduct would be not watch the Tour de France. Eventually collapsing ratings and income would bring those folks back down to earth, and likely eliminate the worst offending conduct. Goodness, I might be wrong, but really I am unconcerned about doping that isn't hazardous to the athletes' health. To me such bodily improvements are not, in principle, different to athletes wearing particular windcanal tested types of clothes or to athletes having their bikes fitted with particular types of tyres. I guess regulated use is preferrable to the current status quo.
