Raganwald, I normally like what you write, but bringing up Lance is nonsensical.
Everyone knows that cycling's been big on doping for years. It can hardly even be called cheating, it's tacitly acknowledged that everyone's on drugs. It's been well established that all of Lance's competitors were doping as well. When your choices are take drugs, or don't compete, is it really cheating?
The real problem in cycling is the moral outrage around doping. Doping isn't cheating, it's the way the game is played. If you want to compete, that's the price of admission.
Nike's a giant publicly traded corporation with an obligation to their shareholders. Their main product is their brand (which is used to sell goods). They did what they needed to do to protect their brand. As far as pretending that they didn't know about Lance, I consider that a white lie. Everyone has known that Lance doped for years. Nike feigning ignorance is a fiction needed to prevent retaliation from moralists with their heads in the sand, a constituency that sadly cannot be ignored.
Doping in cycling is cheating. Not everyone does (or did) it--see Christophe Bassons [1] as the canonical example--and in any case the most sophisticated doping regimens were only available to a few of the best-financed riders and teams. Hardly a level playing field [2].
Both valid points. It's sad that someone like Bassons is at a disadvantage.
You're right doping doesn't level the playing field. However, for better or worse it's part of the playing field. Of course, nothing about pro sports is ever fair. Money matters even taking drugs out of the equation. It buys you better bikes, trainers, doctors, training facilities, etc.
As far as some people responding better to drugs, well sports are pretty heavily defined by our bodies. Responding well to drugs is analogous to responding well to training, it's an asset for an athlete to have in today's world.
> Doping isn't cheating, it's the way the game is played.
This argument bothers me, and it's one used by people who speed.
If all of the cyclists dope, then they have a separate game. They're not cheating at that separate game. They are, however, breaking the rules set out by the UCI (or whoever.)
Performance enhancing drugs are against the rules; using them is cheating. Similarly, speeding is against the law. That makes it illegal. The fact that hardly anyone abides by the rules doesn't mean the rules don't exist.
> If you want to compete, that's the price of admission.
Someone on /r/cycling mentioned a baseball player from the McGwire days. The player stood up and publicly said (paraphrasing) "Look, everyone is on steroids. If they want to be on steroids, fine. At least acknowledge that it's happening. The real problem, though, is the people who don't want to be on steroids. People who are cheating are forcing everyone else to take PEDs to keep up."
Everyone knows that cycling's been big on doping for years. It can hardly even be called cheating, it's tacitly acknowledged that everyone's on drugs. It's been well established that all of Lance's competitors were doping as well. When your choices are take drugs, or don't compete, is it really cheating?
The real problem in cycling is the moral outrage around doping. Doping isn't cheating, it's the way the game is played. If you want to compete, that's the price of admission.
Nike's a giant publicly traded corporation with an obligation to their shareholders. Their main product is their brand (which is used to sell goods). They did what they needed to do to protect their brand. As far as pretending that they didn't know about Lance, I consider that a white lie. Everyone has known that Lance doped for years. Nike feigning ignorance is a fiction needed to prevent retaliation from moralists with their heads in the sand, a constituency that sadly cannot be ignored.