Joined
·
29 Posts
A modest proposal for cleaning up cycling's drug image:
First, when a rider first goes pro, the governing bodies should test and publish the riders hemocrit levels to establish a personalized, natural baseline.
Second, all tests results -- both in and out of season -- should be made fully public. Thus sudden hemocrit count spikes would be obvious to all, and the court of public opinion would do the rest. Indeed, nobody really cares if someone wins 7 Tours with an average hemo count of 48 (even if 48 is a technically legal count) when his pre-success numbers were only about 35.
For instance, contrast Tom Bonen and Tyler Hamilton.
The current WC usually clocks 35 on his hemo counts -- quite normal. He has revealed his numbers and, thereby, has established his credibility as a natural talent. If suddenly his counts jumped to 48 and he started winning three-week stage races, everbody would know that he had turned to dope. Tom won't turn to doping, he won't boost his hemo count toward 50, and he won't win miraculously transform himself overnight into a one-day rider to stages races. But, with the current system he could, and nobody but the UCI would know what had happened though with clever doping they couldn't catch him.
In contrast, Velonew's latest article on the Hamilton affiar reports that Tyler's pre-bust hemo counts had started to repreatedly border 50. The authorities warned him but his count remained high, and he was busted under the modern blood-doping test. Whether the test used to bust him is prefectly valid or not is irrelevant. The point is that Tyler was clocking ungodly hemo numbers. Under my proposal, Tyler's hemo-counts over the entire span of his career would be open to public scrutiny and we would have a much better idea whether he is a doper or a victim of a false positive.
* * * *
Indeed, the current lack of transparency reagarding rider's hemoctrit counts is what is fueling the cat-and-mouse doping-control game. Few persons on the planet can naturally train themselves to a hemo count of 50, though with a decent "doctor," many can micro-dose EPO or other undetecable substances to zoom like a Ferrari to the magic UCI threshold of 50 (thereby staying just low enough to avoid sudden heart failure but still supercharging the old cardio system). Instead of only busting riders proven to go over 50 or to boost closer to 50 unnaturally, just open the riders round-the-year, full-career test results. The public will recognize suspicious and unnatural numbers, hence beyond-a-reasonable-doubt testing to prove that a sudden spike from 34 to 49 was unnatural is not needed (just as it is not possible -- some cheats will always find away to beat controls and boost counts to 48 or 49).
Finally, one wonders just how close Lance's hemo counts were to 50 during his post-cancer domination. I would wager that, before cancer, his count was about 35 and hence he could not compete with the Tour leaders though could score one-day successes. But, after-cancer, I bet his typical hemo count mysteriously improved to the high 40s. Thus, combined with cancer-related weight loss and new vigour in the blood . . . . the magic 7. In any case, given that Lance ludicrously wrapped himself in the flag by claiming that the retro-testing of his 1999 samples were an anti-American French conspiracy (yeah, right, since when could the French successfully orchestrate anything other than the Tour itself?), I severely doubt he'll ever be forth coming with his pre- and post- cancer hemo-count averages, (though surely an innocent man would.)
* * * *
The bottom line is that, in the sports-entertainment industry, the court of public opinion makes the final adjudications, and the burden of proof falls on the athlete to prove he is clean when legitimate suspicions arise. This is why the cycling needs to open the rider's testing results to the public -- to pro-actively establish the integrity of the sport. It's the only way.
First, when a rider first goes pro, the governing bodies should test and publish the riders hemocrit levels to establish a personalized, natural baseline.
Second, all tests results -- both in and out of season -- should be made fully public. Thus sudden hemocrit count spikes would be obvious to all, and the court of public opinion would do the rest. Indeed, nobody really cares if someone wins 7 Tours with an average hemo count of 48 (even if 48 is a technically legal count) when his pre-success numbers were only about 35.
For instance, contrast Tom Bonen and Tyler Hamilton.
The current WC usually clocks 35 on his hemo counts -- quite normal. He has revealed his numbers and, thereby, has established his credibility as a natural talent. If suddenly his counts jumped to 48 and he started winning three-week stage races, everbody would know that he had turned to dope. Tom won't turn to doping, he won't boost his hemo count toward 50, and he won't win miraculously transform himself overnight into a one-day rider to stages races. But, with the current system he could, and nobody but the UCI would know what had happened though with clever doping they couldn't catch him.
In contrast, Velonew's latest article on the Hamilton affiar reports that Tyler's pre-bust hemo counts had started to repreatedly border 50. The authorities warned him but his count remained high, and he was busted under the modern blood-doping test. Whether the test used to bust him is prefectly valid or not is irrelevant. The point is that Tyler was clocking ungodly hemo numbers. Under my proposal, Tyler's hemo-counts over the entire span of his career would be open to public scrutiny and we would have a much better idea whether he is a doper or a victim of a false positive.
* * * *
Indeed, the current lack of transparency reagarding rider's hemoctrit counts is what is fueling the cat-and-mouse doping-control game. Few persons on the planet can naturally train themselves to a hemo count of 50, though with a decent "doctor," many can micro-dose EPO or other undetecable substances to zoom like a Ferrari to the magic UCI threshold of 50 (thereby staying just low enough to avoid sudden heart failure but still supercharging the old cardio system). Instead of only busting riders proven to go over 50 or to boost closer to 50 unnaturally, just open the riders round-the-year, full-career test results. The public will recognize suspicious and unnatural numbers, hence beyond-a-reasonable-doubt testing to prove that a sudden spike from 34 to 49 was unnatural is not needed (just as it is not possible -- some cheats will always find away to beat controls and boost counts to 48 or 49).
Finally, one wonders just how close Lance's hemo counts were to 50 during his post-cancer domination. I would wager that, before cancer, his count was about 35 and hence he could not compete with the Tour leaders though could score one-day successes. But, after-cancer, I bet his typical hemo count mysteriously improved to the high 40s. Thus, combined with cancer-related weight loss and new vigour in the blood . . . . the magic 7. In any case, given that Lance ludicrously wrapped himself in the flag by claiming that the retro-testing of his 1999 samples were an anti-American French conspiracy (yeah, right, since when could the French successfully orchestrate anything other than the Tour itself?), I severely doubt he'll ever be forth coming with his pre- and post- cancer hemo-count averages, (though surely an innocent man would.)
* * * *
The bottom line is that, in the sports-entertainment industry, the court of public opinion makes the final adjudications, and the burden of proof falls on the athlete to prove he is clean when legitimate suspicions arise. This is why the cycling needs to open the rider's testing results to the public -- to pro-actively establish the integrity of the sport. It's the only way.
