Has the UCI dumped Armstrong ?

[swampy1970]

Aside from all the bull most of the arguement here is about the technicalities of how the rules are applied? Call me a fool but I was going to sit back and see how the lawyers handled that. Yah know, the people who have been trained for stuff like that? I know it's nice to ***** at each other but 12 pages of **** is a lot off.... **** when all we have to do is wait to see what happens when LA goes to court.

Take it down to an even simpler form.

What does it say on the paper that both parties signed and have copies of following the dope contol? Shouldn't take too much rocket science.

If objections were raised and noted on the form then AFLD have a good case for sanctions. If nothing was noted, then end of case...

 

[jimmypop]

Well, jimmyrot, since you resorted to vulgarity, I'll do the same: You go **** yourself.

I lost both my parents to cancer, so this issue is pretty close to me. Your blind hatred of Armstrong is imbecilic but... you're certainly on the right board to post it.

Yeah, you're above all the name-calling, right?

You think your parents would want a little fraud of a man like Armstrong playing the cancer card for PR purposes at every turn? If that doesn't disgust you, then you're the imbecile.

 

[limerickman]

Or posting solely about hoping for the demise of Armstrong for past inferred doping, which most of the posts in this particular sub forum seem to be.

Direct your angst to the crowd who only post about their hero.

As a newbie 70, you may not be aware that certain denizens of this sub forum, as you put it, post exclusively and only about their hero.

But then again I guess the list of riders that have been found guilty or deemed guilty in a court of law just isn't quite long enough to be able to pick on from for the occaisional comment, despite the fact that you could pretty much pick from half the 5 times tour winners and nearly every Tour winner in the 70's, 80s and 90s...

In case you did not notice, the other 5 time tour winners, do not attempt to court media coverage.

Nor do their various supporters on this site feel them need to post about their heroes, ad nauseum.

You guys are just as funny as those that believe cycling is becoming a clean sport. Top level sports will always feature, to some extent, a battle between those who seek that extra edge and those that try to come up with dope controls to discover what that 'edge' is.

70.
If you read most of the posts in the GT section of this Forum, you will notice that the content of most posts advocates the need for a clean sport.
On balance most posters recognise that the sport has it's problems.
I find it difficult to recall any poster who stated that the top men were clean.

Recognising that the sport, at the very top level has a doping problem, should not impair the intent to clean up the sport, should it?

 

[obxbes]

I don't really expect him to win anything. So far his showing in the races he has been in is more than acceptable. Great to see him riding again basically for the joy of doing it. Winning a stage or tour would be just icing on the cake. Hope no frenchman wins any stage in the tour de farce.

That last line bugs the shite out of me. For someone who loves the sport, the fight against cancer, and skanks as much as he claims to, he seems to be giving up the battle a bit to soon, non? He never would have resorted to calling it "their event, their rules" in 2005 or earlier.

I think he is finally realizing that he would ride like shite in the Tour, and that he is starting to build the foundation for his giant excuse to not ride. He will still leave the Giro early so that he can "prepare for the run-up to the Tour," as if preparing for preparing wasn't suspicious anyway. Then, blame his non-start in the Dauphine and Tour on the AFLD.

He must really be hoping they make good on the threats now. And, if they dont sanction him, he can still pull out of the Giro due to a "sore shoulder."

 

[plectrum]

Lim - Sorry I am sure I have seen you post lyrical about the Schleck Bros - cheats, CSC - cheats. I have seen countless admiration about Ulrich - cheat, I even really liked Rasmussen - cheat. Cycling is utterly messed up, it was before Armstrong, it will be after Armstrong. Some people are real fans of Armstrong well good on them, I really enjoyed many of the Tours he won, the battles with Ulrich, the impressive mountain climbing of Virenque and Rasmussen. Now looking at those names it is obviosu all of these tours were tainted by doping but it was still entertaining and part of this was down to the performance of Armstrong and his team.

The cycling authorities need to keep there house clean and if this entails a positive from the Astana team it will be a first and possibly a breakthrough in doping forensics. I will not shed a tear but until that happens what is the purpose of getting riled by uncertainties.

All I know is that last year without Astana was boring, a nice victory by Sastre but ultimately an entire CSC team won with Sastre against a single individual Evans.

 

[Moller]

Apologies if this has been posted already, it's Lance's video response to the afld claims
http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/video/5345-update-lances-injury-response-drug/5345/
Absolutely unbeliveable, read down to the comments, there actually are people who believe this liar.
Its typical of the 'spin' he puts out when he's under the kosh, like the time the story broke about his 6 positive epo samples from 99, he said "The lab themselves have said that the science isn't perfect" which of course it didn't but it was seized upon by his disciples as gospel.

The issue is not about the tester, its about the shower.
Why would he take a shower with a drug tester standing at the door? Even if, as he says, the tester said it was ok for him to have a shower, if he is so sure that someone in France is out to get him, did it never dawn on him that this was going to look suspicious?

If the tester is telling the truth and he told him repeatedly not to have the shower and treatened to call the police, and Lance did lock the bathroom door then even the most blinkered fool can't see that he did it for one reason, to cover up what he knew was going to be a positive test.

He was faced with the choice, he could never talk his way around a positive test, but he could stall the test for 20-30mins and then lie his way out of it. Which is exactly what he's doing because he knows he's been caught.

 

[poulidor]

I don't really expect him to win anything. So far his showing in the races he has been in is more than acceptable. Great to see him riding again basically for the joy of doing it. Winning a stage or tour would be just icing on the cake. Hope no frenchman wins any stage in the tour de farce.

We have seen many tour de farce since Indurain, especially 7 !

We will see Chavanel or Moncoutie winning their first of their next 5 TDFwins . No more shocking than the fist win of Lance after 4 fiascos in TDF.

 

[limerickman]

Lim - Sorry I am sure I have seen you post lyrical about the Schleck Bros - cheats, CSC - cheats. I have seen countless admiration about Ulrich - cheat,

I can't recall waxing lyrical about the Schlecks.
Or CSC for that matter.

Regarding Ullrich, I supported the man : I was at the amateur world championships which he won.
I made the assumption that he rode clean - because he was so far ahead of his contemporaries and was always at tier 1 of the sport.
So yeah, you've got me on that one.

Cycling is utterly messed up, it was before Armstrong, it will be after Armstrong. Some people are real fans of Armstrong well good on them, I really enjoyed many of the Tours he won, the battles with Ulrich, the impressive mountain climbing of Virenque and Rasmussen.

The sport is in a very bad place at the moment, I agree.

Incidentally, if a poster tried to make the case for Virenque (or any other rider with valid questions to answer), that others make for Armstrong, they'd get short shrift here as well.

 

[slovakguy]

Lim - Sorry I am sure I have seen you post lyrical about the Schleck Bros - cheats, CSC - cheats. I have seen countless admiration about Ulrich - cheat, I even really liked Rasmussen - cheat. Cycling is utterly messed up, it was before Armstrong, it will be after Armstrong. Some people are real fans of Armstrong well good on them, I really enjoyed many of the Tours he won, the battles with Ulrich, the impressive mountain climbing of Virenque and Rasmussen. Now looking at those names it is obviosu all of these tours were tainted by doping but it was still entertaining and part of this was down to the performance of Armstrong and his team.

The cycling authorities need to keep there house clean and if this entails a positive from the Astana team it will be a first and possibly a breakthrough in doping forensics. I will not shed a tear but until that happens what is the purpose of getting riled by uncertainties.

All I know is that last year without Astana was boring, a nice victory by Sastre but ultimately an entire CSC team won with Sastre against a single individual Evans.

i do not pretend to answer for lim, who, frankly, does a nice job all by himself. i will make note of what i feel to be the difference between armstrong, virenque, landis, & rasmussen. armstrong is the one to have capitalised most vigourously on the myth building of his career. he actively helped create and further the myth of the seven time tdf victor and cancer survivor and "cleanest" rider "who never tested positive." he has benefitted most handsomely financially from this myth building. virenque, landis, & rasmussen certainly cannot be accused of this. i hate to ask, but can anybody point to a moment when lance just maybe screwed up and he didn't try to pin the blame on someone else?

 

[plectrum]

Lim - Sorry i thought you were a fan of the Schlecks anyway, we are generally in agreement but although i understand why Armstrong receives the animosity I do not personally feel he is to blame for the doping status quo.

Is Paris - Roubaix on Eurosport tomorrow?

I can't recall waxing lyrical about the Schlecks.
Or CSC for that matter.

Regarding Ullrich, I supported the man : I was at the amateur world championships which he won.
I made the assumption that he rode clean - because he was so far ahead of his contemporaries and was always at tier 1 of the sport.
So yeah, you've got me on that one.





The sport is in a very bad place at the moment, I agree.

Incidentally, if a poster tried to make the case for Virenque (or any other rider with valid questions to answer), that others make for Armstrong, they'd get short shrift here as well.

 

[plectrum]

i do not pretend to answer for lim, who, frankly, does a nice job all by himself. i will make note of what i feel to be the difference between armstrong, virenque, landis, & rasmussen. armstrong is the one to have capitalised most vigourously on the myth building of his career. he actively helped create and further the myth of the seven time tdf victor and cancer survivor and "cleanest" rider "who never tested positive." he has benefitted most handsomely financially from this myth building. virenque, landis, & rasmussen certainly cannot be accused of this. i hate to ask, but can anybody point to a moment when lance just maybe screwed up and he didn't try to pin the blame on someone else?

Slovakguy,

I am not sure what your point is, that he won the race to the jersey, the race to the people's hearts and the race to the bank? Doping is rife in cycling and numerous victors are dirty but none of them are ever going to admit to it and they will all strenuously spin the facts to portray them as clean. I guarantee you if in a bar you bump into Ricco he will claim that the tests were faulty and he doesn't even have a doctor let alone know what CERA is!

I wonder sometimes whether we 'like' the other drug cheats because ultimately they are losers and we want drug cheats to be exactly that, i.e. Pantani - giant loser, unanimously loved.

It does strike me that Armstrong would potentially be an utter moron if he is on any doping products. There is no way, even doped to the eye balls that he can win any GT, his time has long gone. By returning now he should cycle 100% clean, pass every doping test, come in the top 50 and just shake his shoulders and admit he is too old. He wouldn't even need to say 'see I am clean' because that would be the final master stoke in his deception.

'the greatest trick the Devil (Lance) ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist (dope)'

It does look though as if the ego of Armstrong and Bruyneel have superseded their intelligence.

 

[swampy1970]

Direct your angst to the crowd who only post about their hero.

As a newbie 70, you may not be aware that certain denizens of this sub forum, as you put it, post exclusively and only about their hero.

It is a subforum of the Bike Racing section...

Fair point about the hero worshiping... but...

In case you did not notice, the other 5 time tour winners, do not attempt to court media coverage.

Nor do their various supporters on this site feel them need to post about their heroes, ad nauseum.

... then again, since this forums life span only takes in one multi winner of the Tour, it's hardly a surprise that Armstrong has more support that the others. Hinault was massively outspoken not only did he not court the media he'd often punch the media out cold, literally... Merckx made a fair amount of press and Indurain was too quiet... Anquetil was the veritable media ***** and was massively against the idea that cyclist should have to go through the indiginity of a dope control.

70.
If you read most of the posts in the GT section of this Forum, you will notice that the content of most posts advocates the need for a clean sport.
On balance most posters recognise that the sport has it's problems.
I find it difficult to recall any poster who stated that the top men were clean.

Recognising that the sport, at the very top level has a doping problem, should not impair the intent to clean up the sport, should it?

Intent is one thing. Doing something about it is another. I'm all for a clean sport and when someone's found guilty either via testing or being caught red handed with a big bag of EPO syringes for example, then give them the punishment due. There's a common theme amongst most high profile sports - money. Where money is involved then there'll always be some tomfoolery and skullduggery going on.

We're at a point in cyclings efforts to clean up the sport where I believe we're taking a backward step - having too many people in the drug testing pie. Not only do we have atheletes embarking on he said/she said ******** with national doping authorities, you also have national doping authorites playing the same deal with WADA, who in turn don't always see eye to eye with the IOC. Toss in the fact that one test in a lab in Country X doesn't always post the same result as one in Country Y and that further complicates the whole deal.

 

[adamastor]

Slovakguy,

I am not sure what your point is, that he won the race to the jersey, the race to the people's hearts and the race to the bank? Doping is rife in cycling and numerous victors are dirty but none of them are ever going to admit to it and they will all strenuously spin the facts to portray them as clean. I guarantee you if in a bar you bump into Ricco he will claim that the tests were faulty and he doesn't even have a doctor let alone know what CERA is!

I wonder sometimes whether we 'like' the other drug cheats because ultimately they are losers and we want drug cheats to be exactly that, i.e. Pantani - giant loser, unanimously loved.

It does strike me that Armstrong would potentially be an utter moron if he is on any doping products. There is no way, even doped to the eye balls that he can win any GT, his time has long gone. By returning now he should cycle 100% clean, pass every doping test, come in the top 50 and just shake his shoulders and admit he is too old. He wouldn't even need to say 'see I am clean' because that would be the final master stoke in his deception.

'the greatest trick the Devil (Lance) ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist (dope)'

It does look though as if the ego of Armstrong and Bruyneel have superseded their intelligence.

Ricco is a bad example for what you stated.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul30news3

"
Italian Riccardo Riccò confessed to taking EPO to the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) prosecutor, Ettore Torri on Wednesday. Riccò tested positive for the drug following stage four of the Tour de France, forcing his team to pull its entire squad from the race.

The 24-year-old initially denied using the drug after being indicted on charges of "use of poisonous substances" in a court in Foix, but took responsibility for his actions, saying that he "made a mistake" by taking the drug. "What I did during the Tour is done. I made a mistake and the mistake is only mine," Riccò told ANSA outside the closed hearing..."

 

[azdroptop]

How about you and your love and defense for Jan? Now, I've gained a lot of knowledge from you over the years here, but you're just a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to the "top men" and doping. I am not defending Armstrong by any means here.

Direct your angst to the crowd who only post about their hero.

As a newbie 70, you may not be aware that certain denizens of this sub forum, as you put it, post exclusively and only about their hero.




In case you did not notice, the other 5 time tour winners, do not attempt to court media coverage.

Nor do their various supporters on this site feel them need to post about their heroes, ad nauseum.






70.
If you read most of the posts in the GT section of this Forum, you will notice that the content of most posts advocates the need for a clean sport.
On balance most posters recognise that the sport has it's problems.
I find it difficult to recall any poster who stated that the top men were clean.

Recognising that the sport, at the very top level has a doping problem, should not impair the intent to clean up the sport, should it?

 

[limerickman]

Slovakguy,

I am not sure what your point is, that he won the race to the jersey, the race to the people's hearts and the race to the bank? Doping is rife in cycling and numerous victors are dirty but none of them are ever going to admit to it and they will all strenuously spin the facts to portray them as clean. I guarantee you if in a bar you bump into Ricco he will claim that the tests were faulty and he doesn't even have a doctor let alone know what CERA is

Plenty of riders, when accused, have retired immediately.
Camezind spings to mind immediately.
He was implicated - and instead of trying to deny/waffle - he walked away from the sport.
Camezind was world champion road race winner.

I wonder sometimes whether we 'like' the other drug cheats because ultimately they are losers and we want drug cheats to be exactly that, i.e. Pantani - giant loser, unanimously loved.

I'm not sure that I would agree with the view that Pantani was a loser.
Pantani won two GT's in one year.

It's natural that fans will be subjective when their favourite rider is criticised.

Whether that subjectivity extends to exonerating their favourite rider, when they're accused of doping is another question I suppose

 

[limerickman]

It is a subforum of the Bike Racing section...

Fair point about the hero worshiping... but...

... then again, since this forums life span only takes in one multi winner of the Tour, it's hardly a surprise that Armstrong has more support that the others. Hinault was massively outspoken not only did he not court the media he'd often punch the media out cold, literally... Merckx made a fair amount of press and Indurain was too quiet... Anquetil was the veritable media ***** and was massively against the idea that cyclist should have to go through the indiginity of a dope control.

I disagree.

When other riders are accused of doping on this forum, few if any posters rush out to defend them with convoluted explanations covering alleged conspiracy theories.

But when their hero is accused, it's another story.

With regard to the lifespan of the forum - I do not think that this has any bearing on the issue.
For example when Riis was accused of doping, no one here attempted to defend him.

Intent is one thing. Doing something about it is another. I'm all for a clean sport and when someone's found guilty either via testing or being caught red handed with a big bag of EPO syringes for example, then give them the punishment due. There's a common theme amongst most high profile sports - money. Where money is involved then there'll always be some tomfoolery and skullduggery going on.

Yeah money is a factor.

And if the money values are greater and greater, the temptation to cheat and to try to cover up that cheating becomes greater.
I agree 100%.

We're at a point in cyclings efforts to clean up the sport where I believe we're taking a backward step - having too many people in the drug testing pie. Not only do we have atheletes embarking on he said/she said ******** with national doping authorities, you also have national doping authorites playing the same deal with WADA, who in turn don't always see eye to eye with the IOC. Toss in the fact that one test in a lab in Country X doesn't always post the same result as one in Country Y and that further complicates the whole deal.

You want less testing?

With regard to testing, if a laboratory deliberately and willfully attempts to sabotage a sample in order to frame an athlete, then that laboratory is running a very major risk.
It risks losing it's clinical accreditation.
It risks losing it's professional and peer recognition.
It risks losing it's funding.
It risks being sued by a rider, who it attempted to frame.

No scientist worth his salt would risk his/her professional reputation to try to deliberately frame an athlete.

And given that there are in built safeguards, such as the testing lab not knowing the identity of the athlete, who's samples they're testing, it makes it even more unlikely that a lab could/would be able to frame a specific athletes sample.

 

[Flyer]

I disagree.

When other riders are accused of doping on this forum, few if any posters rush out to defend them with convoluted explanations covering alleged conspiracy theories.

But when their hero is accused, it's another story.

With regard to the lifespan of the forum - I do not think that this has any bearing on the issue.
For example when Riis was accused of doping, no one here attempted to defend him.




Yeah money is a factor.

And if the money values are greater and greater, the temptation to cheat and to try to cover up that cheating becomes greater.
I agree 100%.






You want less testing?

With regard to testing, if a laboratory deliberately and willfully attempts to sabotage a sample in order to frame an athlete, then that laboratory is running a very major risk.
It risks losing it's clinical accreditation.
It risks losing it's professional and peer recognition.
It risks losing it's funding.
It risks being sued by a rider, who it attempted to frame.

No scientist worth his salt would risk his/her professional reputation to try to deliberately frame an athlete.

And given that there are in built safeguards, such as the testing lab not knowing the identity of the athlete, who's samples they're testing, it makes it even more unlikely that a lab could/would be able to frame a specific athletes sample.

ddddddddddddddd

 

[swampy1970]

I disagree.

When other riders are accused of doping on this forum, few if any posters rush out to defend them with convoluted explanations covering alleged conspiracy theories.

But when their hero is accused, it's another story.

With regard to the lifespan of the forum - I do not think that this has any bearing on the issue.
For example when Riis was accused of doping, no one here attempted to defend him.




Yeah money is a factor.

And if the money values are greater and greater, the temptation to cheat and to try to cover up that cheating becomes greater.
I agree 100%.






You want less testing?

With regard to testing, if a laboratory deliberately and willfully attempts to sabotage a sample in order to frame an athlete, then that laboratory is running a very major risk.
It risks losing it's clinical accreditation.
It risks losing it's professional and peer recognition.
It risks losing it's funding.
It risks being sued by a rider, who it attempted to frame.

No scientist worth his salt would risk his/her professional reputation to try to deliberately frame an athlete.

And given that there are in built safeguards, such as the testing lab not knowing the identity of the athlete, who's samples they're testing, it makes it even more unlikely that a lab could/would be able to frame a specific athletes sample.

With regards to hero worshiping and cyclists, I'm over it. I used to be all about Hinault and Millar and to a lesser extent Roche and Kelly and at the time I was most miffed with PDM getting busted in the intralipid/EPO affair and Roche being tied to Conconi and EPO use. Now... I really couldn't care less who get's nabbed for cheating. I just ride for fun and it doesn't effect me in the slightest.

No, not less testing. I think the amount of testing that's being done now is probably sufficient but have it done by one organization, with one set of rules and utilize labs that can process samples that give the same results across the board. Have that organization headed by a new President each year and rotate those higher up within the organization to try to make "pay offs" a little harder to do on a regular basis. Do whatever is needed to remove suspision and doubt and play with a level playing field regardless of the country you're in.

The problem right now is that there's not a universal "buy in" to what WADA offers, so you get the likes of AFLD doing their own thing. Then when cyclists go to the Olympics they get IOC'd and when it's Giro time they probably get CONI'd. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many slight differences in the rules and the possibility of having a situation where a rider can race everywhere but country X is just silly.

You have to admit that riders are often not the smartest people on the planet - given then one set of procedures to follow too when it comes to testing.

But my biggest beef is that "hearings" for riders takes months. It shouldn't. Weeks maybe. There should be a ruling against the press being notified before the B sample is tested too...

I also have a beef with a pro cyclist reporting to their countries cycling governing body when drugs issues arise. Another step to add. A Pro cyclist races pretty much everywhere these days and as such should report directly to the UCI and for drugs matters directly to WADA.

Labs should be completely and utterly beyond reproach. LLND has had many cases where atheletes have gotten off because of suspect procedures and documentation and they don't seem to have taken much of a hit...

Have a little read of this and see what goes on with samples, that are probably the most important samples that LLND had ever taken:

http://www.arniebakercycling.com/floyd/book_main/The%20Wiki%20Defense%202.0.pdf

Have a read a pages 25 and 26 in particular and prepare to wince...It's truely cringeworthy. Even if only 1/2 of what's claimed in that document is true, that case should have been thrown out in short order. If I couldn't get away with stuff like that in my English or Biology homework for my O levels when I was 15 and 16, then professionals whose procedures can determine the livelyhood of atheletes shouldn't be allowed to get away with documentation that sloppy. Their work should be held to a very, very high standard - one that's beyond question.

If the labs don't know the identity of an athelete, how come the LLND tech who tested Landis's sample knew it was his and curiously admited that she knew it was when questioned? Unfortunately for Floyd, he took a seldom used drug for his necrotic hip that made his tests stand out like a lighthouse of a foggy night... Sometimes Theraputic Use exemptions are just as good as a printed name and signature...

Now I don't have a love for Floyd, it's just that I thought the whole thing was so fecking rediculous it peaked my interest.

Just sayin'.

 

[limerickman]

With regards to hero worshiping and cyclists, I'm over it. I used to be all about Hinault and Millar and to a lesser extent Roche and Kelly and at the time I was most miffed with PDM getting busted in the intralipid/EPO affair and Roche being tied to Conconi and EPO use. Now... I really couldn't care less who get's nabbed for cheating. I just ride for fun and it doesn't effect me in the slightest.

No, not less testing. I think the amount of testing that's being done now is probably sufficient but have it done by one organization, with one set of rules and utilize labs that can process samples that give the same results across the board. Have that organization headed by a new President each year and rotate those higher up within the organization to try to make "pay offs" a little harder to do on a regular basis. Do whatever is needed to remove suspision and doubt and play with a level playing field regardless of the country you're in.

The problem right now is that there's not a universal "buy in" to what WADA offers, so you get the likes of AFLD doing their own thing. Then when cyclists go to the Olympics they get IOC'd and when it's Giro time they probably get CONI'd. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many slight differences in the rules and the possibility of having a situation where a rider can race everywhere but country X is just silly.

You have to admit that riders are often not the smartest people on the planet - given then one set of procedures to follow too when it comes to testing.

But my biggest beef is that "hearings" for riders takes months. It shouldn't. Weeks maybe. There should be a ruling against the press being notified before the B sample is tested too...

I also have a beef with a pro cyclist reporting to their countries cycling governing body when drugs issues arise. Another step to add. A Pro cyclist races pretty much everywhere these days and as such should report directly to the UCI and for drugs matters directly to WADA.

Labs should be completely a utterly beyond reproach. LLND has had many cases where atheletes have gotten off because of suspect procedures and documentation and they don't seem to have taken much of a hit...

Have a little read of this and see what goes on with samples, that are probably the most important samples that LLND had ever taken:

http://www.arniebakercycling.com/floyd/book_main/The%20Wiki%20Defense%202.0.pdf

Have a read a pages 25 and 26 in particular and prepare to wince...It's truely cringeworthy. Even if only 1/2 of what's claimed in that document is true, that case should have been thrown out in short order. If I couldn't get away with stuff like that in my English or Biology homework for my O levels when I was 15 and 16, then professionals whose procedures can determine the livelyhood of atheletes shouldn't be allowed to get away with documentation that sloppy. Their work should be held to a very, very high standard - one that's beyond question.

If the labs don't know the identity of an athelete, how come the LLND tech who tested Landis's sample knew it was his and curiously admited that she knew it was when questioned? Unfortunately for Floyd, he took a seldom used drug for his necrotic hip that made his tests stand out like a lighthouse of a foggy night... Sometimes Theraputic Use exemptions are just as good as a printed name and signature...

Now I don't have a love for Floyd, it's just that I thought the whole thing was so fecking rediculous it peaked my interest.

Just sayin'.

In reply, I want to make it clear that I haven't read the link that you provided.

However, to re-iterate the point I made earlier :
It would be crazy for any laboratory to deliberately try to frame a rider.
These testing facilities are wholly dependent upon their professional reputation to carry out all sorts of tests, in a clinical/objective way.
Many of these facilities test samples for criminal court cases, for private companies bringing a product to market, for health tests for medical patients in state/private hospitals, etc.
The professionals employed in these labs, test samples from a very wide and varied cluster - they're not solely there to test cylists samples!

And it has to be stressed that these laboratories are independent labs - they're not setup by, or controlled by, WADA or any other antii-doping body.
They're independent clinical facilities.

In attempting to deliberately sabotage a test sample, a laboratory would run a massive risk.
The cost of such sabotage would completely undermine the professional reputation of the laboratory, the professional reputation of the professionals exployed in that laboratory, the ongoing and future funding of that laboratory.
It also would also leave the laboratory exposed to being sued by the athlete.

Also if a laoratory deliberately sabotages a sports test result - it would reasonable to assume that the same intent would be there to sabotage samples pertaining to hospital medical tests, or drink driving test samples, or clinical trials for private company products?

For any laboratory to deliberately sabotage a sample, within it's duty of care,
runs an enormous and potentially ruinous risk.

 

[classic1]

Then how come he got a two year ban and lost his appeal at CAS?