On 09/03/2004 11:36 AM, in article [email hidden],
Marty said:
"gym gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Marty said:
Right. So, current testing sucks at best and he gets punished for what might be simple dehydration. Or, am I just way to gullible? -- Marty
Not a good idea to start a three week stage race dehydrated.
Right, but he wasn't declared unfit the morning of the race start - it was on Wednesday. If they can't prove he was doping and they give him the benefit of the doubt (which they are doing now), they why not let him attempt to get fit before the start and if he passes, let him race. To me, it just seems a bit harsh for something that has not been proved. I don't know - maybe he was beyond the point of being able to "recover" before Saturday morning.
So basically, you want the UCI to ignore their own rules?
-- Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 09/03/2004 11:36 AM, in article [email hidden],
Marty said:
"gym gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Marty wrote:
> > Right. So, current testing sucks at best and he gets punished for
what
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> might be simple dehydration. Or, am I just way to gullible? > -- > Marty > >
Not a good idea to start a three week stage race dehydrated.
Right, but he wasn't declared unfit the morning of the race start - it
was
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
on Wednesday. If they can't prove he was doping and they give him the benefit of the doubt (which they are doing now), they why not let him attempt to get fit before the start and if he passes, let him race. To
me,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
it just seems a bit harsh for something that has not been proved. I
don't
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
know - maybe he was beyond the point of being able to "recover" before Saturday morning.
So basically, you want the UCI to ignore their own rules?
I don't get this "unfit" to start deal. Sounds to me like they are giving him the benefit of the doubt with the 15 day grace period before another test. Is this a slap on the wrist because it MIGHT be due to natural causes?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Yes, it is possible that there are natural causes.
Right. So, current testing sucks at best and he gets punished for what might be simple dehydration. Or, am I just way to gullible?
Possibly you are. It's not that "current testing sucks." It's that he got popped for a high HCT, not for a banned substance. So maybe he reacted a little too well to a course of EPO three weeks ago. Or maybe not, we don't know. The two-week mandatory sit-out splits the difference between (a) letting him off and (b) suspending him without an actual controle positif. It seems like a reasonable compromise.
The 50% HCT threshold was put in place before there was any EPO test. It acts as a deterrent to protect the riders from the incentive to dope up to blood-sludge HCT levels, where there is an actual health risk (like dying, in your sleep or otherwise). That's one reason they call it a health check.
