- Jun 18, 2009
As far as I see it, there is a pretty simple answer, and that is to fundamentally change the infrastructure which has those in a position to benefit from being in charge of testing and sanctioning riders, i.e. the federations and UCI. Both parties need to be completely divorced from the process. As long as the existing conflict of interest to which you just alluded continues to exist, there will be no long-term solution.joe_papp said:McQuaid is in an unenviable position. I believe that, given the choice, he would prefer a clean cycling to an oxygenated one, and yet surely you must understand that he doesn't want to replace dope-fueled cycling and preferential treatment with a culture of perpetual investigation and the discrediting of past results? The UCI is naturally going to be a million times better at looking out for the economic interests of the sport than they are at genuinely fighting doping (because everyone there knows that to adopt the attitude that some of the radical anti-dopers suggest - perpetual investigation into the past - would be to sign the death warrant for pro cycling as an income-generator).
Cycling does do more than any sport I can think of to fight doping - it just also has the most long-standing and deeply-entrenched tradition and culture of doping.
Yeah...there's really a simple answer for that one...
But that means ceding a bit piece of territory and relinquishing control. And that's where McQuaid and Verbruggen have shown incredibly poor judgement, IMO. Their priority seems to be maintaining control at the expense of the sport. I get that, though. To get into a position like that, I guess you have to believe that you know better than everyone else. It's time for them to understand that they don't.