"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
B. Lafferty said:"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:It's great to see someone with Big Mig's standing to step up and point
this out, not that I think it does any good.
Cycling has made a much larger effort to detect and penalize dopers
than any other sport. Therefore they have caught more of them, and
rather than the perception being that cycling is trying harder, it's
that cycling is dirtier. IMO this is another spot where the UCI is
failing miserably. If they used some of that energy and venom they
direct toward anyone who disagrees with them to highlight how hard
cycling has tried to respond to doping compared to the other sports
we'd all be better off. As far as I can tell we are the only major
sport that is actually trying to clean things up, and this is killing
us in the PR department. The others are paying weak lip service to
doping, finding next to noone and declaring victory, and the press lets
it go. That's sad too.
Bravo to a real champion.
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8649
Indurain also reflected on the irony that cycling faced: "Cycling has
a poor reputation, and yet as a sport we have led the way in the fight
against dopage, but that is not how it has been perceived and dopage
continues to haunt us."
Bill C
The question has always been there about whether or not Big Mig doped
with
EPO. At the time, the explanation was that he lost weight. Sound
familiar?
Given what we do know about the significant drug use problems in the
Spanish
peloton, it would be facile to assume that Indurain was any cleaner than
any
other rider not testing positive.
Also, the line that cycling has done more than any other organization to
combat doping is a load of [censored]. Cycling has reacted to crisis after
crisis
claiming this knowing full well that the cheating was/is rampant. The
50%
hematocrit level is a mere license to dope to that point. When the UCI
does
the same blood/health profiling that the French Federation has done for
several years, I'll believe they may have changed their stripes.
Quoted message said:Brian I'm calling you on this! No weaseling!
What sport does more testing, including out of competition testing
than cycling? What do YOU suggest as the dividing line between a doped
and clean hematocrit?
I have made what to me is a fairly clear case, you need to prove
someone else is doing more.
Bill C
The criteria isn't just the number of tests, but lets look at that first.
Out of competition testing was not the norm in cycling until very recently.
Hein and the UCI were pressured into that by WADA. Verbruggen and the UCI
have also stated publily that they oppose under all circumstances the
retroactive testing of stored samples of blood or urine even though the WADA
code to whcih they have agreed calls for a 8 year period of potential
athlete liability.
To answer your question about hematocrit level, I don't think the issue is
an arbitrary level. Rather, riders should be subjected to medical profiling
as the French Federation does, so as to know what the norm is for every
athlete individually. The UCI was invited by the French to do this within
the past month but they have not, AFIK, responded.
If you look at the penalties handed out for positive tests, they were a joke
under Hein's administration and before. It was only under the threat of
exclusion from the last Olympic games that the UCI signed on to meaningful
penalties under the WADA code. Recall if you will, that Hein publicly
stated that he opposed two year suspensions for the first offense as that
would effectively end some cyclists' careers. He also raised the spectre of
the UCI being sued for preventing a cyclist from making a living which was
ludicrous at best.
When the Festina affair hit the press, where was Hein. Off on a juncket to
India, IIRC. And he didn't exactly rush back to the Tour to help with the
situation. Rather, he has repeatedly stated that the peloton is 95% clean.
Whenever a rider has come forward, like Manzano, telling what they know,
Hein and his minions have immediately castigated the rider as a malcontent
or worse rather than investigating the charges made. When the manager of
Amore e Vita criticised the 50% hematocrit rule as a license to cheat, he
was disciplined by the UCI at Hein's behest for daring to say that the UCI
wasn't serious about stopping doping.
In the wake of the Festina affair, the investigating judge in Lille stated
that Hein and the UCI's drug program was a joke and that the leadership of
the UCI was not doing all they could to fight doping. The UCI appealed that
decision and that criticism of the judge was overturned, not be cause it was
factually inaccurate, but because it was beyond the scope of the judge's
charge to investigate.
As to other sports, I can only give you impressions as I haven't followed
tham as closely as cycling. My understanding is that swimming has been very
pro-active in going after dopers--particularly after the Chinese swimmers
arrived singing in basso profundo. I think Nordic Skiing has also been
pro-active but that may just be because of an entire national team being
caught and suspended (Norway?) recently.
I hope the above satisfies your definition of non-weaseling.
