Man, I am so glad other bloggers are better writers than me. Instead of thinking up a new post all by myself, I can read excellent reporting elsewhere, react to it, paste up a bunch of links and go from there. Thank you internets! So here goes
First go over to velonews and see that Mayo's B sample for EPO was declared negative by the lab that did it.
Then note that the UCI says they will continue testing the sample as "The analysis of it has not yet finished." (anne gripper, uci doping commisar).
Now go read this excellent post over at Belgian Knee Warmers (BKW).
Right on there BKW! some interviews with doping sources with good stuff on different reputations at different labs, how irregular this is compared to the usual protocol, and the implication on the Landis case.
Great stuff (check out the rest of the blog too, lots of great pro cycling stuff).
Here are my reactions to this (I wrote these as comments to the BKW post originally, but since I wrote them I think I can reprint em here, no?):
What astounds me is that the UCI thinks it is OK to continue to test a sample to get the "correct" answer. This cuts to the fundamental problem with cycling dope testing. It is not impartial and it seems that there is no plan by the UCI to even attempt to maintain a facade of impartiality.
That they are willing to go ahead and announce that they are going to continue testing to see if they can overturn the negative is mind blowing.
The right answer is for the UCI to declare the Mayo test a negative, reinstate him and then go and figure out how and why and if their testing system failed them. And then fix the problem.
The UCI must be willing to accept that it is better to let some guilty riders go than:
a. convict innocent ones
b. ruin all their credibility by changing the rules as they go along.
This has been a persistent problem in the realm of antidoping in sport. At this point no one should give a shit whether Zabel doped in 96 or if Lance doped in in 2000, they should be spending their efforts in making sure their system is fundamentally flawless so riders like Hamilton, Landis, Heras or Mayo can be quickly banned without lengthy trials that expose legitimate uncertainties in the process.
Anyhoo, like I says, good post BKW, thanks to the blogosphere for making it easy to react and link and think. Stupid UCI....
30 days of biking: April 30
3 hours ago