When both sides suck.

I agree with Tyler Hamilton's lawyer. I don't really trust the athletes, but there do seem to be a lot of irregularities in these tests. And his point that the UCI (and WADA) leak info like sieves that later turn out to be Weasil Words (technically true, but framed to mislead) cause me to question the UCI.

My guess here is that the UCI believes Hera's is guilty not becuase of the EPO test, but because they have a history of bloodwork on him. The interesting thing is that the UCI has admitted the EPO test has problems. Their main contention with WADA seemed to be that while Dick Pound seems to make judgements based on his gut, with tests to justify them, they had working histories that provided real evidence.

The ethical question is this.. does their having the history make using questionable tests ethical? I don't think so. If they can't use the bloodwork history as the main evidence then I don't see why we should accept a faulty test.

The part I guess I really don't understand is how so many doctors are lining up to support the tests... if they said the tests were really validated I wouldn't have a problem. But they mostly seem to say "well, yes there are problems with procedures/protocols/false positives/etc but becuase it is based on proven technology/my gut/the reputation of other doctors we know it is accurate".

My economics upbringing was that this logic was unacceptable. Am I misunderstanding the role of doctors? Are they more like the think tank "economists" that spout crap than the generally reliable academic ones? throw me a bone....