Tour de France 2013

I think that's how it was viewed before EPO came along. A quick dose of amphetamines might perk you up at the end of a long stage, and a wee bit of cortisone might help you recover at the end of a particularly long stage. But it gave you a slight edge, in the same way as having a light bike or the best tyres. And so it was condoned and tolerated, because doping in those days just gave you an edge, but no more.

EPO changed all that, turning 'carthorses into racehorses' as they said about Riis. It wasn't just an edge, it was a 5%, 10%, 15% improvement. This led to the 'two races' syndrome. If you weren't on EPO it wasn't just a case that you lost an edge, you weren't even in the race at all. Pre-EPO dope might meant you won, but not being on EPO didn't mean you didn't win, it meant you weren't even competing. And that's when it stops being a matter of personal choice and personal ethics, at least if you want to even stand a chance.

Personally, I'm happy with the idea that winning means having the best bike, the best training and the best team. I'm not that happy with the idea that winning, and not dying in the process, should be determined by who's best at doping.

And no, I don't think Froome's juiced. There's really no evidence to support the rumours that he (or the rest of Sky) is, and trying to prove a negative is impossible.

You could just as well be describing the impact of big money on sport. A two-tier system is created at the very top; although sport is a multi-tiered system whatever, and people will ultimately gravitate towards the one which suits them best. Who wins or loses doesn't really mean anything, at any level. It's a spectacle designed to let people go through a cathartic process, vicariously experiencing the glory of the victor, or the romance of the underdog who nearly made it against all odds, or the humility of those who make up the ranks and enable the whole charade to take place.

If doping were to be tolerated and brought out into the open, the transparency of it all would change people's perspective. You'd probably end up with a new kind of peer pressure that saw athletes' decisions influenced more by friends and family - particulary if there was a sense that big risks came with big gains à la EPO - or people naturally splitting into doped/non-doped factions with separate leagues/competitions arising; for starters...

Where's skully? He'd know what I'm getting at.