Who's gonna test the testers?

Put your self in their place. How would you feel if you lost the ability to feed your family because someone “thought” you might have done something. Or your entire company folded because for a similar reason.

The madness over doping has caused entire teams to end and makes cycling out to be a negative tainted sport when it is instead full of the toughest most courageous athletes around.

The UCI should put in the toughest testing and strictest rules and if someone is found to be cheating they should be immediately and strictly punished. Every other instance of implied accusation should be repudiated by WADA, the UCI, and the AFLD with no comment whatsoever about the particular athlete so that the media story dies.

That way they punish the cheats and still defend the honor of cycling and the human rights of men and women who are just trying to support their families.

The reason why Stam and Ferdinand received short bans is because FIFA hadn’t signed the code (I’m not sure that it even existed back then). Nor had UCI at the time, and cyclists got shorter bans than they get today (not everyone, Niklas Axelsson got a 4-year ban at first). When UCI signed the code, the bans got longer. So it’s not only athletics that hands out 2-year and lifetime bans, it’s every sport where the federations have signed the anti-doping code.

1) The importance of labs and anti-doping authorities doing their jobs by the book – banning someone is a big deal so morally it’s imperative it’s done right but it also reduces the opportunity for genuine dopers to get away with it on procedural grounds

2) A and B samples. I think it would be grossly unfair on other riders to let someone who is under suspicion following a positive A sample to keep racing and possibly winning. But with riders racing every few days it’s usually obvious if someone suddenly drops off the radar without obvious reason – given where we are in cycling there already seems to be suspicion if a rider gets suddenly ill…

3) False positives. As I understand it there is a very high threshold on dope tests for this very reason – otherwise the bans would get shot down in the civil courts very rapidly. I suspect there are far more false negatives or, more accurately, non-sanctionable positives: plenty of anti-doping types are on record as saying they’ve seen patterns in tests that indicate shenanigans but can do nothing about it because it doesn’t clear the hurdles for prosecution

4) Cycling vs. other sports. I genuinely believe cycling is doing a lot more about doping than other sports, but it doesn’t follow that other sports should copy the penalties in cycling. Also mixed up with this is the likelihood of being caught – a life ban would do nothing if sportsman didn’t think they’d get caught. That said the penalties in other sports do seem kinda week but the sports are probably at less risk of disappearing in a doping quagmire – or at least that’s the perception of the people who run them

It seems to me that the anti-doping authorities are under pressure from the UCI to catch the dopers, as they should be, but are they under too much pressure?

In an ideal world, that might be a nice starting point. But the fact is, the cycling world is far from ideal.

The UCI stand accused by a French judge in the Festica trials of having been complicit in cycling’s culture of doping. It is for them to prove that they have changed their ways.

For a brief moment, in 2007, when Gripper came out against the Men In Black it seemed almost possible to believe the leopard had changed its spots.

But the fact is, given the evidence of the last year, it’s very hard not to be sceptical about the zeal with which Fat Pat claims to be waging his perpectual war for perpetual peace.

Given that, I would say that it’s far from clear that the anti-doping authorities are under any pressure from the UCI to catch the real cheats.

the most draconian case I have heard of is Adrian Mutu. Playing for Chelsea he tested positive for Cocaine.

Chelsea sacked him and FIFA – the world governing body – ordered Mutu to pay Chelsea $12 Million as compensation for his wasted transfer fee. the amount was then INCREASED on appeal. This may ruin him.

Case is currently before CAS.

Interesting precedent perhaps.

There are some clinicians of some sort going around the USA with a powerpoint pres. alleging to demonstrate that the tests that busted Landis were irredeemably flawed.

Haven’t seen it, but it’s still out there.

And . . . there are still people who claim to “believe Tyler.”

Belief is over-rated, in my book.

Cyclings public relations mishandling of positive 1st test results, and suspected dopers – via media leaks and stories sucks also, just as much. Period.

Just some of the many, many authorities who attempt to control doping within cycling.

The alphabet soup of authorities is actually quite simple. In WADA accredited sports two types of authority have the responsibility to perform dope tests: governing bodies and anti-doping authorities. Each of those exist at the national and international level. (eg WADA & say, USADA and the UCI & say, Irish Cycling). An athlete is always subject to the international authorities and is always subject to their relevant national authorties. Finally, you are also subject to the authorities of the county in which you are currently in. So that makes six.

CAS has no remit in the control of doping. It is there simply to see that the laws are applied fairly and squarely.

As for the UCI’s rules not reading very clear – it’s a legal document, not a novel. Think of it as being like the Lisbon Treaty – a waste of your time reading it but you know it’s good for you, really. :)

The only other major sport that matches the 2 year ban that the UCI imposes on dopers is Athletics.

All WADA accredited – ie Olympic – sports match the 2 year rule. That – and the uniform banned list – is one the key improvements in sport in general since WADA came into existence.

In cycling, any of these misdemeanors leads to a 2 year ban from the sport.

Can lead to, doesn’t always lead to. Reductions are allowed under the rules of WADA.

In addition to the ban, the rider must then deal with trying to return the sport. When the suspension has been served, the rider is not welcomed back easily to the peloton.

Millar? Basso? It really does depend on the rider. And how much they keep their mouth shut.

The head of the UCI Pat McQuaid even tried to get riders to agree to paying a fine of a year’s salary along with the 2 year ban, if caught

AFAIK, so far not one single eligible rider has coughed up the cash. Fat Pat’s fab piece of paper would have been described as being worthless even by Neville Chamberlain.

How can there be so many riders ‘caught doping’ that so adamantly proclaim their innocence. Floyd Landis, Stefan Schumacher, Davide Rebellin, Mikel Astarloza, Gabriele Bosisio, Ivan Basso, to name but a few.

Because the sport is full of lying cheating bastards and this sort of crap has so often worked for them in the past – even if only among their most narrow-minded and parochial supporters – that they’re willing to trot it out again in a vain attempt to salvage something of their now tainted reputation.

they also announce when a rider’s ‘A’ sample has tested positive, before the rider has a chance to request a ‘B’ sample test.

Current rules mean your suspension begins with your A test. That’s why you now officially get to hear about the A result.

’If the ‘B’ analysis is not performed within this time frame this shall not be considered as a deviation from procedure’.

Read the rules and you’ll find how it’s possible, for both sides, to extend the 7-day limit.

Surely, the idea of a ‘B’ sample is to completely re-test the sample and not subject it to the exact same potentially erroneous testing procedure. Surely a second lab should be required to confirm the condemnation and public humiliation of a man.

That one certainly worked for Cian O’Connor, didn’t it? (For those not familiar – Irish show-jumper, gold at Athens, doped horse, positive A sample, B sample was nicked in transit to second lab – apparently such things do happen even outide of a Dick Francis novel.)

What we have are anti-doping authorities with varying standards and inconsistent procedures,

The standards are variable, yes, but they are all adhering to a set minimum standard. So rather than being negative and saying some labs have worse standards than others, the truth is some labs work to a higher standard than others.

You also have to realise that not all labs are the same – some can only carry out certain tests – it’s a very expensive business buying mass spec machines and the like.

This not news and serves no purpose only to steal precious column inches from what matters, the racing.

Looking at British and Irish papers all it seems to be stealing column inches from is speculation over who’s gonna ride for Team GB Reach For The Sky+ Box and Team Big Hug. Speculation, it would seem, about anything, seems to be more fun than the actual racing.