Daily Page | Zebrality | 2010 Football Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • Double Rainbow Guy in Windows Live Ad
  • Skeptoid.com on the Myers-Briggs Personality Test
  • New Glarus Brewing invites fans to weigh in on its 2011 beer schedule
  • UW the big loser in Big Ten realignment
       [ 14 comments ]
  • Glee, Flight of the Conchords featured on 9/26 Simpsons premiere
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Zenyatta Stakes reverting to old name meaning Zenyatta will not be able to win the Zenyatta stakes
  • Target to sell Facebook Credits gift cards
  • Officials: Suspect holding hostages at Discovery Channel
       [ 1 comment ]
  • New Big Ten divisions to be announced 7 pm ET tonight
       [ 77 comments ]
  • UEFA enacts vuvuzela ban
  • Blair: Bush world view had 'immense simplicity'
  • Best. Horserace Call. Ever.
       [ 1 comment ]
  • The Media Loses Readers and Viewers to its Own Radicalism
  • Great Debate: Can Rodgers overtake Favre?
       [ 20 comments ]
  • Homeowne's Fight Involves Flag Tied to Tea Party
  • Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Authorities Were on High Alert for Possible Hijack Attempt
  • Behind the hurricane hype
  • UW-Madison: 17th-best damn university in the whole damn world
  • Social media votes on Aaron Rodgers' beard
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Not so cuddly now: It's claws the psycho squirrel
  • Top 5 Floating Sheep Maps
  • Texas Rep. violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives
  • The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call
  • Why can't Barack Obama tell the world about American tolerance?
  • Anyone Who Wants to Cut Entitlements Clearly Has No Place on a Commission Devoted to Fiscal Responsibility
  • The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery
  • Is the Trade Gap to Blame for Slowing GDP Growth?
  • The six wives of Henry VIII in the movies
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Who's Stupid?
  • Brewers' Gallardo robbed at gunpoint
  • Want to be class president? Not if you're black, in one Miss. school
  • Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad
  • Most humble and most arrogant Presidents
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Singles: best soundtrack of the 90's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Observation Deck: Packers-Colts
  • David Hasselhoff to Compete on ABC's Dancing With the Stars!
  • Solution to the Ground Zero Mosque Dilemma
  • Trapped miners in Chile assuming different roles
  • 'Sportwriters on TV' back on the air ... in Chicago
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Polish man, shot in head, notices five years later
  • Inside the secret world of Trader Joe's
  • Report: Wisconsin & Iowa will be in separate Big Ten divisions
       [ 10 comments ]
  • That buzz you hear? Must be mosquitoes, not interest in Gophers
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Death of a Hero: Brett Favre's Tragic Fall from Grace
  • Rand vs. Ron? Cordoba House Drives Wedge Through The Paul Family
  • Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman: I'm gay
  • Greeks 'discover Odysseus' palace in Ithaca, proving Homer's hero was real
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Angry Birds eyes a movie/TV deal
  • Coffee shops to customers: get the hell out
       [ 3 comments ]

     

  • Dopes and Doping

       June 05, 2006

    Later this month I’ll do another Tour de France preview. It will be without any discussion on doping in cycling. I’ll get that out of the way here. Within the last two weeks cycling has had two major doping stories. One, the UCI report on the retesting of the 1999 Tour de France samples including several of Lance Armstrong’s, the other the arrest of several team doctors and managers in possession of doping related materials in Spain.

    The first story is the release of the UCI report widely reported as exonerating Lance Armstrong and the other riders who tested positive for EPO in retests of their 1999 samples from the Tour de France. EPO is a drug developed for people with low red blood cell counts. It’s applicability to sports is that it can build up the red blood cells, and hence enhance the ability of an athlete’s blood to deliver oxygen to the body. As a background, a French newspaper, L’Equippe reported last summer that several riders, including Lance Armstrong tested positive upon retesting of some of their 1999 samples. The retesting had been done in 2004. Upon publication of the article, a great finger pointing contest began between the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the lab that performed the tests, L’Equippe, the Tour de France, and the riders involved. Punishing the athletes involved was never really contemplated as there was no “B” sample left to confirm the results of the testing. Last weeks UCI report was supposed to put everything to rest. Instead what was issued was a report that reads like a note passed between junior high students.

    The report addresses, and answers some, but not all, of the many relevant questions people had regarding the testing, namely how the samples came to be tested without anyone’s permission, who leaked the results, etc. The report also goes to great lengths to exonerate the UCI of any wrong doing, and blame the WADA for everything short of global warming. None of this, of course, is what anyone other than the riders and agencies cared about. What everyone else wanted to know were the answers to three questions: 1. Did the samples really test positive? 2. Did the samples belong to the people in question? And 3. Is the testing method, namely testing samples years after they were collected, reliable?

    After reading the report the answer to Question 2 appears to be a big yes. The answer to Question 1 also appears to be a big yes unless you are a fan of conspiracy theories i.e. the samples were deliberately falsified. Question 3, remains unanswered. Question 3, of course, is the big one. If the answer is no, then the WADA owes the riders an apology and probably a resignation or two. If the answer is yes, then we say to the riders involved we know we can’t punish you without being able to do retests, but the odds of multiple samples testing positive is negligible. We both know what you did, so go away and let us hear no more of you.

    The reaction of the parties involved to the report unfortunately reveals the sad state of affairs regarding doping in cycling. WADA and UCI continue their finger pointing. In a very bizarre statement Lance Armstrong actually claimed it was all a conspiracy between WADA, the lab, the French ministry of sports, the Tour de France, and L’Equippe. I hate to break it to you, but if it had been a conspiracy between all those parties, all they would have had to do was slip something into one of your samples from last year. The results would have been positive, there would have been “B” samples that also tested positive, and the results would not have been covered up for a year.

    Now we have a brand new debacle. Several doctors and managers for some major teams were caught about a week ago with doping related materials and loads of cash. In addition, several riders were taped making after hours visits to a doctor involved in a doping investigation. The repercussions have begun, with one major sponsor, Liberty Insurance, dropping it’s sponsorship of the Liberty – Wurth team. This is the team that formerly had Roberto Heras (suspended last year), and currently has Alexandre Vinokourov and Joseba Beloki as riders. The UCI has given the incident its’ usual silent treatment hoping it will blow over until after the Tour when riders can be suspended without too much publicity. The Tour itself has thus far remained largely silent on the matter.

    It is plain that there is still widespread doping going on in cycling. The parties that are supposed to control it, the WADA and the UCI, are unable, in the case of the WADA, and unwilling, in the case of the UCI, to do anything about it. What’s the solution? Barring some magical test that can easily detect all forms of illegal substances over long periods of time, nothing is likely to change. The only immediate solution I see is for the grand tours, led by the Tour de France to lay down the law. Most of the sponsorship money in cycling comes with strings attached. The biggest string is that teams qualify for one or more grand tours, especially the Tour de France. Under the current formula, 20 teams on the pro tour, sanctioned by the UCI automatically qualify. The grand tours need to junk that system. They need to ban teams like Liberty – Wurth from riding their races. This would hurt the sponsors, and if the sponsors are hurt, they will hurt the teams that cheat. At the same time, they need to develop their own standards independent of the UCI that riders must follow, including possible retroactive tests if they can be developed. In short, sign our special conditions, or go race somewhere else. It’s clear that with all the money involved, the benefits of cheating now outweigh the risks. That equation needs to be flipped on its’ head.


    Posted by BVBigBro at June 5, 2006 08:17 AM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1334

     

    Trackback Entries

     


    Comments

    There are no comments for this story.

     

    yet.

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.


      page rendered in 0.2166 seconds | ©2004, 2005 Dummocrats.com