Originally Posted by r2473
Without a "smoking gun", you sort of have to assume that everyone (or no one) from this era was taking steroids, don't you?
Otherwise it is clearly just down to prejudice / "popularity contest". Which is fine I guess, but doesn't seem "right" (not that that "right" or "wrong" have much to do with it).
The logic seems to be "lets only punish the really, really, really good steroid users that the public doesn't like". I have no problem with this mind you, but there isn't a lot of sense to it all the same (Lance, are you listening.....)
It makes a lot of sense to me.
While you think the process is some sort of selective vendetta, I think itís strategic and utilizing 80/20 rule.
Without having unlimited personnel and resources, the MLB and cycling are trying to clean up their sports by taking down the top guys, the ring leaders, hoping for increased public awareness and a domino effect. I know itís clichť but the best way to neutralize a snake is to cut off its head. We all know how difficult and expensive it is to go after a guy like Bonds or Armstrong.
A step in a right direction, donít you think? The first step is always the hardest and I applaud them for it.