http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...e-riders-on-the-postal-service-scandal_265021
Interesting!
In the letter, Pat tells the reader that the sport is cleaner. He uses the top current riders as testament. Would he have referred to Lance for such assurances 10 years ago? Also in the second paragraph, he refers to riders’ choice determining cleaner cycling; well we still know riders are only human and susceptible to various influences.
In the fourth paragraph, Pat seems to blame the scientific community. Well the cycling community employs scientists and they will act as instructed by those awarding them work I gather within the bounds of what’s scientifically possible. Bit like a workman blaming his tool.
What will the top Spanish riders who made doping transgressions over the last few years think when they read paragraph 5:
“Therefore we must all continue to work to keep improving the culture in cycling through education, prevention and as far as you are concerned by making the one choice that counts. At the end of the day it is you the riders who have the ultimate say about whether our sport is clean.”
In paragraph 7, Pat refers to what’s “legally feasible”, again appearing to pass the buck somewhat to another profession.
In paragraph 8, Pat seems to refer to restrictions placed by WADA. Excuse my lack of knowledge of UCI/WADA history, but maybe it’s time cycling shows it is leading the way by directing WADA on what needs to be done to implement what’s required. Call them out if they are not insisting on what is required. After all, wasn’t WADA set up from the ashes of the Festina scandal, so it owes its very existence to cycling.
In citing the points above, let's remember Pat is President of the sport’s world governing body, so ultimately, where do these bucks stop?
Interesting!
In the letter, Pat tells the reader that the sport is cleaner. He uses the top current riders as testament. Would he have referred to Lance for such assurances 10 years ago? Also in the second paragraph, he refers to riders’ choice determining cleaner cycling; well we still know riders are only human and susceptible to various influences.
In the fourth paragraph, Pat seems to blame the scientific community. Well the cycling community employs scientists and they will act as instructed by those awarding them work I gather within the bounds of what’s scientifically possible. Bit like a workman blaming his tool.
What will the top Spanish riders who made doping transgressions over the last few years think when they read paragraph 5:
“Therefore we must all continue to work to keep improving the culture in cycling through education, prevention and as far as you are concerned by making the one choice that counts. At the end of the day it is you the riders who have the ultimate say about whether our sport is clean.”
In paragraph 7, Pat refers to what’s “legally feasible”, again appearing to pass the buck somewhat to another profession.
In paragraph 8, Pat seems to refer to restrictions placed by WADA. Excuse my lack of knowledge of UCI/WADA history, but maybe it’s time cycling shows it is leading the way by directing WADA on what needs to be done to implement what’s required. Call them out if they are not insisting on what is required. After all, wasn’t WADA set up from the ashes of the Festina scandal, so it owes its very existence to cycling.
In citing the points above, let's remember Pat is President of the sport’s world governing body, so ultimately, where do these bucks stop?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram