"""It is not clear who made the decision not to test riders for EPO during the Tour of California last year, or whether it was merely an oversight.""

Merely an oversight??? To test for certain drugs but not the most popular PE in the sport? Doesn't sound like an oversight to me. If you agree with me, then barring a systematic error at the lab (and even then, how is it possible that they forgot every day to test for EPO over the course of a multi-staged event?), we must conclude that an affirmative decision was made to not test for EPO.

I find it difficult to take professional sports seriously anymore. There is so much money at stake for the athletes, who tend to be very competitive people and thus always looking for an edge, that the temptation to use PEs must be nearly irresistible, especially if they think their competitors are using PEs. So as a sports fan, I have no idea whose performance is pharma-enhanced, and whose performance is pharma-free. And as near as I can tell, almost none of the governing bodies takes PE testing and enforcement seriously enough to really deter athletes (e.g., cycling, MLB, NFL, etc.).

The sponsors would be extremely reluctant to back a league where the athletes are free to use PEs, but I think the fans would come around, and subsequently, the sponsors would as well. As a fan, what I desire more than a drug-free sport is a level playing field. So if everyone is jacked on 'roids, I'd be happy to watch. In fact, that would probably be much more entertaining than a sport that was entirely drug-free."