Many thanks to VeloGuy for pointing to a WSJ article on doping in sports; it's thorough, and neutral, with some interesting quotes.
The Inside Dope on Sports Testing
Skip Rozin, author of this article, had some interesting quotations, including this one by Don Catlin, former director of the renowned UCLA laboratory, one of WADA's 33 currently accredited labs:
If the door is open to cheating, can an honest athlete also be prosecuted? There are precautions. If the "A" sample tests positive, the athlete can opt to have the "B" sample tested. If both tests are positive, there is an appeal process. Ms. Hingis originally announced her retirement on Nov. 1 after both samples tested positive. Then a week later her agent told the BBC she would fight the test.
The two samples and method of appeal are an effort to avoid athletes being falsely punished.
"I'd like to think the odds of that happening are low -- it's a disaster when it does," says Don Catlin. "How often it does happen I can't tell you, but nobody's going to raise the flag and say I had a problem with a test in my lab. I have my ear to the ground and I hear of such things, but it's hard to document."
One wonders if it is ethical to implement 'aggravating circumstances' rules against Athletes in the new WADA CODE 2009, while allowing 'rumours' of negligent or fraudulent laboratory work to circulate amongst the chosen, in the higher reaches of the World Antidoping Universe?
Similarly, the idea is hard to hold back, that if Mr Catlin is in a position where his testimony is 'fatal' to certain Athletes, such as Floyd Landis, and yet, he has 'an ear to the ground' and is hearing 'such things' exist that fall in the rubric of laboratory error, is he not proving to those of us, who support the ends that WADA seeks, but do not support its MEANS of so achieving, that the system as envisaged is still fatally flawed?
Words to ponder....while
Watching WADA!
..........@...........WADAwatch
No comments:
Post a Comment