K
Kaiser
Guest
Before you can have any expectations of the UCI. We must first hash-out who and what the UCI
actually is, and what their actual purpose is.
What do all of you think they are?:
- Are they a bunch of benevolent do-gooders who just love the sport of cycling so much that they
want to be involved in the governance of racing?
- Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?
- Are they a bunch of men who simply serve the interests of the Shimanos, Campagnolos and Mavics?
Before you can expect the UCI to be an organized bunch of anti-doping warriors, you must first
understand their stake in the business of cycling and the results they would be most interested in
getting out of their efforts.
My impression is that they are mostly represented by the ownership of the pro teams (IE guys like
Weisel). They seem to be more interested in getting attention away from the issue of doping (making
it go away) than in truly championing the effort of squashing drugs out of cycling. Much the same
way that the NFL and MLB ownership has agreed to drug testing criteria that effectively allows the
drug use to continue because of the advance notice required for such tests.
To my knowledge, the UCI requires no one to submit to random testing during the entire scope of the
season (outside of racing). USA Cycling does seem to go after amateur members of the US National
team, but I do not believe they have ever notified Lance or George of a surprise test while they are
in-country training. It just doesn't happen.
But, I could be wrong.
actually is, and what their actual purpose is.
What do all of you think they are?:
- Are they a bunch of benevolent do-gooders who just love the sport of cycling so much that they
want to be involved in the governance of racing?
- Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?
- Are they a bunch of men who simply serve the interests of the Shimanos, Campagnolos and Mavics?
Before you can expect the UCI to be an organized bunch of anti-doping warriors, you must first
understand their stake in the business of cycling and the results they would be most interested in
getting out of their efforts.
My impression is that they are mostly represented by the ownership of the pro teams (IE guys like
Weisel). They seem to be more interested in getting attention away from the issue of doping (making
it go away) than in truly championing the effort of squashing drugs out of cycling. Much the same
way that the NFL and MLB ownership has agreed to drug testing criteria that effectively allows the
drug use to continue because of the advance notice required for such tests.
To my knowledge, the UCI requires no one to submit to random testing during the entire scope of the
season (outside of racing). USA Cycling does seem to go after amateur members of the US National
team, but I do not believe they have ever notified Lance or George of a surprise test while they are
in-country training. It just doesn't happen.
But, I could be wrong.