we are both wrong, for reasons that are not completely clear to me the UCI is necessary. Vaughters has both personally and professionally expressed many ideas, complete break away federation/organization or an independent drug control outside the UCI's management, or some other hybrid setup to exclude or semi-exclude the UCI. JV has a successful program that includes all the elements, great coverage, marketable riders, exciting schedule and stable outlook. What are all the other owners balking at? There must be something, and something big that is making them stick w McDump and his associates at the UCI.DirtyWorks said:Imagine what would happen if 5 year-old samples were re-tested with today's procedures and WADA could open those cases without the UCI. From that point forward, only the very dumbest of athletes would bother doping.
As long as the UCI and IOC remain in complete control of doping control, doping will be rampant.
Bike racing happens without the UCI. No one needs them.
Why just 5 years? come on man!!! I want to see the others really shake. I feel like the Armstrong rattle has only got half of the guys who are going to fess up.
I had to laugh when in Lance's 11th hour Phil Anderson suddenly remembered a bribe! or yah that I totally forgot mate. Armstrong was only the biggest wad in the cycling's litterbox but hardly the stinkiest.