[Akinato]

Did they? I’d argue that the next highest competitor that is competing legitimately would bring just as many eyeballs to the games. People are attracted by watching the best of the best compete — I don’t think the exact score is as important.

Unless you’re talking scandals, and then I guess so? There’s temporarily more eyes on the drama but it quickly drops off.

[dfxm12]

They did. Feel free to make that argument. Just keep in mind, at one point, people thought Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong were the best competitors competing legitimately, and people came to these sports in droves, so it's not an easy line in the sand to draw. Hell, can you even name the next highest competitor competing legitimately in the Tour de France 1999-2005? It's like those races never happened because so many people were cheating, but people were watching!

Of course I'm not talking about scandals, because anyone who who has lived through this or even looked into this a little bit knows the scandals were devastating for the sports.

[acjohnson55]

Given the prevalence of cheating in cycling, it's still remarkable that Lance won as much as he did. I guess maybe Team USPS had a significantly better cheating regimen. Unlike Sosa/Maguire/Bonds, juiced performance isn't obvious to cycling casuals.