Doping admission in the NYT by Jonathan Vaughters
Jonathan Vaughters admits to doping in a New York Times article. If his age is correct in Wikipedia he started doping at the age of 24, one year before he joined US Postal.
What I find interesting is that all these admissions are coming out but none that I've seen have been specific about the type of doping undertaken and how long each athlete was doping. The admissions are a positive (no pun intended) step forward for cycling but to me, without that extra level of detail, it lacks the level of transparency need to make real change. If they are going to fess up why not do it properly so we can all move on? If there are still ways to beat the testing system why no say so and work on fixing it?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Luke on -
I had the same thought when I was thinking about why he wasn't more forthcoming with details. Maybe that info is confidential until the USADA v Lance battle is over.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard on -
A very interesting article that hilights the challenge young sportsmen face. Imagine having your son/daughter coming to you to discuss this decision ... then imagine how much worse it is for them not to be able to use that option. This article demonstrates why those who have driven to the need to dope (team managers for example) and those who have made it possible to dope, need to be exposed.
I can only express my huge disappointment the attitude, that suggests this brave man's testimony is useless unless he gives full details. Do people honestly expect that we, the unitiated public, would understand the finer points of doping and avoiding being caught? Do people honestly believe that cluttering up such an honest article with a great heap of irrelevant technical infomation would actually help the story (If I was the editor of that article, I know I wouldn't)? Frankly, such claims sound like a desperate search for some way to denigrate those who admit their doping in an effort to protect the image of those who won't confess. It's akin to the constant references to Vinokourov as a 'dope cheat', using that term to somehow denigrate his efforts now rather when he was cheating. And there are others, men who've been caught, admitted their sins and then, (presumably) fought back as clean athletes. Somehow though, they are less than the people who continually give false denials and give fake reasons in the knowledge that their fans will forgive them - tainted meat, deliberate poisonning, being one step ahead of the chemists despite being 'caught later', etc.
To choose to cheat is one thing - whether you had much of a choice or not talks only to the level of the crime.
A more serious crime is to cheat and then deny it - that takes cheating to a higher level of dishonesty. Strange how that's regarded by much of society as better than admitting the crime ie, dishonesty is better than honesty, even if it's after the fact.
Guess I grew up in a different era, when cricket was more than a game and those who used dope were more or less open about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Turner on -
All very well to come clean after your professional career as a sportsman has ended. Wonder how much he got paid by the NYT for the article?
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Turner on
-
Also important to get your sports management company up and running before you spill the beans on your doping.
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
