I don't know ... I don't race. I don't really follow racing. You have to be under a pretty big rock not to know about Lance Armstrong. Since ALL posters in this thread know about Armstrong, Landis and others ... why is there still any argument about the effectiveness of PED's? I have no choice but to assume the $#*@ works. Therefore if you are racing against doped competitors and they don't crash or commit serious tactical blunders they will crush you. I DOUBT it was Armstrong's or any other competitive athletes choice to use PED's. It obviously was his decision, but a refusal to proceed with the doping program once the offer was made by team management would have relegated him to a supporting role and therefore out of the winners circle. It is a decision that you don't have to think about unless you show the potential for greatness. No team is going to waste the resources on 2nd string talent. It was obviously a mistake to believe that Armstrong was clean and won 7 TdF Gold Medals on talent. A lot of us knew better, but a lot more who should have known better wanted to believe in miracles. If you want to believe that your favorite racer who consistently winds up a top finisher in the large majority, if not all the races they enter ... if despite the historical record you need to believe they are doing it with nothing other than talent and hard work ... knock yourself out. If, as a newcomer to the sport you want to believe that the age of doping is over and that going forward all racing will be free from PED involvement ... again, knock yourself out. Why not? There is no downside to going in with your eyes shut. Have fun, train hard, win races ... who knows ... ...