Jul 2 2006
So we’re still waiting on that evidence. Here’s (scroll down) what we’ve got so far, and (in America, at least) it couldn’t convict a sex addict in a cathouse. Thankfully, the entire world hasn’t gone mad; Tyler Hamilton’s lawyer also thinks that having nothing more than patÃ© on pressboard to back up these suspensions is a bad thing – and as far as I’m concerned, that leaves me in piss poor company (sorry, Howard). My dear, dear friends at the Journal of Competitive Cycling (hugs and kisses all around) have gone through the trouble of pointing out in a mailbox column (scroll down) that this is all in line with the ProTour Ethics code, but, exercising possibly the worst journalistic judgement ever, they neglect to add that it still doesn’t make this OK. Way to take a fÂµÂ¢&ing stand for basic human rights.
Maybe it’s a European thing and I just don’t get it. But when I see athletes essentially banned over the names of their dogs, little hairs go up on the back of my neck. I want dopers to get penalized as much as anyone, but this is simply not the way to do it. WADA and the UCI are setting precedents in this case that they simply cannot uphold. At the present time, any jackass with access to medical supplies can say “Yo, I was totally hooking [Rider X] up with mad dope”; that’d be the basis for an investigation, which would suspend Rider X from racing until that investigation was closed. If Rider X happens to be unpopular with WADA or the UCI, then that would essentially be the end of their career. And that’s just moronic. I admire the progressive stance of Europeans when it comes to alternative lifestyles, drug laws and health care, but I’d trade it all, in a doped up heartbeat, never to read a phrase like this one again.
Oh, by the way, there was some racing today. Thor Hushovd won the prologue. Too bad nobody gave a fÂµÂ¢&.