> Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
> and doing it six loooooooong years later.
>
> If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
> and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
> further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
> from the race before that happened).
>
> But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
> had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
> "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
> cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
> results (to be charitable).
>
> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
> ruin someone's credibility.
And this isn't just about Lance's credibility, but that of drug-testing as
well. I think **** Pound (WADA) is doing a tremendous amount of damage to
his cause (eliminating drugs from athletics) by getting involved in this. If
I were him, I would be more concerned about the present and future, not the
past.
While this is all interesting to speculate about, there is nothing that can
come from it other than creating questions about the legitimacy of drug
testing in general. It is dangerous to go back six or seven years and try to
retroactively determine guilt or innocence. The system wasn't set up at the
time to allow for that. They didn't anticipate, or plan for, this scenario.
As a result, any "results" produced from such testing will not likely pass
modern tests for storage, custody and reporting requirements. They will be
successfully challenged every step of the way, yet with no possibility that
anyone will be considered definitively villain or victim. And people won't
distinguish between modern, reliable methods that would hold up to serious
scrutiny; rather, all drug testing will be considered a joke, and every
rider suspect.
**** Pound should be concentrating on the sure thing, rather than an agenda
that says anything that might possibly be indicative of drug use needs to be
persecuted and eliminated. That would greatly strengthen his ability to deal
with the current situation, as he needs to be fighting things he can prove,
not demons of the past (which cannot be proven decisively one way or the
other, and will only serve to create fear, doubt & uncertainty about what
the WADA's doing now).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Mark Hickey" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled
>>champion
>>were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
>>in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
>>what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively
>>so
>>Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial
>>and
>>hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.
>
> Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
> and doing it six loooooooong years later.
>
> If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
> and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
> further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
> from the race before that happened).
>
> But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
> had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
> "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
> cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
> results (to be charitable).
>
> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
> ruin someone's credibility.
>
>>Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
>>years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
>>medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?
>
> Why stop there? Why not use other experimental processes to test
> every bit of stored urine everywhere. Heck, for those we can't locate
> we'll just assume they're dirty. It'll turn out that there's only one
> guy in 1910 who was ever clean, so we'll award him every yellow jersey
> since then - will that make you feel better? ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame