> AFAIK, the test is a standard one, i.e. all sports and governing bodies are
> screening for the same things. I believe the conflict between the UCI, IOC,
> and WADA regarded other aspects of drug testing protocol than the actual lab
> testing.
No, this is not correct. The WADA standard is for a blood test, while
the UCI has been urine, with blood taken for hematocrit testing only.
Also, the list & penalties are different, with the WADA penalties
being much more stringent than UCI for first offenses of higher level
drugs.
I find it bothersome that the very first time in his entire career
that Lance would be subject to a WADA test he decides not to ride. You
have to admit, the UCI has a gigantic conflictive interest in doing
it's own drug testing (as have all sports governing bodies - witnessed
by the recent Jerome Young affair whereby USAT&F hid positive doping
results and he later won an Olympic Gold relay medal that is now in
dispute). These sports governing bodies get their money from the same
sponsors that the riders do, and if drug scandels are resulting in
drastically lower revenues, at some point ethics get tossed out the
window. Lance literally saved the TdF from the the back-to-back PDM &
Festina (add Cofidis & Kelme now) scandals that were literally the
entire focus of the 1999 TdF until Lance's cancer survivor story
overshadowed the doping. If Lance had been positive, I wonder if it
would have been reported (remember what microscopic press Indurain's
positive result after his 3rd TdF victory got?) The UCI knows not to
kill a golden goose. Hopefully WADA doesn't have these conflicts over
funding and can get some semblance of regulation back into all sports.
