Sandy said:A reminder, nonetheless: all the riders are presumed not to violate the
rules. Presumed to be non guilty. Well, yes, that's how the rules read.
But the practice is the opposite.
that's what you keep saying, but what backs this up ?
you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
are being improperly suspended ?
the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
this van impe incident was the first of it's kind out of the thousands
of OOC tests that get administered, but i don't think it justifies
changing the rules to create opportunities for athletes to subvert the
system.
like i said if privacy is to trump OOC testing it might as well be
scrapped.
in fact since autologous blood doping isn't detectable all testing
should be scrapped, since tests will only catch dumb riders and low
level riders who can't afford the test doping schemes.