They can't all have been particularly egregious.
Particularly: adverb 1. in a particular or to an exceptional degreeThat's not a point I'm particularly interested in debating.
I will concede... best I can tell... that the USADA only has jurisdiction over US athletes (duh) and Armstrong is particularly egregious as far as Americans go. The USADA also seems to be fairly consistent about lifetime bans for traffikers.
Edit: This link is kind of interesting if your head is spinning (like mine) about the relationship between WADA, USADA, and other organizations like the UCI or FINA. It kind of helped me piece together why things were handled the way they were. www.fighthype.com/.../content10292.html
They can't all have been particularly egregious.
Particularly: adverb 1. in a particular or to an exceptional degreeThat's not a point I'm particularly interested in debating.
I will concede... best I can tell... that the USADA only has jurisdiction over US athletes (duh) and Armstrong is particularly egregious as far as Americans go. The USADA also seems to be fairly consistent about lifetime bans for traffikers.
Edit: This link is kind of interesting if your head is spinning (like mine) about the relationship between WADA, USADA, and other organizations like the UCI or FINA. It kind of helped me piece together why things were handled the way they were. www.fighthype.com/.../content10292.html
