Who Should We Believe

[nathanbloke]

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?