Originally Posted by USA Rob
i agree. just saying the video doesn't really make any argument as you mentioned.
so whats the answer for you?
NO idea to be honest.
I think there are so many factors involved that I can't really see a simple approach.
I just think that when it's in the interest of the governing bodies and £multimillion companies that the top athlete's are fit, healthy, producing exciting performances and have a good reputation then I don't really see that there is any real incentive for the powers in charge to stop doping. You only have to look at the UCI and cycling in the 90s to see that.
From the perspective of anti-doping agencies wanting to eradicate doping, which I sincerely believe they do, they face that problem that when there is so much money at stake people will always cheat. And because of the resources available the dopers will always be ahead of the testers, so you're never going to stamp out cheating. And then you have to take into consideration that they are probably working against the might of the governing bodies and sponsors who have both £millions and their reputations tied up in these guys who also don't want to see them caught.
Also, the commercialisation of sport and the money available has increased athlete's itineraries to an unprecedented level (think matches/tournaments/races per season), to the point that it's so demanding that it is actually bad for their bodies and some PEDS are probably necessary to stop their bodies from falling to pieces (i.e increasing the hormones that help the body to heal and recover). This is another reason why I don't think governing bodies will want to catch dopers. You don't put them in a position where doping is a necessity to keep to their schedule and then throw then under the bus for ensuring they perform.