Pat's Drinking Partners

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

mtb Dad said:

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

When faced with such widespread illogic, surely it is worthwhile
to question whether one, several, or perhaps all of the assumptions
are valid.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz said:

mtb Dad said:

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

When faced with such widespread illogic, surely it is worthwhile
to question whether one, several, or perhaps all of the assumptions
are valid.

Bob Schwartz

Go on. I'm open to question these assumptions. I do wonder about the
people who elect NF reps. What are they after? Clean sport is an
assumption there too. If it's something else, it would certainly
affect the others. Maybe it's cheaper licenses and that's it?

mtb Dad said:

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

The NGBs, national olympic committees, and governments
aren't on the side of anti-doping. They are on the side
of winning. As many medals as possible without getting
caught. But they can all agree (along with LeBlanc) on
the real enemy: athletes who get caught.

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

The NGBs, national olympic committees, and governments
aren't on the side of anti-doping. They are on the side
of winning. As many medals as possible without getting
caught. But they can all agree (along with LeBlanc) on
the real enemy: athletes who get caught.

The example of this that is more visible to Americans is
baseball. Doping has not hurt the game financially. In
fact, the opposite is true. Many players and owners have
made out quite well financially as a result of player
doping because fans responded positively to the result.

The thing that hurt baseball with it's fan base was
whacking the World Series with a strike in 1994. Doping
has not hurt the game's popularity at all. It has enhanced
it. Removing the spectacle caused the game a major hit.

One of mtb Dad's assumptions is that doping can be
controlled in a meaningful way. If you reverse that
assumption, concluding that the decades long losing battle
against doping is destined to continue, how does that change
your approach to winning races or medals?

Bob Schwartz

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob Schwartz said:

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

The NGBs, national olympic committees, and governments
aren't on the side of anti-doping. They are on the side
of winning. As many medals as possible without getting
caught. But they can all agree (along with LeBlanc) on
the real enemy: athletes who get caught.

The example of this that is more visible to Americans is
baseball. Doping has not hurt the game financially. In
fact, the opposite is true. Many players and owners have
made out quite well financially as a result of player
doping because fans responded positively to the result.

The thing that hurt baseball with it's fan base was
whacking the World Series with a strike in 1994. Doping
has not hurt the game's popularity at all. It has enhanced
it. Removing the spectacle caused the game a major hit.

The owners stopped holding major league baseball games
unilaterally in 1994. The owners cancelled the World
Series. It was a lock-out, not a player's strike that
halted baseball. The owners also held back money owed to
the player's fund from the 1994 all star game.

--
Michael Press
The rest of the world.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob Schwartz said:

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

So, why don't the national federations call McQuaid on his approach?
Surely most of them, even discounting allegations of Armstrong's
control of the USCF, would be better off if the doping problem were
addressed. Surely their funders, governments, are aligned on the
antidoping side, and it would be way easier to compete in an Olympics
if doping were controlled better. They elect him. Why don't they call
in their favours?

The NGBs, national olympic committees, and governments
aren't on the side of anti-doping. They are on the side
of winning. As many medals as possible without getting
caught. But they can all agree (along with LeBlanc) on
the real enemy: athletes who get caught.

The example of this that is more visible to Americans is
baseball. Doping has not hurt the game financially. In
fact, the opposite is true. Many players and owners have
made out quite well financially as a result of player
doping because fans responded positively to the result.

The thing that hurt baseball with it's fan base was
whacking the World Series with a strike in 1994. Doping
has not hurt the game's popularity at all. It has enhanced
it. Removing the spectacle caused the game a major hit.

One of mtb Dad's assumptions is that doping can be
controlled in a meaningful way. If you reverse that
assumption, concluding that the decades long losing battle
against doping is destined to continue, how does that change
your approach to winning races or medals?

Matters will progress according to historical imperatives.
Professional sports will continue to become more
spectacle, more a cash cow for owners, more controlled by
venal influences, more corrupt. As someone here said
recently athletes getting caught will be the owners
excuse, not their problem.

A man who reaches his majority should be capable of
refusing to dope himself. With proper upbringing and
influences he will make good decisions. For all I know,
doping may be a good decision, not just an expedient one.
Owners and governors in professional sports are much more
experienced, and are in a position to reinforce athletes
who do not dope; but they do not.

--
Michael Press
The rest of the world.