Road Bike Racing - Operation Puerto, what a joke.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct28news

Who knows what could have happened in the tour with these guys in there.

Nice...Lets see they they possibly ruined the careers a several world class athletes. Cost sponsors and advirtisers millions in lost investments and income and destroyed teams that will never be rebuilt. It's okay...they're sorry.

One good outcome is Basso could be riding with Disco next year...

Nice...Lets see they they possibly ruined the careers a several world class athletes. Cost sponsors and advirtisers millions in lost investments and income and destroyed teams that will never be rebuilt. It's okay...they're sorry.
Err... It's not like those guys got a clean bill of health or exonerated, you know.

A court in Spain told the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) that they cannot use the Operation Puerto evidence to take disciplinary action against a rider until court proceedings are completed. The RFEC decided to drop the pre-emptive disciplinary actions (unlike some other European federations). Once those hearings are concluded and (presumably) a judge provides an assement of the quality of the evidence, the RFEC can begin disciplinary actions against the riders.

So if a rider's career is ruined, and if the Operation Puerto evidence is very strong that the rider was using Fuentes' labs for PED's, then the athlete only has himself to blame. I expect the innocent riders caught in the OP dragnet will be few in number....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct28news

Who knows what could have happened in the tour with these guys in there.

A great example of why the "innocent until proven guilty" approach works better than the "guilty until proven innocent, ready...shoot...aim" method...

I don't know if these guys cheated or not...but if you can't prove it, leave them the f@@&* alone.

"We think we can prove this so we will make you sit a whole season until we figure it out...we'll let you know."

If the riders were smart, they'd strengthen their union and tell the ASO, UCI and the rest when and how they will race in their races...

...I expect the innocent riders caught in the OP dragnet will be few in number....

How many tarnished careers from unsubstantiated accusations should we be willing to accept? Is it really okay that a few careers are erroneously disgraced in pursuit of dopers? I could accept a few if they were merely an avoidable consequence of a well planned and executed investigation. The UCI seemed to jump the gun on the investigation and suspended riders based on partial information released by the Spanish authorities before the TDF. The Spanish authorities have attempted to correct the situation by blocking sanctions yet still the UCI has hesitated in clearing riders cleared by Spain.

This whole case stinks and sometimes feels like external manipulation of the pro cycling season through the timing of accusations. If I thought that anybody involved was organized enough to form a conspiracy I might accuse the whole system of manipulating the odds of races.

When this story first broke and tours contenders started dropping out daily I went back through all of the pre-tour mags and counted all of the ads that Basso, Ulrich and other contenders had. Besides the riders themselves having the stigma of "possible" doping attached to them I'm sure the advertisers lost plenty in the fiasco. As a sponsor you get bitten like that you tend to become very conservative with your investments in the sport. That in itself can kill the sport and its ability to reach a broader segment of the public. I would think that these sponsors would be calling for the heads of those that killed the tour due to their incomplete investigation.

My moneys on Basso to Disco by next Wednesday.

A great example of why the "innocent until proven guilty" approach works better than the "guilty until proven innocent, ready...shoot...aim" method...
Actually, it's an indication that a judge in Spain wants the RFEC to wait until the court case is over. Since it will drag out the disciplinary process by at least a year, I don't see how this ruling produces a "better" approach.

Disciplinary hearings by sporting organizations are not criminal prosecutions, nor are the consequences anywhere near as severe. So I have no problem with holding a lower standard, especially given how difficult it's become to detect doping via testing.



I don't know if these guys cheated or not...but if you can't prove it, leave them the f@@&* alone.
Ahh, the rational assesement....

The police found more evidence than they know what to do with -- including a large quantity of packets of blood, lots of PED's and tons of paperwork that they have to sort through. It sounds to me like there's no reason why the RFEC should have access to that evidence as long as it was obtained legally -- if anything, it will make the proceedings go faster for the riders.

And remember, the RFEC can easily re-open the cases at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. In fact, I'd expect the UCI (and WADA) to demand the RFEC re-open the cases at the earliest possible opportunity.



How many tarnished careers from unsubstantiated accusations should we be willing to accept?
7 ;)

At the moment (and obviously this may change), OP produced weak evidence against Basso, and evidence ranging from "acceptable" to "strong" against 50 other riders (e.g. packets of blood, and who knows how extensive the paperwork is). For an investigation of this size and complexity, if there's a 50-to-1 ratio of guilty-to-innocent at the end of the hearings, that's not too shabby.



Is it really okay that a few careers are erroneously disgraced in pursuit of dopers? I could accept a few if they were merely an avoidable consequence of a well planned and executed investigation.
Obviously the goal is to have as few innocent people caught in a dragnet like this as possible and this is a valid concern. But as the cheaters become more and more sophisticated, and take more extensive (and risky) measures to get away with it, investigations like OP will become a better and more accurate method to uncover the cheats. (http://www.homestarrunner.com/book17.html)



The UCI seemed to jump the gun on the investigation and suspended riders based on partial information released by the Spanish authorities before the TDF. The Spanish authorities have attempted to correct the situation by blocking sanctions yet still the UCI has hesitated in clearing riders cleared by Spain.
OK, let's take a hypothetical situation -- not 100% comparable, but not that far off either....

You're the CEO of Acme Incorporated. As routine practice, your company gets audited by an outside accounting firm. Your auditor tells you that they've discovered your CFO has embezzled $100,000,000 over the last 4 years, shows you the evidence, and that they are obligated under various laws to notify law enforcement.

What should you do? Suspend the CFO? Fire the CFO immediately? Suspend first, then fire when you've seen enough evidence? Keep the CFO on the payroll until s/he is arrested? Wait for a formal indictment? Or a conviction, perhaps?




I would think that these sponsors would be calling for the heads of those that killed the tour due to their incomplete investigation.
Are you joking?

The sponsors are not going to knock heads with the Spanish police or the UCI for their attempts to keep the sport clean. They're dropping the teams.

It's the dopers that are killing the sport, not the people who are doing what they can to catch the cheaters.



This whole case stinks and sometimes feels like external manipulation of the pro cycling season through the timing of accusations....
Nothing "stinks" about the investigation except that it caught a couple of popular cyclists.

These days, cyclists who are doping are doing everything they can not to get caught. Autologous blood transfers, masking agents, substances unknown to the doping authorities, you name it.

What "stinks" is that the cheaters are getting away with it, and that it increasingly looks like the only way to catch these guys is by busting the labs.

A great example of why the "innocent until proven guilty" approach works better than the "guilty until proven innocent, ready...shoot...aim" method...

I don't know if these guys cheated or not...but if you can't prove it, leave them the f@@&* alone.

"We think we can prove this so we will make you sit a whole season until we figure it out...we'll let you know."

If the riders were smart, they'd strengthen their union and tell the ASO, UCI and the rest when and how they will race in their races...
+1
I will add nothing because nothing more need be said.

OP certainly seems to have unjustly besmirched the reputations of some riders. I wonder, though...if the UCI and the teams hadn't taken action before the TdF, wouldn't everyone be more upset to find out that five (or more) of the top ten finishers were implicated only after the race was done? And with the knowledge that the UCI knew what they knew before the race was run?

Even with hindsight being 20/20, it is a difficult situation for everyone, including the cycling federations and tour organisers. No one wanted to wreck the greatest cycling event in the world, but they felt they had to choose excluding some riders as the lesser of two evils.

7 ;)

At the moment (and obviously this may change), OP produced weak evidence against Basso, and evidence ranging from "acceptable" to "strong" against 50 other riders (e.g. packets of blood, and who knows how extensive the paperwork is). For an investigation of this size and complexity, if there's a 50-to-1 ratio of guilty-to-innocent at the end of the hearings, that's not too shabby.
At the moment we have 0 convictions thus ruling out the formation of any ratio. I do know that the Spanish judge had to step in to stop the frenzy over this partially completed investigation. It seems to me that the Spanish investigation was doing well and was just right up until the time the UCI got involved. Perhaps that mistake, releasing the information too early, makes OP a joke in the cycling world.

Obviously the goal is to have as few innocent people caught in a dragnet like this as possible and this is a valid concern. But as the cheaters become more and more sophisticated, and take more extensive (and risky) measures to get away with it, investigations like OP will become a better and more accurate method to uncover the cheats. (http://www.homestarrunner.com/book17.html)
Do you think that accusations should come before evidence? Had the Spanish completed their investigation and then turned over that evidence to the governing bodies of the involved sports we would not be having this discussion because so many of the mistakes of OP would have been uncovered first. Instead, OP released some questionable speculation to the UCI thus implicating innocent riders. OP started done the path towards a joke when the Spanish authorities choose to release the information about cycling to the UCI prior to the judicial review that turns facts and speculation into evidence. Apparently the Spanish judge is not happy that the information was shared before being vetted.

OK, let's take a hypothetical situation -- not 100% comparable, but not that far off either....

You're the CEO of Acme Incorporated. As routine practice, your company gets audited by an outside accounting firm. Your auditor tells you that they've discovered your CFO has embezzled $100,000,000 over the last 4 years, shows you the evidence, and that they are obligated under various laws to notify law enforcement.
What should you do? Suspend the CFO? Fire the CFO immediately? Suspend first, then fire when you've seen enough evidence? Keep the CFO on the payroll until s/he is arrested? Wait for a formal indictment? Or a conviction, perhaps?
First I would find out the laws and follow them to absolutely make sure I don't screw up the case for the future prosecution. My first preference would be to suspend without pay until the matter is settled but I would quickly verify the auditor's accusations- but that would only occur if such action would not jeopardize either the recovery of said money or my own legal standing. Now to bring this back to reality. The head auditor brought a junior auditor's findings before he, the head auditor, had completed the investigation. Weeks later the head auditor reviewed the initial findings and disagreed with them . OP was not a completed investigation but was and is treated like one. That is part of the ruling the Spanish judge handed down to stop the national federations from pursuing cyclists. I don't really fault the Spanish judicial system for this mess- I blame the decision to hand over this information to the UCI.
Are you joking?

The sponsors are not going to knock heads with the Spanish police or the UCI for their attempts to keep the sport clean. They're dropping the teams.

It's the dopers that are killing the sport, not the people who are doing what they can to catch the cheaters.
One team (Liberty Seguros-Würth) was barred from participating in a major race, not because their DS' problems but because 5 members of their TdF team were implicated in OP. Those riders (Alberto Contador, Sergio Paulinho, Allan Davis, Joseba Beloki and Isidro Nozal) were latter cleared but the sponsors had already abandoned the team. The false accusations against 5 lesser riders removed one of the Tour favorites for his association with them. How was this part of OP good for anyone but Floyd Landis (if he holds onto the TdF win) or Oscar Pereiro (if Landis doesn't) (given that Vino was a pre-Tour favorite?).

Dopers are not killing the sport alone (although I question whether the sport is being killed). Drama surrounding inept anti-doping programs could be just as harmful as doping cyclists.

Nothing "stinks" about the investigation except that it caught a couple of popular cyclists.By releasing false accusations OP has weakened the fight against doping. Sponsors and fans are less likely to believe future accusations as a result. Additionally, the timing of the release of the OP information radically changed this year's TdF and included some false accusations that may have dramatically changed the outcome of race and certainly the rest of the season.
These days, cyclists who are doping are doing everything they can not to get caught. Autologous blood transfers, masking agents, substances unknown to the doping authorities, you name it. I don't thing the impetus to not get caught is new. Perhaps the escalation of testing has encouraged better methods to hide but I don't think cheaters flaunted their cheating in years past.

What "stinks" is that the cheaters are getting away with it, and that it increasingly looks like the only way to catch these guys is by busting the labs.Then authorities must bust the labs while retaining their own integrity or lose the cases. Busting dopers is hard enough without the keystone cops running things.

Again, I, like many people, am willing to accept mistakes in an investigation of this type, however, mistakes seem to be the rule in the handling of this scandal rather than the exception. Most of the public problems with OP stem from the fundamentally flawed decision to prematurely share the investigation notes with the UCI before reviewing them. The UCI is inept at anti-doping and handled OP ineptly.

Operation Puerto was really a giant scam by Johan Bruyneel to eliminate the favorites and put George in yellow...unfortunately it didn't work. :)
</humor>

Has any other professional sport put up with this kinda crap? I can't think of any.

Has any other professional sport put up with this kinda crap? I can't think of any.

It doesn't happen in US sports because of collective bargaining agreements between players associations (unions) and the leagues/ownership. Cycling doesn't have that kind of system. It's every rider for himself, it would seem.... :(

Has any other professional sport put up with this kinda crap? I can't think of any.

Think harder. Do you think US baseball and football are pristine and don't have a PED problem?

Think harder. Do you think US baseball and football are pristine and don't have a PED problem?

I could be wrong, but...
I don't think the "crap" he was referring to is the use of performance enhacing drugs, but rather inept "heavy handed" "guilty until proven innocent" enforcement, like Operation Puerto. That kind of "enforcement" would never be tolerated in baseball or football.

I could be wrong, but...
I don't think the "crap" he was referring to is the use of performance enhacing drugs, but rather inept "heavy handed".....

Right. Every sport has a drug problem. We're not fools.

Think harder. Do you think US baseball and football are pristine and don't have a PED problem?
They all have problems, whether PEDs, recreational drugs, drinking, guns, domestic violence, etc.

A major difference, though, is that due to collective bargaining agreements players can be given a penalty, but have the right to play the sport pending an appeal of the sentence. It's happening right now with that Merriman guy from the San Diego Chargers for an enhancement substance he "didn't know" was in something he bought at GNC. He'll get the suspension of 4 games, per the bargaining agreement, but until the appeal is heard he can play.

In cycling, you get accused and you're out on your ass to swing in the breeze while your team disavows any knowledge of your suspected nefarious doings. That's the difference.

At the moment we have 0 convictions thus ruling out the formation of any ratio.
...which is why I mentioned something about "at the end of the process." Spain didn't even have an anti-doping law on the books until October 6th, 2006, (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/05/sports/EU_SPT_Spain_Doping.php) by the way, so there's no way the number of "convictions" will match the number of the accused.

Even if it did:
1) criminal convictions take a long time, for the consequences are an order of magnitude greater than what a sporting federation can do
2) there is no reason to wait for a conviction before turning over the available evidence to all parties in the civil proceedings (unless there is some other legal barrier in place)
3) there will be a day when this is done and the evidence is more or less public, and then we can discuss the efficacy.



I do know that the Spanish judge had to step in to stop the frenzy over this partially completed investigation. It seems to me that the Spanish investigation was doing well and was just right up until the time the UCI got involved. Perhaps that mistake, releasing the information too early, makes OP a joke in the cycling world.
I doubt it. It was the Spanish police that had numerous leaks, and it was ASO that insisted that anyone on The List withdraw from racing. And I'm sure that any athlete who's used a doping lab spent more than a few weeks excreting bricks and demanding that their doctors destroy the records.

Worse yet, all the ruling does is extend the sports' proceedings by at least a year. So unless something else happens -- e.g. riders voluntarily submitting to DNA testing -- the cloud will be hanging over most of them for far, far longer than if the judge had not made this ruling. And IMO, completely aside from the quality of the police work, that's bad for everyone.



Do you think that accusations should come before evidence?
Seems like they came at around the same time. After all, it was the police, not the UCI, that put together The List from preliminary evidence.



Had the Spanish completed their investigation and then turned over that evidence to the governing bodies of the involved sports we would not be having this discussion because so many of the mistakes of OP would have been uncovered first....
Well, that's kind of what they're trying to do, except the judge has now insisted not until the "evidence is vetted," but until the criminal cases are over. But as far as I know, there's nothing happening in the criminal cases that the accused riders can't bring up to the RFEC or CAS.

Besides, had ASO waited, the cloud over this year's TdF would have been even worse, and cycling would look like a total joke for letting so many accused dopers compete.



OP was not a completed investigation but was and is treated like one. That is part of the ruling the Spanish judge handed down to stop the national federations from pursuing cyclists. I don't really fault the Spanish judicial system for this mess- I blame the decision to hand over this information to the UCI.
Then you're agreeing with a decision that will drag out this process for those riders for an extra year (at least).

The sooner the evidence gets into the hands of the UCI, the RFEC and the accused, the faster they can clear their names.




The false accusations against 5 lesser riders removed one of the Tour favorites for his association with them. How was this part of OP good for anyone but Floyd Landis (if he holds onto the TdF win) or Oscar Pereiro (if Landis doesn't) (given that Vino was a pre-Tour favorite?).
If it pressures riders not to put up with the cheating behavior of their colleagues, it will benefit the entire sport. Sadly, it's obvious that tremendous pressures need to be applied, as the rewards outweight the current risks.



By releasing false accusations OP has weakened the fight against doping. Sponsors and fans are less likely to believe future accusations as a result.
I doubt it. If anything, the more severe the punishments and the more in-depth the methods to detect the cheaters, the higher the risk and the higher the cost to getting caught, the more pressure will be put on riders to compete clean.



I don't thing the impetus to not get caught is new. Perhaps the escalation of testing has encouraged better methods to hide but I don't think cheaters flaunted their cheating in years past.
The impetus to avoid getting caught is as old as the hills. ;) It's hardly the "escalation of testing" that's the problem here -- it's that the dopers are highly proficient at disguising their drug use, via techniques like masking agents and homologous / autologous blood doping. In this arms race, right now it's the cheaters who are winning -- which will mean a bigger role for actions like OP.

In other words, the BALCO case and OP are just the beginning. I recommend you get used to investigations like these, I'm confident there are more to come.



The UCI is inept at anti-doping and handled OP ineptly.
The UCI is just your current punching bag. Today UCI, tomorrow WADA, next week USADA, the week after RFEC, next month the labs, ad infinitum.

Doping is rampant in many sports. It's unhealthy for the riders, and it's an insult to the sport and the fans. Cheating is ancient and will never be 100% eliminated. But even if the enforcers are not perfect, I'd rather save my vitriol for the cheaters than for the people who are doing the best they can to put a stop to doping.

They all have problems, whether PEDs, recreational drugs, drinking, guns, domestic violence, etc.

A major difference, though, is that due to collective bargaining agreements players can be given a penalty, but have the right to play the sport pending an appeal of the sentence. It's happening right now with that Merriman guy from the San Diego Chargers for an enhancement substance he "didn't know" was in something he bought at GNC. He'll get the suspension of 4 games, per the bargaining agreement, but until the appeal is heard he can play.

In cycling, you get accused and you're out on your ass to swing in the breeze while your team disavows any knowledge of your suspected nefarious doings. That's the difference.

Thank you.

Glad to see someone is thinking. :)

Operation Puerto was really a giant scam by Johan Bruyneel to eliminate the favorites and put George in yellow...unfortunately it didn't work. :)
</humor>


So who's this guy?? ;)

They all have problems, whether PEDs, recreational drugs, drinking, guns, domestic violence, etc.

A major difference, though, is that due to collective bargaining agreements players can be given a penalty, but have the right to play the sport pending an appeal of the sentence. It's happening right now with that Merriman guy from the San Diego Chargers for an enhancement substance he "didn't know" was in something he bought at GNC. He'll get the suspension of 4 games, per the bargaining agreement, but until the appeal is heard he can play.

In cycling, you get accused and you're out on your ass to swing in the breeze while your team disavows any knowledge of your suspected nefarious doings. That's the difference.

Right. So US team sports are drug-free? LOL... juiced up neanderthals, they never really get into trouble until the are found with cocaine and ho's.

Right. So US team sports are drug-free? LOL... juiced up neanderthals, they never really get into trouble until the are found with cocaine and ho's.

Read the very first sentence of my post... I will put the word "all" in bold for you. "They" is a reference to mollusk's post mentioning football and baseball, which I quoted.

"They all have problems, whether PEDs, recreational drugs, drinking, guns, domestic violence, etc."


Nobody denies the NFL has a PED problem. I even reference a current case in my post.

Try to read the whole post before replying, Doc.

[At the moment we have 0 convictions thus ruling out the formation of any ratio.]...which is why I mentioned something about "at the end of the process." Spain didn't even have an anti-doping law on the books until October 6th, 2006, (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/05/sports/EU_SPT_Spain_Doping.php) by the way, so there's no way the number of "convictions" will match the number of the accused.

Even if it did:
1) criminal convictions take a long time, for the consequences are an order of magnitude greater than what a sporting federation can do
2) there is no reason to wait for a conviction before turning over the available evidence to all parties in the civil proceedings (unless there is some other legal barrier in place)
3) there will be a day when this is done and the evidence is more or less public, and then we can discuss the efficacy.
I used "conviction" for lack of a better word. They may be no criminal case against many of the implicated riders due to a inconvenience of law, however, the information treated as evidence needed to be screened for validity prior to release to anyone. The Spanish government has a unique legal system (as does every country) and perhaps the differences in the way they turn information into evidence was not understood by the cycling authorities thus leading to assumptions about the validity of the collected information.

I doubt it. It was the Spanish police that had numerous leaks, and it was ASO that insisted that anyone on The List withdraw from racing. And I'm sure that any athlete who's used a doping lab spent more than a few weeks excreting bricks and demanding that their doctors destroy the records.Perhaps the biggest leak was to cycling the week before its biggest race of the year. That particular transfer of information has done more harm than good as: a) no one has been sanctioned by cycling yet and b) the Spanish judge prohibited the use of said information from being used by any national federation to sanction riders while c) several riders were falsely accused. Yes several implicated riders were barred from riding (but are free to do so now) and one rider is being further investigated on related matters- but the overall harm done by the timing of the release has been more harmful than good.

Worse yet, all the ruling does is extend the sports' proceedings by at least a year. So unless something else happens -- e.g. riders voluntarily submitting to DNA testing -- the cloud will be hanging over most of them for far, far longer than if the judge had not made this ruling. And IMO, completely aside from the quality of the police work, that's bad for everyone.
The vast majority of riders implicated by OP are lesser known riders and thus are pretty uneffected by the media blitz. Their outcomes will be forgotten just as quickly as their accusations. The more known riders implicated seem to have far greater problems (Ullrich) On the other hand, future sanctions as part of OP may be moot by the time cycling is allowed to use the evidence due to other busts, retirements, etc.

Seems like they came at around the same time. After all, it was the police, not the UCI, that put together The List from preliminary evidence.
The information about Alberto Contador, Sergio Paulinho, Allan Davis, Joseba Beloki and Isidro Nozal seemed to fail the evidence test as did "Brillo" as the name of Basso's fictional dog. Not all information is evidence.

Well, that's kind of what they're trying to do, except the judge has now insisted not until the "evidence is vetted," but until the criminal cases are over. But as far as I know, there's nothing happening in the criminal cases that the accused riders can't bring up to the RFEC or CAS. Apparently in legal cases information presented as evidence is vetted while the case is ongoing and thus use of the information prior to the end of the trial would mean that false information would be used against cyclists. The Spanish judge may actually be worried about justice (not just a legal term).

Besides, had ASO waited, the cloud over this year's TdF would have been even worse, and cycling would look like a total joke for letting so many accused dopers compete. The implication of this statement is that cycling doesn't look like a joke anyway. Cyclists are not the only ones implicated by OP but cycling is the only sport that looks foolish for it.

Then you're agreeing with a decision that will drag out this process for those riders for an extra year (at least).

The sooner the evidence gets into the hands of the UCI, the RFEC and the accused, the faster they can clear their names.First, some of the information turned over in June was not evidence but mere speculation (Brillo?). Second, a year is a short time to wait to make sure were right on this. I don't like the attitude of shooting first and asking questions latter in such an inconsequential matter as sports. Additionally, the presumption that cyclists can clear their names from speculation is simplistic. Some of the accusations don't merit a response and have been internally cleared by the Spanish investigation without the need for a disciplinary hearing by national federations. Besides, what is the downside of waiting for the completion of the Spanish hearings?

If it pressures riders not to put up with the cheating behavior of their colleagues, it will benefit the entire sport. Sadly, it's obvious that tremendous pressures need to be applied, as the rewards outweigh the current risks.I hope you never sit on a jury. Group punishment is fundamentally flawed (but sometimes useful). I don't see how a perception of unjustness in cycling will benefit anyone. If I was a potential sponsor, I would not sponsor a pro cycling team simply because false accusations are as damaging as convictions. Liberty Seguros and Würth would not want to be associated with doping while sponsoring a team that cannot ride in the biggest race of the year.

I doubt [false accusations weaken anti-doping efforts]. If anything, the more severe the punishments and the more in-depth the methods to detect the cheaters, the higher the risk and the higher the cost to getting caught, the more pressure will be put on riders to compete clean....or cheat better.

The impetus to avoid getting caught is as old as the hills. ;) It's hardly the "escalation of testing" that's the problem here -- it's that the dopers are highly proficient at disguising their drug use, via techniques like masking agents and homologous / autologous blood doping. In this arms race, right now it's the cheaters who are winning -- which will mean a bigger role for actions like OP. This is a chicken and egg argument that will never be solved.
In other words, the BALCO case and OP are just the beginning. I recommend you get used to investigations like these, I'm confident there are more to come. BALCO was an insignificant investigation until they came close to Bonds. His involvement was the story not the far more in-depth investigation into track and field dopers. OP seems to be fine and I don't really have a problem with the way the Spanish authorities are handling it, except that they turned over their initial findings to cycling. That mistake brought injustice down onto some riders which is the major fault I have with OP. As for these two examples indicating the future of anti-doping investigations, I agree that such investigation will become more come however, it is not the investigation that is problematic but rather the injustice associated with pro-cycling's actions upon learning the details of OP. This fallacious appeal to common practice is absurd and just because a it is common does not mean we should accept it. For example, in this world injustice is common in the world but I shouldn't accept it for its commonality. Additionally, we are not really talking about OP but rather the UCI/ASO response to the information gathered by OP. A better comparison would be looking at how track and field handled BALCO compared to how cycling handled OP (compare apples to apples)
The UCI is just your current punching bag. Today UCI, tomorrow WADA, next week USADA, the week after RFEC, next month the labs, ad infinitum. I have disliked WADA for a long while and the UCI for a couple of months. Neither of these two dislikes are new and both are pretty justified in their comical and self-defeating fight against doping. .Just because I don't like an organization does not mean that they are "right." Again this is another fallacy (Circumstantial Ad Hominem), that is pathetic and useless but ever so apparent in internet discussions.

Doping is rampant in many sports. It's unhealthy for the riders, and it's an insult to the sport and the fans. Cheating is ancient and will never be 100% eliminated. But even if the enforcers are not perfect, I'd rather save my vitriol for the cheaters than for the people who are doing the best they can to put a stop to doping. I don't care is some talented adult rider decides to fill his or her body with heinous chemicals, I do, however, care that fans are willing to accept injustice in pursuit of those dopers. My motivations for disliking doping has more to do with up and coming athletes than for its effects on pros. I have enough dislike to split between both the cheaters and those that ineptly pursue them. I do, however, have a greater fear of the acceptance of the abuse of authority (in any form) than I care about cyclists at all.Doping is common is many sports but it is mainly cycling that is overly zealous about fighting it. The ends do not justify the means.