Here you go, anti-doping efforts violate US state employment laws...

Players and player agents must be jumping for joy: not like there was any real anti-doping effort in US pro sports anyway; now there will be none...



Hmm, totally a coincidence that a lawyer that has represented Lance is involved with this?

I suppose that they will next allow football players to carry handguns on the field...

I think I'm with CFA on on this thing - think I'll just ride my bike - I can see where this is going to end up.

Wouldn't it be great to see the client testimonial?

But, when it comes to doping and doping expertise, what this demonstrates is that Lance has again proved that he is ground zero.

More help for the Livestrong campaign.

Dave.

ground zero? isn't that just a tad melodramatic?

That's just Dave.

What can I say?

But, did the article cite any other previous clients for Levinstein? The only one mentioned by name in an article on doping was... ?

When you are an attorney, it is always helpful to be able to cite a relationship with a habitual subject-matter expert in order to reaffirm up your own credibility on the subject.

Dave.

I couldn't disagree more. In my considered opinion, this is a positive step toward achieving an effective anti-doping regime. How absurd to think that the big stick approach would ever work with individualists like sports-people.

Perhaps trying to employ some method which isn't simply testing to see whether the rules have been broken would yield the result everyone hopes for. It might also remove the element of doubt associated with total reliance on developing testing technologies.

If you want to change behaviour, change the culture, not the punishment. It's all pretty obvious really.

PS: For example, if President Obama came out and made the very simple statement that doping in sports was cheating ... what sort of impact do you think that may have ... on a global scale ? My guess is that this sort of approach would yield instant and measurable improvements in sports doping. The best solutions are sometimes the simple ones.

First of all, I thought you quit this forum, and secondly, what utopia do you live in? Right - sanctions and legislative and constitiutional reform and force have no bearing, just tell people it's bad? "hey you guys, slavery is morally wrong, just, well, just stop doing it, OK?" You forget that legislation and legal inforcement and sanctions are what push moral behaviour: just look at the history of corporations in the 20th century: 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair may have exposed the moral and ethical wrongs of the meat-packing industry, but it was legislative and legal action that inforced it.

There is no 'moral hazard' around doping in professional sports unless there is clear monetary loss potential for players, owners and sponsers - none of whom care about the ethics or morals of doping, only how it could potentially take away their profitabilty - if there is no economic disincentive to not dope, you are explicitly sanctioning it. But you know that, don't you? Your 'moral' arguments, once you've worked to dissasemble the anti-doping infastructure, will be a very handy defense of Lance and his cronies...