More to the LA testing than meets the eye even now?

[wafflycat]

In Cycling News...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug27news

Of course, I could be reading it entirely wrong

Under "40 positives in 1998 Tour"

"The retrospective tests of the 1998 Tour de France, as well as those of the
1999 edition, were demanded by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA),
explained De Ceaurriz. "They wanted to know if the athletes had changed
their ways of doping in recent years," he said. "WADA was under the
impression that the riders took greater doses of doping products during
their training periods and only refreshed them at the races. We had to find
out if we could identify those smaller doses taken during racing by means of
our test. The question behind all of this is: Shouldn't the limits according
to which we consider an athlete doped be reviewed and decreased?" "

If I'm reading this correctly, does this mean the test in which LA was
subsequently identified out, the 1999 samples (the rights & wrongs of that
aspect not what I'm getting at here), was actually WADA approved?? Does this
mean more serious implications?

Cheers, helen s

 

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> If I'm reading this correctly, does this mean the test in which LA was
> subsequently identified out, the 1999 samples (the rights & wrongs of
> that aspect not what I'm getting at here), was actually WADA approved??
> Does this mean more serious implications?
>

According to all the reports I've read the lab say they supplied the
results to the WADA on the basis that WADA would not use them to
sanction any athletes. So if it was, they were not supposed to use
them, if you believe the reports.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon