Originally Posted by
Doge
The thing that folks do not seem to be acknowledging in my posts is the scope is narrowed for the 20-30 year old group. I am responding to the scope of this post - Amateurs. In that group you have all the best in the world - for their age, who even doped are not good enough to be pro. And you have a group that know they are not going to be pros, because of choice, or because of ability. The latter group is generally getting better (age) and the former declining (age).
All 40+ racers are amateurs. The most serious/best performers in the 20-30s are not. So besides the easier of legitimate access to PEDs a 40, 50 etc. has, you have all competitors in that age group in there. Ex-pros, world champions all types. When they were 20-30s they were pros too. And if they were doping then, they were doping as pros - so out of scope of this thread as is Armstrong / other pros.
There were/are several top cyclists that made the choice to step out of being a pro. Choosing not to compete at that level and then doping so you can, is something I don't see. Instead they train when they can around work, school and go race. If they took cycling as seriously as the other things in life - they'd be pros, and there might be more reason to dope.
You seem to assume that all 20-30 year olds are rational actors with the same morals you have. I'd bet there are some 20-30 year old elites that you'd put in the "not good enough to be pros even if they doped" group who think that if they dope they will be good enough and are willing to give it a try. I'd also bet that there are some 20-30 year olds that find that life means that they can't train as much as their friends but still want to compete with them (and I'd be that there are some who just want to be able to compete for bragging rights at Tuesday Night Worlds rides) that will take a little something extra to try to make up for the fact that they can't train as much (because "it's not fair that I no longer have as much time as ____ to train, so this is just balancing things to make up for it"). And I'd bet that there are some who think that it doesn't matter since they're unlikely to be caught, it's fun to go faster and/or hurt less, so who gives a ****, why not? And that's just at the pointy end. I'd bet there are also a number of 3's and 2's that are tired of waiting to get the points to get promoted and think, "who's going to know, they don't ever test 3's" and take a little something to get there a little faster.
Just because you can separate amateurs out into groups, identify why they fit into those groups, and say why it doesn't make sense for anyone in each of the groups to dope for group-specific reasons, doesn't mean that they'd all agree with the group you've put them in or your reasons for why people in that group shouldn't dope. Hell, some people don't see that there's anything wrong with doping (as long as they are smart enough to get caught - they only look down on those who they feel must obviously be dumb since they got caught), and don't feel that they need a good reason. Some people like putting substances (of all sorts, even if they cause long term consequences) in their bodies because it makes them feel good. Some people like riding their bikes fast because it makes them feel good. Some people like putting substances in their bodies because it allows them to go faster and going faster makes them feel good.