Originally Posted by CPcyclist
HD all that has been see in the papers is a "results" sheet no raw data.
The results sheet had raw data.
Originally Posted by chrisvu05
I don't want to comment on the doping scandal...but I would like to make a comment to Dog Hair. Lance Armstrong is probably the single most important cyclist in recent time. He has Michael Jordan status. People like you that "dog" (no pun intended) on him just give people more fuel to make people dislike cycling. If Lance hadn't come along do you really think the people of the United States would be paying attention to to cycliong at all? NOPE!! Do you think trek would be as big as they are? Do think people would be flocking to bikes shops all summer long to buy something that they will end up using for 2 months and then get tired of it?
That is why the peloton has been, for many decades, hush hush about doping. Of course they don't want to hurt their own sport.
It's better than the truth, I guess.
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
For those who think these tests prove that LA doped, please point us to your links that explain:
- How the samples were sealed;
- Where the sealed samples were taken and when they were taken there;
- Who had access to the samples;
- How the samples were tested (step by step);
- Who did each step;
- What documentation they kept;
- Who observed;
- Etc.
A scientific test is only as good as the test itself, the procedures used to conduct the test, and the honesty of the scientists doing the test.
It looks like the UCI is taking the right attitude--wait until we have enough facts to judge the validity of the current tests.
Why should they have to provide all of that? It was a professional organization that did this.
Do you ask this about every other athlete that tests positive in sport? "They didn't provide all of this info so the result must not be true"
The organization doing the test didn't plan on the results being released in this way, and they never had reason to publish all of the information that you ask for.