The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
In a parallel universe, on the occasion of Lance Armstrong donating money to the UCI to help its fight against doping, events might unfold as follows. Hein Verbruggen and Lance Armstrong would call a press conference, posing for cameras as a photogenic oversized cheque was handed over. The UCI would issue their trademark Press Pack detailing when and how the donation was to be spent. A win-win publicity event for all parties concerned.
Contrast that with how events transpired in our real world.
Master50 said:Is that what you believe? The UCI assigns an anti doping officer who might be a doctor, a paramedic, a plumber, an accountant or any number of professions in real life. They do not work for the UCI. They are responsible to test the riders as required in the anti doping rules as well as assign random tests also according to the UCI rules. The Anti doping official is responsible to see the testing is done, the paper work is filled out and the samples are shipped to the lab as well as the conditions the samples are to be identified and sealed. He sends a copy of the sheets to the lab with only control numbers, no riders names. He sends a copy to the UCI and maybe the race federation.
Nothing wrong with the federation getting the information... Oh wait, maybe there is. No bad news is good news, right?Master50 said:Sometimes the Race Federation looks after the race or tests also.
You aren't new here are you?Master50 said:No samples ever go to the UCI headquarters in Aigle. No UCI employee touches the samples.
See above. Do you understand now?Master50 said:So I completely fail to understand in what manner the UCI can influence testing?
Hahaaha!!!! You are just making sh!t up at this point. They are very motivated to toss out minor athletes like FuYu Li to appear as though they are doing something.Master50 said:There are so many people just itching to catch a big fish that there is no way a real positive test is going to be passed over. These guys are very motivated to catch cheats.
Master50 said:Is that what you believe? The UCI assigns an anti doping officer who might be a doctor, a paramedic, a plumber, an accountant or any number of professions in real life. They do not work for the UCI. They are responsible to test the riders as required in the anti doping rules as well as assign random tests also according to the UCI rules. The Anti doping official is responsible to see the testing is done, the paper work is filled out and the samples are shipped to the lab as well as the conditions the samples are to be identified and sealed. He sends a copy of the sheets to the lab with only control numbers, no riders names. He sends a copy to the UCI and maybe the race federation. Sometimes the Race Federation looks after the race or tests also. The lab is generally the closest accredited lab to the race. Maybe 2 or 3 in the US, Montreal, Where in Mexico? No samples ever go to the UCI headquarters in Aigle. No UCI employee touches the samples. There is also federation testing so USADA in the US also tests. Over the last 7 years I think there has been a marked increase in targeting testing too. So I completely fail to understand in what manner the UCI can influence testing? There are so many people just itching to catch a big fish that there is no way a real positive test is going to be passed over. These guys are very motivated to catch cheats. If a positive test is covered up the lab still does not know who it is until the UCI identifies them. You know 3 days after the lab tech divulged there was a positive test is leaked.
Enjoy the conspiracy theories.
wirral said:Didn't I read somewhere that these machines cost a lot less than $100,000.
So the Swiss lab got the machine and Pat and Hein got their broker's commission on the deal.
thehog said:What I didn't know was the lab already has a Sysmex machine. So the new machine was a backup!
Which makes no sense. Why buy a backup machine?
HL2037 said:Do you think they would have been able to test Lance 800 times with only one machine?!