You could just as well be describing the impact of big money on sport.
I don't think that comparison really works. If you doubled Sky's budget, or the budget of any of the big teams, what could they really spend it on to improve their performances? I can't think of anything which would they could buy with the extra cash which would come even close to the additional performance which a USPS-style doping programme would provide.
To me the equation is quite clear. Doping = cheating. Of course you could change the rules to make doping legal, but for me it would still be cheating. But YMMV.
I don't think that comparison really works. If you doubled Sky's budget, or the budget of any of the big teams, what could they really spend it on to improve their performances? I can't think of anything which would they could buy with the extra cash which would come even close to the additional performance which a USPS-style doping programme would provide.
To me the equation is quite clear. Doping = cheating. Of course you could change the rules to make doping legal, but for me it would still be cheating. But YMMV.