"New Tool Could Help in Testing for H.G.H."
I know it's not new news but am interested to hear what y'all have to say about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/sports/29hgh.html?hpw
Anne Gripper's replacement, the one who "applied for the job and got it", mentioned thatthey have an HGH test, shame it's no good for retrospective testing.
Anne Gripper's replacement, the one who "applied for the job and got it", mentioned thatthey have an HGH test, shame it's no good for retrospective testing.
0
Comments
-
I was looking at Victor Conte's tweets on this...he ain't impressed by it. i tend to trust his reaction. He's the Willy Voet of athletics I guess though
Retroactive testing....how far back do we go. I suggest we get Maurice Garin's samples up first. Seriously, how far back do you want to go in retro testing?0 -
Dave_1 wrote:I was looking at Victor Conte's tweets on this...he ain't impressed by it. i tend to trust his reaction. He's the Willy Voet of athletics I guess though
Retroactive testing....how far back do we go. I suggest we get Maurice Garin's samples up first. Seriously, how far back do you want to go in retro testing?
Since the 1999 TdF. No need to go back any further then that!
Seriously, it's a good question Dave. I'm guessing legally they could/should only go back to a point in time when the riders were warned they could be retrospectively tested.
E.g. ir rider x signed a contract in 2002 and was told his samples would be kept for retro-testing, then as long as the tests can be accurately carried out, then they should always be available for scrutiny.0 -
There's a statute of limitations so you can't go back any further than that.
But any one doping should always bear this in mind, that they might not be caught today or tomorrow but something could happen in the future. Tour de France blood samples are being stored in Lausanne for this very purpose.0 -
:shock: :!: :!:
Ave suspiciously large Calves.0 -
SpaceJunk wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I was looking at Victor Conte's tweets on this...he ain't impressed by it. i tend to trust his reaction. He's the Willy Voet of athletics I guess though
Retroactive testing....how far back do we go. I suggest we get Maurice Garin's samples up first. Seriously, how far back do you want to go in retro testing?
Since the 1999 TdF. No need to go back any further then that!
Seriously, it's a good question Dave. I'm guessing legally they could/should only go back to a point in time when the riders were warned they could be retrospectively tested.
E.g. ir rider x signed a contract in 2002 and was told his samples would be kept for retro-testing, then as long as the tests can be accurately carried out, then they should always be available for scrutiny.
I think test the winners at GTs since EPO got going , 1992...I feel we MAY have been cheated by the mythical Indurain but can't prove it.. No doubt some think Maurice Garin got EPO too or was a super responder..so moral case for going back 100 years?
Retroactive testing would clean up things, may cost hundreds of jobs but hey...clean sport. I view the retro tesing idea as being about as intelligent as solving crime by jailing everyone, then we don't have crime. Retro testing will bite the sport on the arse worse than it can take0 -
I would be in favour of retro testing - the deterrent becomes far greater if riders know that their undetectable drug may be picked up in future years. How far back - well if it was affordable and practical (which I'm sure it's not) why not all samples from riders who are still riding. I don't think there is moral problem with that - practically maybe focus on major races and riders who are strongly suspected of doping now.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Retro-testing works. If you cheat, you should not expect to get away with it if you haven't been nabbed by the time you've climbed off the podium. There's nothing wrong in nailing robbery or rape victims with DNA evidence, so there's nothing wrong with exposing doping, even if the statute of limitations means there's a limit, seven years I think, to how far back you can go.0
-
Kléber wrote:Retro-testing works. If you cheat, you should not expect to get away with it if you haven't been nabbed by the time you've climbed off the podium. There's nothing wrong in nailing robbery or rape victims with DNA evidence, so there's nothing wrong with exposing doping, even if the statute of limitations means there's a limit, seven years I think, to how far back you can go.
Kleber, I agree...but still, you got to admit, they could really f**k things up if they went after everyone in the EPO era, no? remember the 2005 AFLD test yielded up 40 EPO positives from the 1998 TDF. One was Beltran. Nobody went after them, only LA cause of his foundation promotion and palmares. A little bit of OMERTA is needed I'm afraid. Too much honesty will wreck the sport.0 -
I disagree. A sport needs credibility to survive and cycling's credibility is damaged each time another scandal is uncovered. If the UCI displayed real courage and leadership and consistently went after those who cheat then the sport could hold it's head high and be seen as credible. As long as it remains a sport where cheats can flourish then whatever credibility it has left is gradually eroded as they are exposed.
Brushing it all under the carpet and pretending nothing is wrong hasn't worked to date, so why should it suddenly work now?0 -
They won't go back that far anyway Dave, even some of the Armstrong years are beyond the period allowable. So a few sleeping dogs will awake, look around, yawn and then drift back to sleep again, their bank balances and reputations remain safe.0
-
andyp wrote:I disagree. A sport needs credibility to survive and cycling's credibility is damaged each time another scandal is uncovered. If the UCI displayed real courage and leadership and consistently went after those who cheat then the sport could hold it's head high and be seen as credible. As long as it remains a sport where cheats can flourish then whatever credibility it has left is gradually eroded as they are exposed.
Brushing it all under the carpet and pretending nothing is wrong hasn't worked to date, so why should it suddenly work now?
Not disagreeing in principle, but that cure, taken too far, would kill it off as a decently paid profession, no? Sponsors have press data bureaus, sports media monitoring staff, who are likely watching coverage, reading it, getting it cut out of L'equpe etc, other papers and pasted onto broasheet for the CEO to glance at, reporting it back to the executives who release the 10 million Euros to that team0 -
Sponsors care for the oxygen of publicity and little else, as long as their team aren't in the headlines for the wrong reasons they'll be happy. It's very rare for any sponsor to come in with a strong ethical view and make a stand against doping, it only troubles them when the publicity is bad, witness Rabobank's reaction to the Rasmussen affair, or CSC's reaction to Basso's involvement in Puerto.
The UCI need to take a step back and see the bigger picture, if you could sell the sport as being at the vanguard of anti-doping (and arguably it is), and spin the positive benefits that has then your product is more valuable. They should be providing the kind of leadership required to do this, and to show that no-one is safe when it comes to doping infringements sets exactly the right tone. More progressive sponsors will identify with this and want to be associated with it.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:I was looking at Victor Conte's tweets on this...he ain't impressed by it. i tend to trust his reaction. He's the Willy Voet of athletics I guess though
Retroactive testing....how far back do we go. I suggest we get Maurice Garin's samples up first. Seriously, how far back do you want to go in retro testing?
You set a sensible limit. About 4 or 5 years seems reasonable.0 -
stagehopper wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I was looking at Victor Conte's tweets on this...he ain't impressed by it. i tend to trust his reaction. He's the Willy Voet of athletics I guess though
Retroactive testing....how far back do we go. I suggest we get Maurice Garin's samples up first. Seriously, how far back do you want to go in retro testing?
You set a sensible limit. About 4 or 5 years seems reasonable.
why 4 or 5 years...we'd have a situation where suspected dopers like AC, LA are trashed and Miguel Indurain is in the clear. Maurice Garin is as deserving of retroactive testing as any of them. Mercx? Retroactive testing cures the patient's illness by killing the patient0 -
andyp wrote:Sponsors care for the oxygen of publicity and little else, as long as their team aren't in the headlines for the wrong reasons they'll be happy. It's very rare for any sponsor to come in with a strong ethical view and make a stand against doping, it only troubles them when the publicity is bad, witness Rabobank's reaction to the Rasmussen affair, or CSC's reaction to Basso's involvement in Puerto.
The UCI need to take a step back and see the bigger picture, if you could sell the sport as being at the vanguard of anti-doping (and arguably it is), and spin the positive benefits that has then your product is more valuable. They should be providing the kind of leadership required to do this, and to show that no-one is safe when it comes to doping infringements sets exactly the right tone. More progressive sponsors will identify with this and want to be associated with it.
Maybe Ryanair could sponsor a team. They always seem to value positive/good publicity 0
