Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla

[Paul G.]

On Mar 24, 10:49 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 11:33 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>I'm all for honesty in testing and yadda yadda, but I think we can agree
> >>that an unofficial wait of a couple of hours until van Impe was home
> >>isn't likely to harm anyone (the concept of cyclists sneaking into
> >>crematoria for a few hours to do their dirty doping deeds is not quite
> >>bizarre enough to be unbelievable, alas).
>
> >>But if this was the least of the outrages perpetrated by various
> >>anti-doping strategies, I'd be happy.
>
> > Yeah, this testing is extremely invasive. The riders essentially give
> > up all privacy rights. If your job is to get those samples you just
> > get used to barging in on people at very inopportune times and making
> > outrageous demands. This is just an example of how inopportune that
> > timing can be. This job must be like a combination of working for the
> > IRS and giving out speeding and parking tickets- everybody hates you.
>
> > Maybe at some future time they'll be able to take fingernail clippings
> > or something similar where it's quick, easy, and not so demeaning.
>
> > I wasn't looking forward to being drug tested the last time I got a
> > new job, and was pleasantly surprised to learn that they had stopped
> > drug testing and instead did a background check on new hires.
> > Hopefully drug testing in sports will continue to evolve and they can
> > find a way to put these outrageous violations of privacy behind them.
> > -Paul
>
> Not sure how a background check is a substitute for a drug test.
>
> Do you think Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis would have passed a
> "background" check.

I'm not suggesting that would work for cycling, it wouldn't, but in
the case of employers it gets at what they are really interested in-
are you going to be a problem? They want to know if you have a record
of thefts, assaults, drug dealing, credit problems and the like.

The idea is that there might be other ways to achieve the objective of
drug testing without this gross invasion of privacy. That was one
reason that company stopped drug testing- some of the highest quality
(engineering) candidates objected. I wonder if there are talented
cyclists who don't go pro because they value their privacy.
-Paul

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I wonder if there are talented
> cyclists who don't go pro because they value their privacy.

Consider the people running for President and apply that to your question. I
think that this drive to look into every single detail in people's lives
accomplishes several things that you don't want:

1) Since the most minor infraction is reported in bold headlines, why would
anyone with any intelligence submit themselves to such overt character
assassination?

2) Such absolute dope testing implies that essentially ALL athletes dope,
why would someone who doesn't want to dope get involved? The real question
beneath this is whether that's true or not.

3) Why would riding 5th string in a second rate team barely making a living
require you to devote your entire life to being ready for the vampires?

4) Imagine reading stuff like that monkey is publishing where anyone that
races bicycles should be stripped naked in front of large crowds, tested
with procedures which are not 100% accurate and then proclaimed to be a
cheater if one of the tests returns a positive regardless of rules
forbidding exposure until all of the rest of the testing is complete?