i was planning to avoid this.  but people are just writing stuff that's not right.  and i don't care much for that.

>>>-----Original Message-----

>>>From: David Allen

>>>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:37 PM

>>>

>>>I agree that doping is a serious problem and needs to

>>>be promptly and severely dealt with when it is

>>>discovered but what safeguards, if any, are in place

>>>to protect riders who are either intentionally or

>>>accidentally unjustly accused?

The problem here is that riders will always claim they did not dope and are the victims of either one or all of the following:

(a) an overzealous antidoping regime or agency

(b) a national sanctioning body that does not want them to get ahead

(c) a (intentionally or unintentionally) spiked nutritional product

(d) bad advice from a coach/soigneur/advisor

very few have the class to come clean and admit it.  i cannot remmeber the name of the world champion mountain biker who did htis.  I could google it but I'm so freaking lazy right now that it's beyond me.  millar also spilled the beans when he realized they had him dead to rights.  thiscompared to someone like virenque.  superlatives are useless in describing him. 

anyhow, from mr. allen's post, when you say they (riders) are unjustly accused, i feel that's a bit to general.  a test in a certified laboratory was performed, by qualified diagnostic personnel, presumably using good quality standards to calibrate the machinery.  if they are "accused", it is generally on this basis.  if your throat hurts and you see a doctor and he does a swab and he subsequently calls you and says you have strep, you don't ask for another test or a second opinion.  ask yourself why this is the case. 

if a rider i concerned about their ability to make a living by racing a bike, they must deny the allegation that they cheated in the strongest terms.  (example: tyler hamilton swore over the body of his dead dog tugboat that he had not cheated, and many people bought that story: hook, line and sinker.  his case was repeatedly arbitrated and his defense was found to be substantially lacking. 

he still has not come clean about what happened, in spite of overwhelming evidence.  he is serving a two year ban.  was he unjustly accused?)

i don't think this point should be conceded.  drunkenly yelling "dopage" and "j'accuse" at racers from a hillside in southern france is unjustly accusing them.  you have no factual basis for doing so.  but making an assertion based on results from a laboratory which has done a proper analysis doesn't strike me as the slightest bit malicious.  it's objectively based, not subjectively based.

now there may be issues or mitigating circumstances.  floyd has obviously passed numerous tests this year given his palmares so the result does seem odd, or rather, at odds with previous tests.  if floyd is getting good advice, he will have lawyered up and they will depose everyone in sight.  they will be sure the samples were appropriately cared for.  they will examine the standards used to calibrate the machinery.  they'll look at the service records on the gas chromatograph or mass spec units.  they'll interview the analysts and go through their procedures in minute detail.  and they will look for a mistake.  they will endlessly discuss the rate fo type 1 and type 2 errors coming from the analysis.

but even if they find one, can you still say that the person was unjustly accused?  the lab followed their standard procudure and they have been certified by wada.  everyone screws up on occasion.  it happens.  but the lab followed procedure and returned the result.  i'm not arguing that the current set of drug rules is a good idea (i'm not sure it is) and i'm not arguing that the current system is fair (i'm fairly certain it's not) but the rules were well defined and they appear to have been followed.

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From: Ron Carl

>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:21 AM

 

>>> Maybe it’s just me, but I believe that it is extremely

>>> unfair to speculate on the guilt or innocence of someone

>>> until all of the test results are in.

>>> When we see the results of the B test all this speculation

>>> and chatter may be for nothing.

this is true.

>>> A single and be beneficial (sic) is to send out samples to other labs that

>>> are completely outside of the cycling community. It may be extreme but how

>>> about sending samples to say the FBI? Apparently the quality of the test

>>> from and the FBI labs are used to catch terrorists and serial killers and

>>> send them to jail for capital punishment. I think that makes them more than

>>> capable of performing the tests. OK so maybe this is a bit extreme but how

>>> about a lab specifically set up in a neutral location with no ties to racing

>>> whatsoever and governed in such a way that it is completely impartial. Regular

>>> testing of the equipment and sterility of the lab assured.

i sort of feel like i get to have all the fun.  so i'm turning this one over to the rabble in comments.  there's a lot to look at here.  i mean assuming the dhs hasn't compiled all of this information on us already.  your turn.  is this a good idea?  why or why not?

- - - posted by scott