I'm being lazy, honest. I didn't read it and feel no motivated to. So I really appreciated the well done sum up you can find HERE.
1. The Epo Age: "As many have reported, the advent of EPO significantly changed the doping landscape in pro cycling. The drug was highly effective, readily available and undetectable. Its advent led to a sport where roughly 90 percent of the competitors were using it."
2. The UCI Role: "The UCI was slow to recognize and react to the severity of the problem. When it did, it was severely hindered by differences of opinion on how to combat it. The approach that held sway for most of the 1990s and 2000s was a kind of benign containment rather than aggressive enforcement. Those efforts, the CIRC found, were actually counterproductive and allowed the doping culture to become more ingrained in the sport."
3. Procycling Now: "While the sport is cleaner today, the CIRC found that a culture of doping still exists. Some of the troubling aspects are the continued adaptation of doping programs to evade detection; the persistent, if subtle, forces of omertà that stem in part from the presence of many ex-pros who doped who are now team staff; and finally, a range of definitions on what those in the sport even today mean when they use terms like “clean” and “cheating.” "
It confirms what I thought and the common sense too. It also confirms that cycling is in a new age: not doping free but doping aware. That's a lot. In my opinion there is a very big doping problem in the amateur circuit and in the lower cathegories, and it's so big that it's a general healty problem, like drug, alchol and tobacco. It's allarming. In procycling there is a more insidious, less evident doping: microdising, high medicalisation. I agree that ex dopers shouldn't be anywhere about a cycling team. I think the UCI is improving but I'm not so ready to clap.