Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I don't know and I don't care who the best finishing rider in a drug-tainted tour is. What's the difference? If the whole era is tainted by cheating, it's finished. There's no respect left for it. It might as well not exist. Nobody won. Everybody lost.
A "more pragmatic view of drug use" is the same thing as "a pragmatic view of cheating".
Ben Johnson was the fastest runner in the world in 1988. 25 years later, has anyone taken a "pragmatic" view on what he was up to?
All he did was cheat. He didn't deny it for years, wracking up gold medal after gold medal, and suing anyone who suggested he was cheating, but he's still a villain.
|
There definately isnt vitriol directed toward johnson like there used to be. And if they could ever prove that Lewis doped too I think then Johnson would be vidicated as a doper in a dopers event. Have you watched the 30 for 30 on the race? I would say the view presented in that doc is much more pragmatic than anything produced in the wake of the scandel. I would disagree that people see him as a villian now.
So while people now are outraged that will mellow and in the end people will view what Armstong did as an impressive athletic achievement in a doped era. The part people should be concerned about isnt the doping its the people he destroyed protecting the lie.
20% of baseballs writers have already accepted that Maguires doping shouldnt stop him from getting into the hall. Society has begun accepting that athletes are flawed.