Road Bike Racing - Bettini Ready to Quit!.. Rujano to Unibet!

Paolo Bettini may quit the sport just because he doesn't want to submit DNA!

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11290.0.html

"If they ask me for my DNA I'm ready to call time on my career. I've already won a lot," (how much of your wins were due to doping?

Although DNA is most likely not the answer to stop doping in cycling.....For him to want to quit rahter then supply DNA really raises questions to his "training program".



BTW, Rujano moves to Unibet.

Hmm...maybe he's just a hothead, speaking before thinking.

Or, he's a drug-addled buffoon who plans on quitting while the quitting's good.

Hmm...maybe he's just a hothead, speaking before thinking.

Or, he's a drug-addled buffoon who plans on quitting while the quitting's good.

what else explains his poor choice of kit colors and combinations. The gold shorts were awful.
He needs to go on queer eye for the straight guy

what else explains his poor choice of kit colors and combinations. The gold shorts were awful.
He needs to go on queer eye for the straight guy

He's Italian, he's allowed to be a little weird.

He's Italian, he's allowed to be a little weird.


yes, but with Georgio Armani in the neighborhood...

what else explains his poor choice of kit colors and combinations. The gold shorts were awful.
He needs to go on queer eye for the straight guy
You win a gold medal in the Olympics, and win the Italian and world championships, and you can wear whatever the **** you want.

You win a gold medal in the Olympics, and win the Italian and world championships, and you can wear whatever the **** you want.

Yes, and you can even prove your not a blood doper by giving a DNA sample.

What is he so worried about??

Yes, and you can even prove your not a blood doper by giving a DNA sample.

What is he so worried about??
DNA does not prove whether you dope or not; it would just prove whether or not the sample is yours.

It's a violation of privacy for god's sake. I'll admit it looks shady, but I can't believe how cyclists are treated, even if they are all dopers.

It's a violation of privacy for god's sake. I'll admit it looks shady, but I can't believe how cyclists are treated, even if they are all dopers.

What would happen if WADA tried to do this in the NFL, baseball, etc.

How is giving DNA more of an invasion of privacy than peeing in a cup or giving blood?

Are people watching too many sci-fi movies or am I just not worried enough?

NO ONE should EVER submit DNA to an employer for any circumstance whatsoever. It is totally unethical for an employer to ask for DNA samples. This goes for any industry... sports, entertainment, technology, medicine, retail, etc..

What if you were asked to submit DNA? Would you do it? Hell no. When the labs runs your DNA, don't you know that your entire genetic profile is there?! Suppose they find that you have are are predisposed to cancer, liver, or heart disease, etc? You think you'll ever be able to get insurance? How about your kids? How do they buy insurance or get a job from a company that knows there relative risks for developing heart disease, lung & liver cancer, etc. etc. etc. So, the answer is no! You submit DNA and not only do you screw yourself over, but also your kids who's DNA is made up from Mom & Dad. You think insurance companies or even some employers are going to hire someone that they know will develop Parkinson's disease, or some rare blood disorder, or any other known disease? No.

Never submit DNA. Never.

NO ONE should EVER submit DNA to an employer for any circumstance whatsoever. It is totally unethical for an employer to ask for DNA samples. This goes for any industry... sports, entertainment, technology, medicine, retail, etc..

What if you were asked to submit DNA? Would you do it? Hell no. When the labs runs your DNA, don't you know that your entire genetic profile is there?! Suppose they find that you have are are predisposed to cancer, liver, or heart disease, etc? You think you'll ever be able to get insurance? How about your kids? How do they buy insurance or get a job from a company that knows there relative risks for developing heart disease, lung & liver cancer, etc. etc. etc. So, the answer is no! You submit DNA and not only do you screw yourself over, but also your kids who's DNA is made up from Mom & Dad. You think insurance companies or even some employers are going to hire someone that they know will develop Parkinson's disease, or some rare blood disorder, or any other known disease? No.

Never submit DNA. Never.

one blood sample and its too late, they already have your DNA, the formality of getting your permission to do so is just a formality after that

DNA does not prove whether you dope or not; it would just prove whether or not the sample is yours.

Blood doping is a term used to describe re-transfusion of one's own blood to boost red blood cell counts. It cannot be detected by any tests.

There are a bunch of bags of blood in Spain that were waiting to be re-transfused. A DNA match test would tell use exactly, without a doubt, who was involved.

THAT's why Bettini is so opposed to DNA sampling. It is no more an invasion of privacy that peeing in a cup.

The innocent have nothing to hide.

If these guys want to win medals, make tons of money and strut around as champions, they owe a DNA sample or they can F-off.

It can also be used to determine who injected drugs from the residual blood in a found syringe.

What if you were asked to submit DNA? Would you do it? Hell no. When the labs runs your DNA, don't you know that your entire genetic profile is there?! Suppose they find that you have are are predisposed to cancer, liver, or heart disease, etc? You think you'll ever be able to get insurance? How about your kids? How do they buy insurance or get a job from a company that knows there relative risks for developing heart disease, lung & liver cancer, etc. etc. etc. So, the answer is no! You submit DNA and not only do you screw yourself over, but also your kids who's DNA is made up from Mom & Dad. You think insurance companies or even some employers are going to hire someone that they know will develop Parkinson's disease, or some rare blood disorder, or any other known disease? No.


This has nothing to do with UCI racing. And the scenario you mention only applies in the US, most other countries have universal health care, including Italy.

There are already laws that make it a federal crime to do what you proposed. You cannot use DNA for any purpose other than what is consented by a person.

one blood sample and its too late, they already have your DNA, the formality of getting your permission to do so is just a formality after that

No, it isn't.

You watch too much TV.

I use patient DNA samples in research every day, under US laws, If I do anything with those samples other that what the patients have signed to agree to, I can go to jail for five years.

Paolo Bettini may quit the sport just because he doesn't want to submit DNA!

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11290.0.html

"If they ask me for my DNA I'm ready to call time on my career. I've already won a lot," (how much of your wins were due to doping?

Although DNA is most likely not the answer to stop doping in cycling.....For him to want to quit rahter then supply DNA really raises questions to his "training program".These guys that want to guard their privacy and demand a presumption of innocence are so slimy.

Blood doping is a term used to describe re-transfusion of one's own blood to boost red blood cell counts. It cannot be detected by any tests.



Well you can test for blood doping. It involves measuring the size distribution of the blood cells. Normally a person has a nice mix of young, middle-aged and old RBC’s. A doper does not due to the body down regulating it’s own production of RBC after a transfusion.

You guys really think some lab is going to bother to map your whole genome if you give a little blood? All they do is compare samples; they don’t work up all the details.

Yes, but that's a difficult and expensive test, they don't do it.

If these guys knew how expensive and long it would take to map out one person's DNA, the insurance companies would go bankrupt trying to save money.

But the X-Files version of reality is cooler.

If these guys knew how expensive and long it would take to map out one person's DNA, the insurance companies would go bankrupt trying to save money.



+1

Gattaca was a good movie; it must be true.

This has nothing to do with UCI racing. And the scenario you mention only applies in the US, most other countries have universal health care, including Italy.

There are already laws that make it a federal crime to do what you proposed. You cannot use DNA for any purpose other than what is consented by a person.


This has everything to do with UCI racing or any other professional sport, non-sport, ANYTHING that has to do with a worker's contract with an employer. Including Italy. The scenarios I proposed applies to other countries and not only the USA. It is a US federal crime to use a person's DNA to test for other things (ex diseases and disorders) that a person does not consent to. However, Italian laws are not like this. In fact, some Euro countries even have a DNA database and other countries with socialist healthcare are pushing that especially since the government subsidizes the majority of healthcare. In any case, once DNA is submitted for purposes of identification it is only a matter of time before the push is on (and it already is in many countries) to save the person's DNA for testing of other disorders. Tis a slippery slope.

This has everything to do with UCI racing or any other professional sport, non-sport, ANYTHING that has to do with a worker's contract with an employer. Including Italy. The scenarios I proposed applies to other countries and not only the USA. It is a US federal crime to use a person's DNA to test for other things (ex diseases and disorders) that a person does not consent to. However, Italian laws are not like this. In fact, some Euro countries even have a DNA database and other countries with socialist healthcare are pushing that especially since the government subsidizes the majority of healthcare. In any case, once DNA is submitted for purposes of identification it is only a matter of time before the push is on (and it already is in many countries) to save the person's DNA for testing of other disorders. Tis a slippery slope.

You don't need DNA to go down that ethical slope. Denial of treatment due to patient activity or situation is one of the classical ethical questions in medicine. DNA testing did not create, nor amplify the issue. Simple observations or interview is cheaper and quicker than checking if they carry some CDQ7 genetic marker.

Examples:

-A cyclist crashes hard during a race and shows up bloody still wearing his bibs. Obviously risky behaviour caused his problem.

-Your mom is obese and gets type II diabetes leading to kidney failure and/or heart disease. You only have to look at her to tell what caused her problems; but no doctor will refuse reasonable treatment options.

-Patient is geriatric (say 89); treat aggressively or allow to die? Do you need DNA to tell that this guy will die no matter what is done? A quarter million dollar procedure will give him 7 months more. Obviously the insurance companies don’t want that, but it occurs.

However, alcoholics and smokers do take a hit because transplantation is a grey area (donor rights).

These guys that want to guard their privacy and demand a presumption of innocence are so slimy.

+ ~1000 or so

The difference berween peeing in a cup and submitting DNA is the difference between looking at the "slippery slope" and taking a slide down to the bottom of it. Urine testing does not involve anyhing entering the body, indeed just the opposite. The eagerness to stand and have blood drawn or even cheek swabs taken would and should be pretty much non-existent.

DNA testing is used to put people in/out of jail, not something, when all is said and done, as trivial as a pro sport.

Besides, how likely is it that really high paid Euro soccer players would ever agree, much less US pro athletes to this testing.

Improve the existing testing.



:beer:

No, it isn't.

You watch too much TV.

I use patient DNA samples in research every day, under US laws, If I do anything with those samples other that what the patients have signed to agree to, I can go to jail for five years.

I don't know. These guys have broken the rules before. I mean, aren't they supposed to wait for the B sample to come back before they announce that an A sample is positive? They didn't do that for Landis or Heras. Both B tests ended up coming back positive, but still.

Also, I don't think they care too much about US laws. I have no idea what the laws are in Spain, Italy, or anywhere else, though. They might be similar.

I'm not sure how much money they are willing to spend to bust cheaters, but there is reason to believe that somebody might analyze DNA from blood (not for this insurance crap, but to match blood samples) without permission if the price is right. They raid hotels, leak information about old frozen urine, and everything else.

In fact, some Euro countries even have a DNA database and other countries with socialist healthcare are pushing that especially since the government subsidizes the majority of healthcare. In any case, once DNA is submitted for purposes of identification it is only a matter of time before the push is on (and it already is in many countries) to save the person's DNA for testing of other disorders. Tis a slippery slope.

Again, wrong. The EEU has similar laws protecting rights to DNA, but they also have universal health care.
Iceland is the only country to have a national DNA database for all citizens (passed by voted referendum), and that's not in the EEU. Regardless, in those countries, employment is not tied to health care, and if any one has any genetic disease or predisposition, they are all cared for, by law. You have to realize that that are far more progressive societies than the US.

You don't need DNA to go down that ethical slope. Denial of treatment due to patient activity or situation is one of the classical ethical questions in medicine. DNA testing did not create, nor amplify the issue. Simple observations or interview is cheaper and quicker than checking if they carry some CDQ7 genetic marker.

Examples:

-A cyclist crashes hard during a race and shows up bloody still wearing his bibs. Obviously risky behaviour caused his problem.

-Your mom is obese and gets type II diabetes leading to kidney failure and/or heart disease. You only have to look at her to tell what caused her problems; but no doctor will refuse reasonable treatment options.

-Patient is geriatric (say 89); treat aggressively or allow to die? Do you need DNA to tell that this guy will die no matter what is done? A quarter million dollar procedure will give him 7 months more. Obviously the insurance companies don’t want that, but it occurs.

However, alcoholics and smokers do take a hit because transplantation is a grey area (donor rights).

None of those examples make any sense, especially from a guy living in Canada -what insurance companies? You cannot deny treatment of anyone in Canada by law.

DNA testing for known diseases costs $40-80 a test.

I'm not sure how much money they are willing to spend to bust cheaters, but there is reason to believe that somebody might analyze DNA from blood (not for this insurance crap, but to match blood samples) without permission if the price is right. They raid hotels, leak information about old frozen urine, and everything else.

Don't quote the accused version of events in drug testing.

Pro cyclists are not doing this for free, Bettini earned 1M Euro in 2006, these people should stand up to a different criteria, or stay amateurs for the love of the sport.
As much as I hate to admit it, Italian cycling has always been dirty. Pantani, Mazzolini, Simoni, etc. etc etc.

This is being opposed because DNA testing will prove blood manipulations with certainty, with no way to weasel out behind a high-price lawyer.

But apparently, you guys like racing the way it is, where all the major tours now have additional stages in courtrooms. It will kill the sport.

How could anything do more to kill the sport than Dick Pound and his drug warriors are doing now?

None of those examples make any sense, especially from a guy living in Canada -what insurance companies? You cannot deny treatment of anyone in Canada by law.

DNA testing for known diseases costs $40-80 a test.

I was just pointing out that there are less technical ways to “screen out” people who are likely to be burdens on the health care system, but it is still NOT done. This makes new tests like DNA screening a non-issue on that front.

However, many doctors are now refusing to accept patients that they deem “uncooperative.” They have the right to refuse new patients.

I have insurance, and I bet you do too. Not everything is free here.

Again, wrong. The EEU has similar laws protecting rights to DNA, but they also have universal health care.
Iceland is the only country to have a national DNA database for all citizens (passed by voted referendum), and that's not in the EEU. Regardless, in those countries, employment is not tied to health care, and if any one has any genetic disease or predisposition, they are all cared for, by law. You have to realize that that are far more progressive societies than the US.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but universal health care does not exist in the Netherlands, and IIRC Germany, for that matter.

I was just pointing out that there are less technical ways to “screen out” people who are likely to be burdens on the health care system, but it is still NOT done. This makes new tests like DNA screening a non-issue on that front.

However, many doctors are now refusing to accept patients that they deem “uncooperative.” They have the right to refuse new patients.

I have insurance, and I bet you do too. Not everything is free here.

Well, you really have no idea what you're talking about. No one "screens out" burdens on the health system, that's what the health system is for, to take care of the sick.
No doctor can refuse to treat a patient that is in need. You're confusing GPs with hospitals.
While there is a government-run insurance program, they cannot deny anyone coverage, there is no "pre-existing conditions", no deductables, no maximum coverage, and coverage doesn't stop if you lose your job. Child birth is 100% covered, women can take up to one year off paid for having a child. Nothing is free, we pay taxes that go to health care.

I have no doubt that without laws, US insurance corporations would only cover people who don't get sick.

Netherlands private insurance is only 30% of the population, Germany has a mix of private and state insurance, but coverage is strictly government controlled and no one can be denied coverage. That's universal, it's not all state-run, but no one is left out. USA, lose your job, lose your health care, or even if you have a job, the proportion of working people with health care coverage is dropping precipitously.

So to sum up: DNA cannot be misused in the scenarios described.

The only reason why Bettini is going to quit is because he likely has a couple of bags of blood in Spain, and he would get banned anyway. These guys are using a sophistic argument away from the main point, and they are doing it on purpose.

Well, you really have no idea what you're talking about. No one "screens out" burdens on the health system, that's what the health system is for, to take care of the sick.
No doctor can refuse to treat a patient that is in need. You're confusing GPs with hospitals.
While there is a government-run insurance program, they cannot deny anyone coverage, there is no "pre-existing conditions", no deductables, no maximum coverage, and coverage doesn't stop if you lose your job. Child birth is 100% covered, women can take up to one year off paid for having a child. Nothing is free, we pay taxes that go to health care.

I have no doubt that without laws, US insurance corporations would only cover people who don't get sick.

Netherlands private insurance is only 30% of the population, Germany has a mix of private and state insurance, but coverage is strictly government controlled and no one can be denied coverage. That's universal, it's not all state-run, but no one is left out. USA, lose your job, lose your health care, or even if you have a job, the proportion of working people with health care coverage is dropping precipitously.

So to sum up: DNA cannot be misused in the scenarios described.

The only reason why Bettini is going to quit is because he likely has a couple of bags of blood in Spain, and he would get banned anyway. These guys are using a sophistic argument away from the main point, and they are doing it on purpose.

I even put NOT in capitals... do you read it first?

Well, you really have no idea what you're talking about. No one "screens out" burdens on the health system, that's what the health system is for, to take care of the sick.
No doctor can refuse to treat a patient that is in need. You're confusing GPs with hospitals.
While there is a government-run insurance program, they cannot deny anyone coverage, there is no "pre-existing conditions", no deductables, no maximum coverage, and coverage doesn't stop if you lose your job. Child birth is 100% covered, women can take up to one year off paid for having a child. Nothing is free, we pay taxes that go to health care.

I have no doubt that without laws, US insurance corporations would only cover people who don't get sick.

Netherlands private insurance is only 30% of the population, Germany has a mix of private and state insurance, but coverage is strictly government controlled and no one can be denied coverage. That's universal, it's not all state-run, but no one is left out. USA, lose your job, lose your health care, or even if you have a job, the proportion of working people with health care coverage is dropping precipitously.

So to sum up: DNA cannot be misused in the scenarios described.

The only reason why Bettini is going to quit is because he likely has a couple of bags of blood in Spain, and he would get banned anyway. These guys are using a sophistic argument away from the main point, and they are doing it on purpose.



Sorry, I hate to butt into other people's conversations, but Enthalpic did make a very good point on this. I mean, I may not agree 100% with the idea, but his point is still valid and you have to give him that much. I could be wrong, but I really don't see the picture you make of his argument by claiming that he is equating GP service to a hospital. Then again, I'm not interpretting. There are ways to screen out people that are not utilized today. He's right. Now, I may disagree with the assertion that these ways + new methods of screening out people won't take place tomorrow,,, I think his argument is true to a certain extent that some methods are out there that aren't used today, legally or not. That is a good point. Why not recognize that?

Again, wrong. The EEU has similar laws protecting rights to DNA, but they also have universal health care.
Iceland is the only country to have a national DNA database for all citizens (passed by voted referendum), and that's not in the EEU. Regardless, in those countries, employment is not tied to health care, and if any one has any genetic disease or predisposition, they are all cared for, by law. You have to realize that that are far more progressive societies than the US.



How is this wrong? Did you bother reading what I wrote? I never claied that there are other countries that have a "DNA database for ALL its citizens". I said exactly that, "some Euro countries even have a DNA database and other countries with socialist healthcare are pushing that especially since the government subsidizes the majority of healthcare". Never did I make a claim that these countries mandate this to ALL its citizens.

I'm not going to call you a liar as you have done to other people, but I think you are being unreasonable on this and refuse to see another point of view that isn't your own. At the very least, if you are gonna call someone out for being "wrong", then use direct quotes to support it.

No, it isn't.

You watch too much TV.

I use patient DNA samples in research every day, under US laws, If I do anything with those samples other that what the patients have signed to agree to, I can go to jail for five years.

Only 5 years?

S/F,
CEYA!

NO ONE should EVER submit DNA to an employer for any circumstance whatsoever. It is totally unethical for an employer to ask for DNA samples. This goes for any industry... sports, entertainment, technology, medicine, retail, etc..

What if you were asked to submit DNA? Would you do it? Hell no. When the labs runs your DNA, don't you know that your entire genetic profile is there?! Suppose they find that you have are are predisposed to cancer, liver, or heart disease, etc? You think you'll ever be able to get insurance? How about your kids? How do they buy insurance or get a job from a company that knows there relative risks for developing heart disease, lung & liver cancer, etc. etc. etc. So, the answer is no! You submit DNA and not only do you screw yourself over, but also your kids who's DNA is made up from Mom & Dad. You think insurance companies or even some employers are going to hire someone that they know will develop Parkinson's disease, or some rare blood disorder, or any other known disease? No.

Never submit DNA. Never.

If there was physical evidence at a crime scene, I was accused, and I knew that I was innocent, you better bet that I'd be demanding a DNA test - especially if I was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in an industry with wide-spread corruption. Then again, if I had something to hide... Besides, there is a huge difference between having the potential for a disease, compared to actually developing it. When you look at what is killing the majority of Americans these days (cancer and cardiovascular disease), I think employers would be severly limiting their potential employees if they were able to screen out anyone with a potential health problem - it's not accidents that are bumping off the majority of us.

If there was physical evidence at a crime scene, I was accused, and I knew that I was innocent, you better bet that I'd be demanding a DNA test - especially if I was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in an industry with wide-spread corruption.

Best of luck. Google: falsified dna test.

You give a sample and you give an overzelous, amoral crusader (let's say the guy's name is Penis Kilogram) plantable evidence. If you were Ivan Basso, and you knew you were innocent, would you give this to an organization that has already made every attempt to destroy your livelihood and reputation, and has tried to keep you from pursuing your profession?

The onus should be on WADA, the UCI, or whoever to have the DNA equivalent of the discovery process and provide the DNA that they have as evidence to Basso, Ulrich, Etc.

The guilty until, well, until whenever approach that is currently in place is simply ridiculous. I've said it before, and I'll repeat one more time: The testers must be apolitical and above reproach. The test must be definitive and meet scientific scrutiny. You start making statements out of turn and you are gone, period (see Penis Kilogram). You screw up the lab sample, chain of custody, or anything related to the sample and the thing goes out the window, period. You do not half a$$ the removal of someone's livelihood.

Simply put you do not imprison 10 innocent men so that one miscreant is taken off the streets.