There may be closer examination of cycling, but is it fair to frame it as the sport getting picked on? Could it be argued that the intense scrutiny ensures there's a greater demand for teams and their cyclists to stay clean or for the authorities to enhance their investigative procedures, which would benefit the sport overall, assuming we all want it to be drugs-free? Or do you think it's possible that many cyclists, who may well be clean, are victims now of an unreasonable suspicion that tarnishes their reputation almost by default simply by virtue of being professional cyclists?
I suppose it's human (rather than necessarily sociopathic) to attempt to rationalise one's position or actions. It's a matter of perspective and one's personal values and standards are derived from their circumstances and context. Within cycling, there may be a collective moral conformity to a type of group-think (that is, if doping is as widespread as is often suspected). When one gradually finds themselves in a position where perceived abuse or exploitation of some nature is the natural order of things, they'll likely try and deceive/justify it until continuing to deceive/justify it is no longer viable or until it actually becomes self-damaging. I suppose Lance Armstrong is a good example of that. He was convinced that he was right all along - he was also protected by others within the sport and in the know encouraging him and telling him he was right - whilst others, especially those outside of cycling, might view him now as a total sociopath. Personally, I have very little time for him and would be sympathetic to the latter view, but that's no more than my opinion. I'm sure plenty of others have simply never been caught out, whilst whistle-blowers are exceptionally rare, lest they be seen to be diverging from the orthodoxy and shunned by their colleagues and profession. Would most pro cyclists openly or publicly admit to taking "vitamins" even? Wouldn't that needlessly arouse suspicion?
I was watching a BBC programme, '
The Super-Rich and Us', the other day and it was interesting to listen in interview to how those who were benefiting materially from the way British society is presently organised (the extraordinarily-rich upper percentiles getting exponentially richer and the poor - or everyone else even - getting relatively poorer, with huge variations in economic equality, prospects and opportunity) rationalised the accumulation of vast and astronomical (obscene to some) levels of wealth at the expense of the remainder of society; "
wealth benefits all and filters down", "wealth is not finite and spurs further economic growth"... They were absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their privileged lifestyle, even with an explicit awareness of the impoverished, probably because people have an innate desire to do what they personally think is right, reasonable or just or to at least convince themselves and others that what they're doing is right. I'm not really convinced that people do "bad" simply for the sake of doing "bad".
You may well be aware of Oxford bio-ethicist
Julian Savulescu? My brother mentioned him to me after having encountered
him on the BBC's 'Hardtalk' (where he also made a case for genetic engineering). He's very compelling in argument and
has long been trying to make the case for the permitting of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. As he says, the rules in place are completely arbitrary and ultimately derived from a whichever sporting fraternity favouring one particular set of values over another set; neither set being necessarily, inherently or objectively more right or wrong than the other.
Bookmarks