We can't we just do it right? Why does every move that could 'prove' Landis innocent - or guilty - have to be tarnished with suspicion, doubt and intrigue? Today we seemingly have L'Equipe reporting on the unreleased results of the USADA's test of the previously untested TdeF B-samples. (The respective A-samples were negative, only stage 17 came out with an inappropriate epitestosterone ratio.) Whilst we are fascinated to learn that some of these show synthetic testosterone, it's disappointing that we are yet again reading a leak. Why can't we see results released in a proper, controlled way? It gets worse. The Landis legal team has claimed that their UCLA independent witness was denied access during at least some of the tests. If true, why allow access sometimes and not at other times? Why immediately throw the tests into doubt by excluding an independent observer? Why would you do that?
You could blame L'Equip. They could indeed show more restraint. But we don't shoot the messenger, do we? You could blame the leaker - he or she could also just act appropriately and resolve the matter. But they are only human. You could blame me - and yourselves - too, for wanting to know so badly that we have created the very demand that makes leaking worthwhile. But (if true) how do you explain the subterfuge involved in excluding the observer? Why does it have to be this hard?
Cyclingnews reports here and the Sydney Morning Herald has more.
No comments:
Post a Comment