Friday, May 09, 2008

Friday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews reports some confusion over possible team notifications of the 23 riders alleged to have been found "suspicious" under the UCI's bio passport program. Pat McQuaid is seemingly back pedaling on not only the notifications, but also the reasons for it:

McQuaid continued, "Several tests have been done on all riders since the biological passport was set up. For these 23 riders, we found results which deviated from the normal results. That does not mean that they are suspicious. It is possible that there is a natural cause. That is why we have the biological passport, so that such things can be cleared up."

Sounds like it's time for the UCI to get its "ducks in a row".

In more CyclingNews it appears that the "blame" for the bungling of the Alessandro Petacchi case will go to CONI for pursuing it when other riders under other sanctioning bodies with exactly the same infraction have gone with no penalties. Does this let the CAS off the hook for its paradoxical decision? And there is yet more fallout from the "non-announcement announcement" of the 23 riders who may or may not be under suspicion for doping under the UCI's bio passport program.

Blogs
WADAWatch looks at the new French Criminal Doping Law, and turns up some unsurprising political and financial motivations.

2 comments:

("Eightzero") said...

The Cycling News notes this year's Giro has the winners of the last 3 grand tours:

http://www.velonews.com/article/75986/the-2008-giro-d-italia-the-best-field-of-the-year

The winners of the 5 grand tours before that are all MIA: Vinokourov, Landis, Basso, Heras, Armstrong. Gotta go all the way back to the 2005 Giro to find another winner, Savodelli in this year's race. And then the 3 before that are gone too (Armstrong, Heras, Cunego.)

8 of the last 9 before that gone? Yikes.

Ali said...

" ... For these 23 riders, we found results which deviated from the normal results. That does not mean that they are suspicious. It is possible that there is a natural cause. That is why we have the biological passport, so that such things can be cleared up."

Well, that's as clear as mud. If the guy's running the system can't tell the difference between a normal result, a suspicious result and a positive result ... I see only hard times ahead.

So when exactly did science become the new rock-and-roll ? It seems that everyone and their dog is trying to squeeze into a sexy white lab coat nowadays. Especially those connected with controlling and reporting on cycling matters.

Advice: Politicians, control cycling; Science geeks, control doping.

I'm tired of listening to sci-curious UCI/WADA officials pontificating on subjects which they clearly don't understand (beware the geeks, for they shall be sulky if you take their jobs from them)