Are you comparing like for like there? Weren't the samples from 1999 retrospectively tested using what was, by then, an approved test? Yeah, I know they were other issues with the circumstances in which they were tested which are too boring to go into so let's not talk about that again.Originally Posted by doctorSpoc .
this is a total witch hunt...
this test for plasticizers is not even an approved test... like i said.. i'm all for getting dope cheats.. but the system needs to be fair, scientifically validated, approvals needs to happen and process needs to be followed.. i'm a total lance hater, but i understand and fully support his 6 non-negatives for EPO in 1999 not being used to sanction him.. we need fairness.. we need procedures to be followed.. this is madness!
Thing is, I would be more than happy to see retrospective, even targeted, testing taking place of stored samples. I also don't see a problem with anti-doping efforts making use of as yet non-accredited tests as a way of identifying suspicious individuals. Come on, how long was EPO almost ubiquitous before they finally sorted out the test?!
Personally, I'm surprised only that he's been caught and can't say that I find it hard to believe he doped. I also don't feel particularly sorry for him but that's mainly because I find him lacking in charisma and I'm a fairly jaded individual these days. So yeah, it's probably not right that the plasticiser business was made public but he did test positive for a banned drug. This happens to jobbing Belgian cyclocross riders etc all the time without any of us giving any credibility to their protests of innocence.
Hell, maybe I am guilty of witch huntery but isn't that what internet forums are for?