That the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Union Cycliste Internationale have called a truce and signed on to work together and create a bilogical passport for cyclists is a good thing in the battle against doping. Whether they pull it off and actually build a massive data base of every pro cyclists’ blood chemistry is another matter all together, but at least the two groups appear to be working together.

However …

Until the good folks at WADA and the people who run the testing labs get their acts together, there’s scant reason to have any faith that the lab coats building the data base can be trusted to perform the analysis  correctly and to conform to WADA’s standards.

Floyd Landis’ case demonstrated the haphazard procedures of the French lab Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage, which botched Landis’ “A” sample so badly that both the majority and minority opinion writers in Landis  arbitration case threw  out the results.  That the majority  accepted the more difficult “B” sample testing when the easier “A” sample test was botched so completely is beyond belief.

Then, there’s the case of Italian Alessandro Petacchi, who was cleared of doping, only to have WADA join forces with the Italian Olympic committee and appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (where Landis is appealing as well). Essentially, WADA  is calling for Petacchi to be banned for using  a drug that it had allowed for his therapeutic use. If that’s not bad enough, the anti-doping doctor failed to show up on time to administer a doping test on Petacchi following Petacchi’s win at Paris-Tours.

The latest example is the case of Spanish cyclist Iban Mayo, who tested positive for EPO in an “A” sample test at the Tour de France and apparently tested negative in the “B” sample and was officially cleared by the Spanish cycling federation.  

But wait!

The UCI anti-doping chief has said the “B” sample testing isn’t finished. Huh? The Spanish surely wouldn’t have cleared Mayo without a negative “B” sample test. According to press reports, the “A” sample test was performed in France. (Hey, no surprise there was a positive test there.) and the “B” sample was tested in Belgium. Now, the “B” sample  is reportedly going to re-tested in France. Huh?

Well, then, look out Mayo! Nice to know ya, and we’ll see you after your suspension’s over in two years.

In a nutshell, here’s what a cyclist faces:  if an “A” sample is positive and the “B” sample is negative, the anti-doping  agencies and the lab coats get a do-over, when in fact the negative “B” sample should clear him. If both samples are positive, the athlete is assumed guilty and  spends the next year of his life fighting for his livelihood and reputation.

Meanwhile, the French lab keeps on testin’ with do-overs and no accountability and no ramifications if they fail to follow WADA procedures.

The fight against doping in cycling is a noble cause, and a much-needed one, but if you can’t trust the labs, these programs are fraught with peril for the cyclists.

–30–