Quincy Abeyie wrote:
And even if they have done that, why would it be relevant? I really don't see why you insist on making exceptions because just because he's from a little country. One of Norway's best skiers were banned from the Olympics because she used the wrong lip cream on her sunburned lips - that's how it must be. If they didn't ban her, then other people who took the drug could've used the same excuse and you would have to let them go. You have to be incredibly careful.
I dunno, I think it's all incredibly stupid. I think the whole charade is the way it is in part to cover up performance enhancement, making token examples every now and then.
I mean, coca tea? Lip balm? Who cares? I'm not so certain myself of where the line is. There are so many "medicines" you're allowed to take for whatever reason. When runners get exercise-induced asthma, why isn't that just part of the deal? Why should you be allowed to treat it? It's a failure of the body, some bodies fail quicker than others, isn't that how sport is eventually decided anyway?
I've got no good solution, I just don't know precisely what we're trying to accomplish. Doping isn't so much a question of ethics in the current setup, it's a question of rules and how closely they are followed. That's a problem, I think. The real question should be, what kind of ethical framework are we trying to hold athletes to, how much do we expect them to be able to live normal lives? If we expect them to be extra squeaky clean and be servants to their sport, then we can't make exceptions for comfort or even for safety. The risk has to be part of it, you might keel over. The sores on Lance's ass are part of what has to be endured in an endurance sport.
If it's just about watching people do amazing things, then fuck it. Make 'em as comfortable as possible, and have relatively loose rules that only ban anything that legitimately ruins the spectacle.
