2010 Tour Drug Testing Report

[Flying_Monkey]

Although WADA has released a report rating the UCI's doping control program during this year's Tour de France as 'good', the devil is in the detail. In the Cyclingnews story on the report, one section stands out, which is worth quoting in full:

The most glaring observation was that despite collecting 540 samples during the race, only 15% of the controls were unannounced, and some of the most suspicious riders and those with "significantly improved performances" were hardly tested at all. Even the unannounced controls were preceded by doping control officers marching into team hotels, clearly identified as doping control officers, allowing riders and team staff to be aware of their presence.

While the UCI employed its Biological Passport programme to target riders for testing, the report states that there were a number of athletes classified as having suspicious profiles who were tested "on surprisingly few occasions".

In other words, the UCI let the most obvious cheats get away with it. That I would not call 'good' at all.

 

[Fab Foodie]

They're not really trying very hard are they...

 

[gavintc]

I think there is a genuine fear that if the true extent of cheating was exposed, it would result in many sponsors taking their business elsewhere. The UCI realise that they must tread carefully keeping the balance between PR, the riders, the sponsors and the cheating industry. If we, the unsuspecting public and the target for the sponsors message lost our confidence in the sport, it could have a significant detrimental affect on the sport. I suggest that the UCI are well aware of the extent of the cheating problem and are 'managing' it.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

The problem is that the UCI does not rule the world (contrary to what it clearly believes!) and if it colludes with cheats, this will be revealed, not least by WADA.

 

[Chuffy]

Hmmm, wouldn't you love to know who is on the 'suspicious' list?

 

[MartinC]

I bet there were more drug tests than bike weighings or team finance investigations. Why the paranoia about one aspect of the rules?



edit for typo.

 

[Chuffy]

I bet there were more drug tests than bike weighings or team finance investigations. Why the paranoia about one aspect of the rules?



edit for typo.

Because bike weights and team finance don't improve your placing and no-one gives a stuff about them? Just a thought...

 

[yello]

I think that a part reason for UCI's perceived crapness is because they see themselves as the guardian of cycling and don't want to blacken it's name (any further). They recognise there's a doping problem but they want a slowly slowly catchy monkey kind of approach. That is, one that doesn't bust all the major players and frighten the money out of it. WADA, on the other hand, just want to bust dopers.

That's a really weak defence innit?

 

[Chuffy]

I think that a part reason for UCI's perceived crapness is because they see themselves as the guardian of cycling and don't want to blacken it's name (any further). They recognise there's a doping problem but they want a slowly slowly catchy monkey kind of approach. That is, one that doesn't bust all the major players and frighten the money out of it. WADA, on the other hand, just want to bust dopers.

That's a really weak defence innit?

The dog ate my doping control sheet.

That's worse, but only just.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Well, the UCI say they are really 'pleased' with the report... in other words 'phew, we got away with it this time'

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci...ns-of-wadas-independent-tour-de-france-report