My recent article Thoughts and Words stirred a bit of discussion in some online forums. 
The arguments of the contributors almost exclusively concerned the first of my provocations, "True or False", while the other 2 (much more serious) ones apparently did not inspire any comment. 

Seeing the interest aroused by the "True or False" part, I'd like to add a few considerations. 

The point is not how much doping may improve athletic performances (5%, 15%, 40%), but how media exposition and diffusion of sensational (and false) information by the relevant organizations and authorities basically has the effect of encouraging and divulging doping practices, especially among amateurs, and much more than that. 

When "Striscia la Notizia", Eugenio Capodacqua, or others report (false) news on how easy it is to elude the tests, on how many substances are not actually being searched for or are untraceable and so on so forth, in reality they help inducing athletes into thinking that their higher placed rival competitors could be using God knows what kind of "new substances" or methods, in other words that "they're all doped up to the gills". 
Such infectious doubts effectively prompt them to look for pharmacological help. 

- Exogenous substances that cannot be traced DO NOT EXIST. 

- Masking substances that cannot be traced DO NOT EXIST either. 

- Even GENETIC DOPING is PROVABLE. 

The real problem is CONTROLS and who manages them. 

But this is another story too...