On 26-Jul-2007, smacked up and reeling, Burt blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:

I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
kicks them out adds credibility to the race.

Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
you think would happen.

If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.

Two things:

1. Riders affect one anothers performances in a variety of ways. Pulling a
rider doesnt undo his effect on the race, so the end result is not the same
as if the rider had not started. It's like trying to re-score a baseball
game by eliminating one player, the runs he scored or batted-in, the outs,
put-outs, errors, etc. that he made. You cant undo the effect of his
participation, so the result itself is not credible. It was Rabo pulling
all day for a week. What if it had been Disco, Astana, or Lotto? How can a
winner be credibly declared now?

2. The drug testing and appeals process itself is not seen as credible by
many people. The presumption of guilt, sloppy lab work, and press leaks all
give the impression of an unfair and out of control process.

All this leaves me (and I assume many others) feeling that the tour is no
longer a true athletic test of the participants.

steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce