Anonymity in drugs testing

[Landslide]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/apr/23/cycling.drugsinsport

Glad to see Rob Hayles has been fully cleared now all the test results are back, but I'm somewhat intrigued as to how Dave Brailsford envisages confidentiality being handled (last paragraph).

Surely in this instance, the withdrawal of Hayles and Pim Ligthart would have set the rumour-mill spinning like crazy had the explanation for their exclusion not been made public?
It seems to me that the only way confidentiality could be ensured would be to allow affected riders to compete which then raises the possibility of retrospective stripping of titles etc...

 

[Keith Oates]

The retrospective stripping of titles may be better than casting doubts that may taint a rider for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Landslide]

I guess my take on it is that retrospoective stripping is such a drawn out and depressing process that I'd rather it was avoided.
Add to this the stereotypical view that cycling is full of drug-addled cheats, and I feel that it's better for a completely transparent and public process. Whilst the Hayles affair has undoubtedly caused Rob distress, hopefully it now shows him to be a clean and honest rider when placed in the cynical and suspicious public eye.

 

[Keith Oates]

IF, and it's a big IF people now say that he is clear and all suspicion is gone then that's fine. However from what I've seen written in the past there are always some who will have doubts and for that reason I think it's better not to say anything until it is a proven case. However I do agree with you that transparency is a good way to go but unfortunately I feel the taint will stick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!