True or false? I do not know, and I do not take any position about morality, nor do I want to prevent anybody from knowing self-destruction.
I used to cycle a lot in my life and gathered not so few kilometers in the most beautiful regions, and I still do. And I like to watch Giro, Tour, Vuelta and other classical Tours. Yesterday, at stage 15, Giro d'Italia had a summit finish at Monte Zoncolan (in the beautiful Friuli). An extremely steep 11 km climb, one of the most testing in the world (222 km the whole stage). I say, bordering on the ridiculous.
It, like other hell rides, shall create awareness for an interesting market. But it might need "support " to stand such a torture?
And what I observe: there are less races (beside the classical), the are less sponsors and in total less interest (some of the public TV stations do not report on professional cycling any longer).
Consequently, there is less money in this market segment, I like so much.
IMO, when the doping and anti-doping race will dominate professional cycling, it will "die"?
And it was on the riders and cycling officials to stop this. Credible.
It is not always a must to make analogies.
But do observe similar behavior in financial markets? Complex conditions have shifted markets to new regimes, characterized by almost unimaginable anomalies. Instruments that have boosted markets with enormous leverages and deal correlations, emerged in the 21st century? Many of the theories and models (like the option theory) were not only invented to let market participants better understand the risk profiles of their deals; they describe game rules that make the market a fair play.
So, if the major players in the market do not take the lead acting in this sense and explaining the general benefits, politicians, authorities and others will, with approaches that might not be in the best interest of us all?