Your first mistake is believing anything McQuaid says. This is a guy that has a pattern whenever there's some anti-doping controversy:peterst6906 said:How can this be? According to McQuaid previously, it isn't possible to have independence from the UCI in doping control because WADA doesn't allow it.
Step 1: The UCI is on top of it. No problems
Step 2: There is still a problem??? The bio-passport is complicated. So complicated the UCI relies on outside experts.
Step 3: There is still a problem??? Silence
IF the AFLD targets the top of the GC, I think it might get interesting if the UCI isn't suppressing results. As Armstrong's "comeback" testing showed, his samples were clearly suspicious, yet they were never routed out of the APMU to experts so a case could be opened. In 2013, the UCI has total control over the APMU process, so lots of opportunities to protect riders by hiding results. (Froome-dog I'm looking at you)peterst6906 said:While that's what he previously said, I think this is a great step, both for ASO and for the AFLD.
Now I hope the lab has sufficient funding to make the additional testing the equivalent of a full testing program.
Testing inside a Grand Tour is problematic even with a healthy budget. Which, the AFLD probably doesn't have.