since we've well established that froome is clean and q must be doping (what? we haven't at all come to those conclusion? shit, i was hoping i wouldn't have to watch anymore of that type discussion). anyway, since we've done enough talking about doping within our beloved sport, how about we discuss doping in other sports, and compare that to ours. major league baseball was nice enough to drop some doping suspensions on us this week (see here for espn article). most are the 50 games variety, but superstar arod got 211.
one thing i found interesting, is that nobody seems to care all that much. whenever cycling is brought up at work (mostly by people who know nothing about it other than the tour is happening), the conversation has a strong doping aroma. when "my boy lance" was in the middle of his very public fall from grace, everybody had to come by and let me know about it, usually followed by a "you were right". i guess the sport (or lance) is big enough that people hear about the doping scandals, without ever really seeing any of the sport. whereas the major sports (this is a very united states eccentric post, i'm talking of baseball, basketball and football, the real kind) have done a great? job of having the sport itself in the headlines, and the doping scandals kept pretty much nonexistent.
what's your take? are you happy with the way cycling handles its doping problem? do you wish we would take a more nfl or mlb--type of approach? or do you wish the major us sports would take a more uci-type approach?