Testing of hair samples is allowed under French law, but is not recognized by the World Anti-Doping Agency or cycling's governing body UCI.It also seems the only logical explanation for this action by AFLD is because they suspect Armstrong of using DHEA, "a banned substance that can boost testosterone levels." That is the only PED that can be detected in a hair sample that would not typically show in a blood or urine sample. Otherwise, why conduct a test that isn't sanctioned by either the WADA or the UCI?
International doping controls are based on urine and blood tests.
I always go back to the fundamental truth that you can never prove a negative. A person can claim that pink and purple polka-dotted rabbits exist in the wild, and no one can prove that person wrong. You cannot prove that something does not exist; only that something does exist. There are many examples of suspected but not yet 'discovered' particles in theoretical physics, of which the Higgs boson is one.
The simple fact that Armstrong has passed, and continues to pass, every single in season, out of season, in competition, random, pre-scheduled, unannounced, and expected drug test does nothing to exonerate him in the eyes of those who believe he's guilty of doping. People might point to an athlete like Marion Jones, who never failed a drug test, but her example should not be used to cast a shadow of suspicion over Armstrong. They are two different individuals, two different athletes in two different sports, unrelated to one another.
Sadly, the suspicion of Armstrong continues to haunt his every move in cycling. It doesn't have to be that way, but the French won't let it go. What now happens if the hair sample tests positive for anything? It's an unsanctioned test. The WADA spokesperson said there is a significant risk of outside contamination for hair samples. A false positive could keep Armstrong out of this year's Tour de France, depending on how quickly his legal team could mount appeals.
The better question would be what impact a false positive would have on Armstrong's stated goal of raising worldwide awareness (and funding) for his cancer fighting foundation through his return to competitive cycling. Armstrong never needed to return to cycling, to expose himself to the repeated and invasive drug testing procedures that strip away any sense of privacy, but he did so anyway. Why would he risk his own reputation and that of the Lance Armstrong Foundation if he were not riding clean?
Just try convincing the French of that.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment