• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.


Who Should We Believe

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Where is the trust problem in cycling

  • Stop taking about doping. I couldn't care less as long as I get to watch an exciting race.

    Votes: 12 100.0%

  • Total voters
Mar 12, 2009
Visit site
It does seem sometimes that the procedures used in testing aren't always stuck to. Someone mentioned Steffan Schumacher, who's A sample was tested for a variety of products, and found clean. A few weeks later, a test for CERA EPO was then applied to the A sample, which, presumably had been opened, messed about with in the process of the first set of tests, and then left, unsealed in the interim.

Now, I presume that his B sample had been stored correctly in the interim, so confirmed the now positive A sample. But surely, the reason for having an A and B sample is that, both samples having been kept in a secure, safe and temperature controlled environment, creates a cast iron case against dopers. But the re-testing of the original A sample creates a doubt about the validity of the test result, which is what Schumacher is pinning his hopes on. The B sample tested positive, but the A sample has already been unsealed, so cannot be trusted.

The UCI and the labs it uses have a history of less than rigourous procedures. If they could tighten them up, so the procedures were crystal clear, and strictly adhered to, we'd have no dopers like Hamilton, Landis, and probably Schumacher claiming testing irregularities. It may lead to a handful of dopers getting through, but won't that always be the way?