Login to VeloClub|Not a member?  Sign up now.
  • Travis

    not only logistical but financial as well. WADA only receives some US$31 million a year for its work. Which is a lot less than some pro Athletes.
    I am sure, that this sum, wouldn’t be enough to take over from what CADF do for cycling.

    • Dave

      If the CADF funding went to WADA instead of CADF, they would be able to afford to run the bio passport program. A bit of independence from the UCI would be a good thing.

      Normal anti-doping tests are already performed by WADA member organisations, there wouldn’t be any change there.

  • Dave

    I support anti-doping being taken out of the hands of certain sport governing bodies – most notably the UCI/CADF and the IAAF.

    The problem with the UCI is that they can never string together any more than two steps forward in a row without at least one backwards. The new order under Brian Cookson has had its chance to step up to the plate now, and it turns out his regime is no better than that of McQuaid.

    Look at 2014 as an example – the UCI wrote some good new rules to take effect in 2015 but they also had a dodgy backdated TUE given to a high-profile cyclist from the UCI President’s home federation and the weak response to Daryl The Doper getting let off for the worst excuse since Tyler Hamilton’s twin brother.

    2015 was no better – the new team suspension rules were successfully applied the very first time the applicable situation arose (suspending the Androni team) but they also had an embarrassing failure with the Roman Kreuziger case.

  • Derek Maher

    Hmm, The UCI fund CADF to the tune of 6 million Swiss francs. The new WADA proposal is looking for government as well as sports federation funding. I do not like the idea of politicians pushing their noses into sport any more than they already do.


Pin It on Pinterest

September 20, 2017
September 19, 2017
September 18, 2017
September 17, 2017
September 16, 2017