Riis: "if he is sanctioned it doesn't mean he is guilty [of doping]"

[Dr. Maserati]

Exactly. My only problem with WADA is that, at least as it relates to a single event (multi-day races; GTs), they should use the same lab throughout so that all of the riders are treated equally, or at a minimum, make sure that advances in techniques in one lab are shared with all of the other labs to ensure that a positive at one lab is a positive at ALL WADA accredited labs.

It is not WADA who selects the laboratory (remember WADA have nothing to do with testing, they only set the standards).

For the Tour, the French Cycling federation were in charge of testing and selecting the laboratory, in this case Lausanne.
The UCI contacted the Cologne lab to do additional testing on target test samples to complement the Lausanne lab and as said in the IO report:

..... the UCI expected that the analyses conducted by the Cologne Laboratory would complement those performed by Lausanne Laboratory and that a focus should be placed on the analysis of new substances and/or methods drugs and/or with new analytical methods in use by the Cologne laboratory.

 

[JPM London]

Youre a funny guy. Do you know that?

You actually make it sound bad that there is progress in the war against doping

No, he's lamenting that the progress is only done partly. I don't think Bro thinks it's unfair to Conti that he gets tested to that level - he thinks it's unfair Conti is the only rider to get tested to that level. See a difference?

If we were to follow your idea of fair play, then every one should be riding the same bikes, eat the same food and train the same way. Otherwise it will not be fair play.

No.
Does the rider have a choice of testing? No.
That means if testing is not consistent, then it's unfair.
Does the rider/team have a choice of material? Yes.
That means any difference is down to choice - nobody's forcing you to ride an inferior bike (unless your name's Landis and you ride for a unicorn).

And I´m just spelling out how the judge will react.

Therefore not...

 

[sniper]

No, he's lamenting that the progress is only done partly. I don't think Bro thinks it's unfair to Conti that he gets tested to that level - he thinks it's unfair Conti is the only rider to get tested to that level. See a difference?

No.
Does the rider have a choice of testing? No.
That means if testing is not consistent, then it's unfair.
Does the rider/team have a choice of material? Yes.
That means any difference is down to choice - nobody's forcing you to ride an inferior bike (unless your name's Landis and you ride for a unicorn).

splendid. well put.

 

[biopass]

No, he's lamenting that the progress is only done partly. I don't think Bro thinks it's unfair to Conti that he gets tested to that level - he thinks it's unfair Conti is the only rider to get tested to that level. See a difference?

Of course there is a difference. The funny part isnt that Conti was the only one tested to that level. The funny part is that if Conti had reasons to claim others would be tested positive if they were tested to the same level (and therefore its unfair hes the only one tested to that level), then no one would ever belive he is a clean rider. He would not only admid he has knowledge of PEDs, he would also have to admid he knows which riders are using those PEDs. Because ultimately, he can only prove the unfairness if he named a rider, and that rider was tested positive with the same levels as Conti. That is the joke.