Sunday, 16 August 2009

What if Sky don't sign you ?

Time to raise the anti-doping bar.

Team Sky are rightly proud of the research they are doing into riders backgrounds and their test results / blood passport numbers before signing them. So if a rider signs for them we can make an assumption that they are pretty damn clean.
But what of the riders they don't sign? Is it a sign that the rider in question has something to hide? Is it a sign that their passport is ever so slightly stained? Is it a sign that they owned up to something under Big Daves thorough cross examination?
Have Sky raised the bar in the anti-doping fight? In the future will suspicion now fall not on riders that produce unexpected performances but on riders that reach the end of a contract and don't sign for Sky? Will it be a question of They didn't sign for Sky, therefore they must have 'issues'!

What is more interesting is will other teams follow suit, indeed will Garmins actions in posting the power and blood values of their riders especially VDV and Wiggo set another new trend? Teams may talk about transparency, which is of course just talk, and do sod all about that transparency. So it's gratifying to see that Sky and Garmin are both putting their money where their mouths are, it's about time other teams followed suit, indeed it's about time that the UCI requested open publication of riders power and blood results as a pre-requisite for all future team licenses. I fully accept that this would require the UCI excreting some kind of authority over and above their usual level of rhetoric, but maybe they could be forced to play catch up here? Or maybe they could just go on holiday as per......

More Kohl cobblers.

It's been a good few weeks since twatty face Kohl as been in the news. But he's back now with more dope fuelled revelations. As with all his utterances there is a sad air of inevitability about them. I'm not in the least bit surprised at the latest one's, that is, that his manager Stefan Matschiner bribed anti doping labs to find out the exact level at which doping products could be detected, thus allowing the needle to go into the arse at just under the point where it would show as positive. What I'm interested to know is what the UCI are doing with all this information, Are they formulating new policy based on it? Looking at the work done in the labs called into question? Looking at the scientists involved and not just the labs? Attempting to findout if any other teams are up to the same tricks? Cos if one's doing it you can bet your bttom btacket that they're not alone. Ary they sharing any information wiht national anti doping bodies, the IOC, the police? I would be more than a little surprised if the answer to any of these question was yes.

Other sports - more shocking revelations.

Having recently wondered out loud about the point of other sports and making the case for turning their venues over to cycling events I was more than a little alarmed to find out that some sports are still living in the dark ages, er, not.

It would appear that the England cricket team have had players injured playing football! Note the word player, for me that implys certain things, it implys an armature approach and a certain lack of commitment. Anyway, someone or the other has got injured playing football as part of their warm up routine for cricket. Er, different sports, different biomechanical actions, different, though admittedly similar physoligical requirements, different kit and therefore technique, etc etc. As a cycling coach if one of my riders wanted to warm up for a road race by, say, going for a run, playing football or riding a BMX I'd say a big no. So what gives with cricket? Ah yes, players not competitors.
Is it perhaps a coincidence that the sports where GB excels / does well in, cycling, rowing, possibly swimming are the sports that have a scientific apprach to preparation, warm up and competition. In other words sports that are professional in attitude and approach not just in name.


No comments: