Biological Passports

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited December 2007 in Pro race
Good idea in theory, but can we trust the UCI?

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... D%3DMTYxNw

Here is what causes me greatest concern

It is expected that the cost of the program will be shared between the UCI and key stakeholders including the UCI ProTeams, UCI Professional Continental Teams, Organisers, Riders, WADA and the French Ministry of Sport.


Expected? Surely you'd know exactly how you're going to fund something which costs 5x more than what you currently do? If you've not got complete agreement it shouldn't be announced.

Then there are the concerns about whether the labs can cope with the volume of samples being collected. And and and....

Another false dawn?

:roll:
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Comments

  • top_bhoy
    top_bhoy Posts: 1,424
    Complete agreement - almost impossible. The teams will hardly be universally in favour of funding a system which has a higher chance of finding out they cheat. Some will have to be dragged screaming and shouting I suspect.

    By making it public, there will now be a public debate about it, its reasons, the process and how its funding will be obtained. If French taxpayers are being asked to fund some of this testing then the least they can expect is answers to the above and to find out which stakeholders are against paying their share and the reasonsfor doing so.
    Click here to view Top_Bhoys Pedal Force:
    Click here to view Top_Bhoys RC2:
  • Salsiccia
    Salsiccia Posts: 405
    Why are the French Ministry of Sport sharing the costs? This raises a few issues to me:

    1. French taxpayers could point to the last few years and other countries' riders (Germany, Spain, Italy, USA, Kazakhstan for example) being more culpable for the current climate in Cycling.

    2. If the French Government has a financial stake in this, could it not lead to a conflict of interest? Hypothetical situation: a French rider, leading the Tour de France (I know it's a stretch, but I did say hypothetical) shows big variations in his blood at the end of a big mountain stage when compared to his Blood Passport. The French Lab and the UCI want to blow the whistle; the ASO gulps; then the French Government say to the UCI and ASO 'We are going to pull the funding if this rider is declared positive'. The UCI, ASO cover things up, the rider carries on and the French Government is happy and continues funding. A potential problem, No?
    I was only joking when I said
    by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    If you're CSC, High Road, Slipstream or *gasp* Astana, you're already shelling out a huge wad of cash on testing so why would you contribute more. Between those 4 they'll be spending €2m per year.

    These passports have the capacity to turn into McQuaid's charter, pt 2.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • top_bhoy
    top_bhoy Posts: 1,424
    iainf72 wrote:
    ....why would you contribute more. Between those 4 they'll be spending €2m per year.

    To ensure the competition isn't undermining your efforts by continuing to dope while your team is abiding by the rules????

    Hopefully these teams and all the other teams will spare us the crocodile tears on costs. If cheating wasn't endemicwithin the sport these types of initiatives wouldn't be necessary.
    Click here to view Top_Bhoys Pedal Force:
    Click here to view Top_Bhoys RC2:
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    ....why would you contribute more. Between those 4 they'll be spending €2m per year.

    To ensure the competition isn't undermining your efforts by continuing to dope while your team is abiding by the rules????

    Oh, yes, I know that. But if you had faith in what the UCI were doing it would be better to chuck that €2m at it for this year rather than spend it on your own monitoring. Afterall that's nearly half the budget.

    I also can't see how teams are going to find a couple of 100K in their budget so late in the day.

    I'm fully behind trying to do something but this is more of the same from the UCI - Poorly thought out and even worse in execution.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • skavanagh.bikeradar
    skavanagh.bikeradar Posts: 1,097
    I'm going to wait and see. There are an army of people for whom it would be best if the biological passport fails, for this reason I'll give the UCI the benefit of the doubt. I'd also say that despite the inevitable problems in year 1, you'd imagine that many of the problems raised above will be addressed as things develop and time move alongs - it isn't reasonable to expect everything to be super smooth on day 1. Given the amount of testing needed before the Tour I'd guess that the UCI will target particular teams and individuals before then to make sure that any likely tour riders have a passport. Still a huge job of course.

    The teams ought to cooperate and make the whole thing easy to implement and they should all be in favour of a measure designed to stop cheating and restore credibility to the sport that pays their wages. They ought to be engaged with the UCI in order to iron out the way it works, what penalties will apply, for how long etc. The principal shouldn't be debated - it is a much needed stab at saving everyone's reputation and employment.

    The UCI need to get it right, make no mistake, but they are taking on a massive job and deserve our support. Save your bullets for the naysayers, evaders, excuse makers, dopers, apologists etc of which we will see many I'm sure.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:
    The teams ought to cooperate and make the whole thing easy to implement and they should all be in favour of a measure designed to stop cheating and restore credibility to the sport that pays their wages. They ought to be engaged with the UCI in order to iron out the way it works, what penalties will apply, for how long etc. The principal shouldn't be debated - it is a much needed stab at saving everyone's reputation and employment.

    Doesn't the money side concern you? If teams are supposed to contribute where are they supposed to get the money from?

    I think it's been rushed. The principal is fine.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Categories