More UCI / Bordry nonsense

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited February 2010 in Pro race
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-at- ... e-controls

I have to say, I would score that UCI 1 AFLD 0

I especially like Pat's remarks on publicity.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Comments

  • dulldave
    dulldave Posts: 949
    Yes, UCI do look better out of that. I can't see past the difference in positive tests between the Tours in 2008 (AFLD testing) and 2009 (UCI testing) though.

    Way too good to be true. I don't trust the UCI.
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,104
    From a PR perspective wouldn't McQuaid be better served by welcoming additional tests from the AFLD, and clearly state that cycling has nothing to hide so doesn't fear additional testing?

    Instead we get the tawdry tit for tat squabble between him and Bordry.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    It's tit for tat but I'd argue Bordry's agitations have been useful, they've forced WADA to make the UCI up its game.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,812
    Pierre is not lying down and Kleber is on the money.
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/afld-to ... s-blocking
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Gotta love the way Pierre mentions the WADA code but ignores it when it suits him.

    Also, if the AFLD are going to have their funding cut he's probably desperate to get some additional attention to secure the cash they've had.

    The sooner we get a global, sports body independent anti doping agency the better.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Categories