epoh Posted November 5, 2006 Share With "DNA" testing currently being a hot topic amongst the pro European cyclists - I was wondering how is DNA testing different from the blood/urine tests currently being performed? What is the major difference? Is it more accurate or what is all the fuss about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linnega Posted November 5, 2006 Share The difference is that DNA profiling solves a lot of shortcomings in terms of blood testing. The riders will argue that the DNA profiles may be abused. This is unlikely since the UCI have been doing detailed analysis of testing results for many riders to increase and focus testing. This is how Hamilton got nabbed. DNA testing requires one hair,once. There is no test that is less intrusive. The only reason that riders really object is because it means they have to be even smarter to avoid being caught. Makes me wonder about Bettini and Valverde (who should have been implicated in Operacion Puerto). Valverde quotes in the press are particularly ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted November 5, 2006 Share My understanding of the DNA test is that a rider would have to submit DNA - one hair follicle. Then at any time in the future, another hair follicle could be taken and the history of what the rider has done to his body could be retrieved. If you think about it - taking blood/urine is taking DNA anyway - there is just this issue about human rights etc. My feeling is that a in order to licence the rider should consent to it, if he does not consent he does not ride - his choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linnega Posted November 5, 2006 Share I agree. The DNA testing is not even vaguely intrusive. As for the rights of the riders, they have brought the "being treated like criminals" on themselves. Only the riders can stop the culture of doping. They can blame the environment, doctors, teams as much as the like, but the buck stops with the riders. They choose to dope and act like criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted November 5, 2006 Share Justs makes you realise how pervasive the doping actually is. You'd think that if 90% of the riders didn't dope, they'd be asking for this to happen. They'd be feeling outraged that a minority of riders were tarnishing their good image - yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantani Posted November 5, 2006 Share Very true that last statement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now