Drug Testing: Corruption in the System

Published on Tuesday 8th of August, 2006 - Updated on 2006-08-09

I'm about through writing about the high drama of the Floyd Landis positive, time to get onto some training and racing writing, but first, I thought I would publish a letter here that I sent to Cyclingnews for publishing in their Letters section (just in case they don't publish it!).

Dear Cyclingnews,

Regardless of who this latest fiasco (i.e. Landis) happened to embroil, a corrupt testing system - which is what the implicated Floyd Landis called it - is exactly what the world has been shown in the weeks since the Tour de France.

The UCI knowingly released an announcement that they shouldn't have because they were afraid the testing lab - known to have ties to L'Equipe - would leak the results. This, from Pat McQuaid:

Also, we know that the French laboratory [where the testing was done] has a close connection with [French sports daily] L'Équipe, and we did not want this news to come through the press, because we are sure they would have leaked it.

Put another way, they violated the protocol because the laboratory pressed with the responsibility of testing the riders - a job of high moral standard - is known to be breaching the protocol! And how exactly does this impartial lab know who the results belong to? Is the testing not supposed to be blind?

Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, stated in an article that he "completely reject[s] the word 'corruption.'".

This is saddening to hear as a cycling fan - moreso then the doping case of Landis - because it is clear that the president of the UCI doesn't get it, and that this kind of mess will continue in the future. If he cared dearly about the sport of cycling, he would find another lab and try to follow the protocols when corruption occurs in the system (in this case the leaky employee in the lab at Chatenay-Malabry laboratory and the actions followed thereafter).

Cheers,

Mike Papageorge

Tags: , ,

Comments and Feedback

There are 0 comments for this post. Subscribe to the RSS 2.0 comments feed or add your comment »

There are no comments for this post.

Discussion for this post is now closed. Comments are normally open for 15 days. If you have something to add to this conversation or to the author, send us a note via the contact page.