B
Bob
Guest
Pete 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.
>
> 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?
The circumstantial evidence you refer to is more aptly described as
innuendo, "He won therefore he doped", while the so-called hard
evidence consists of one test that has yet to be proven reliable.
The issue for many of us has nothing to do with what country the rider
is from or what country the tests were conducted in. It doesn't even
have anything to do with the identity of the individual rider. It's
about fundamental fairness and what on the surface appears to be
nothing more than a witchhunt being conducted to grab headlines.
The fairness issue is this: There simply is no way for the accused to
have an independent test done because there is no split sample
available TO test. Evidence such as this would be next to impossible to
introduce in U.S. courts.
Is it a witchhunt? Given that the test in question was being conducted
to validate the test itself, I can't understand why they decided to
test urine samples that had been in cold storage for six years. Hasn't
anyone urinated since 1999 or does the test *only* work with samples
that old and if so, what good is the test? I guess we could always
postpone any podium ceremonies for six years.
It's true that athletes have lost Olympic medals retroactively. I can't
recall even one case though where an athlete has been stripped of their
medal for a doping violation six years after the fact when no protest
was pending, especially when the test couldn't be duplicated and
verified. I'll ask the same question you asked. What's so special about
cycling?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
> 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.
>
> 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?
The circumstantial evidence you refer to is more aptly described as
innuendo, "He won therefore he doped", while the so-called hard
evidence consists of one test that has yet to be proven reliable.
The issue for many of us has nothing to do with what country the rider
is from or what country the tests were conducted in. It doesn't even
have anything to do with the identity of the individual rider. It's
about fundamental fairness and what on the surface appears to be
nothing more than a witchhunt being conducted to grab headlines.
The fairness issue is this: There simply is no way for the accused to
have an independent test done because there is no split sample
available TO test. Evidence such as this would be next to impossible to
introduce in U.S. courts.
Is it a witchhunt? Given that the test in question was being conducted
to validate the test itself, I can't understand why they decided to
test urine samples that had been in cold storage for six years. Hasn't
anyone urinated since 1999 or does the test *only* work with samples
that old and if so, what good is the test? I guess we could always
postpone any podium ceremonies for six years.
It's true that athletes have lost Olympic medals retroactively. I can't
recall even one case though where an athlete has been stripped of their
medal for a doping violation six years after the fact when no protest
was pending, especially when the test couldn't be duplicated and
verified. I'll ask the same question you asked. What's so special about
cycling?
Regards,
Bob Hunt