the Mayo post

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....


Mark Bishop said...

This seems like an odd twist on the "innocent until proven guilty" idea. Which, at first thought would be a welcome return to a semblance of justice for WADA and the UCI. Instead, they have somehow managed to muddy the waters all the more. Ironies of all ironies, they are just bending the rules to win, the very thing that they proclaim to be fighting against. Who holds their feet to the fire? Us? The sponsors? Certainly not the teams or the riders themselves. When does the slope get too slippery to climb back up?

Anonymous said...

Right on Tarik! I think somebody could get together a group of high school honor students, give them the situation and have them draw up a list or rules and protocols that would work better for pro cycling than what the UCI and WADA have done. Make your rules and stick to them, its just that simple. Don't complain about riders getting off on a technicality because the technicality IS the rules! Fix it and move on, doped rider free maybe but better than clean rider screwed. Just go back to the good old days of 10 minute time penalties for positive tests and leave it at that, I don't care but fix it already!