dna testing

[soulspinner]

Any opinions on whether the riders should submit or not? Paolo Bettini is not happy with the idea...

[saab2000]

Should not submit. Slippery slope with HUGE privacy concerns. The UCI and other powers have not yet proven themselves beyond a reasonable doubt free of bias and the institution of cycling is far from trustworthy.

Sort of like asking if Hulk Hogan should submit to DNA testing.

Cycling is, and always has been, just a step or two above that circus. And if you look at six day racing it is only a small step.

I should clarify that. Cyclists are at least athletes of the highest caliber. It is just the sport itself as an entity or institution that is suspect.

[1centaur]

If we presume for the sake of argument that the heads of the sport and the labs are honest and competent, then why not test DNA? If that's what it takes, the only downside is you can't be O.J. and expect to get away with it. DNA is a means of identifying - so far I fail to understand why an employer should not have that ability if employees are free to accept or leave.

A side benefit (for angry, violent cyclists) is that if a cyclist DID turn into O.J. then reasonable doubt would be created around where the DNA came from.

Take away the presumption of competence and good will among the testers and I am less sure. Then the employer can "create" the appearance of guilt and the employee will have no basis for argument. If we believe most of them dope then I think the "privacy" argument is really more about the elimination of a credible argument - I don't think privacy is a highly recognized employee right when it comes to violating the terms of employment.

[saab2000]

The UCI is not the employer. And the "Free to accept or leave" is hardly a choice of free will, especially if the new conditions are put in place 'mid game', after employment has begun. Besides, what is greater, the rights of the employer or those of the employee? In this case I would certainly argue that the rights of the employee (if that is what the riders are) is at least equal to the rights of the employer.

I think they need to prove the need for DNA testing rather than the riders needing to prove the need to not have it.

Will it really help control doping? Are the protections really a two-way street? Will it protect riders against malicious accusations as much as it may protect the sport against cheating riders?

The conditions need to be very clearly identified and written in stone before something like this should be undertaken.

[BBB]

Bettini's concerns were with invasion of privacy. Given cyclists already submit to a farily strict testing regime involving telling authorities where there are at given points in time, blood testing in and out of competition and so on, his concerns seem a little trivial.

[1centaur]

"I would certainly argue that the rights of the employee (if that is what the riders are) is at least equal to the rights of the employer"

Employment law varies by state and by country. Under employment at will, which is fairly common in the US, you can be fired at the whim of the employer, period, unless the whim is proven to be based on a type of discrimination that's against public policy. There is no case law on DNA provision of which I am aware, and no public policy. The fact that the implied contract between employer and employee changes mid-stream is of no relevance. The employee in my experience certainly does NOT have equal or greater rights than the employer when it comes to dictating the terms of employment. It's not as if an employee has a right to stay if he won't meet the employer's requirements. All he has is a right to leave without penalty.

It really comes down to whether there should be a public policy, for the good of society, that an employer cannot demand DNA from an employee (or swab it off their handlebars at the end of a race). Employers can spy on you when you are on the work computer and, as stated, in cycling can collect fluid specimens of various sorts. What about DNA is so special that it goes too far? I have yet to hear something that is more convincing than "privacy," which is not convincing at all.

Whether it works to stop doping I have no clue at all.

[BBB]

The employment part may not come into it. If the powers that be (UCI, WADA etc) want DNA testing then the riders may not have a choice. The riders agree to comply with the regulations when they take out a professional licence (and presumably their contracts also say a similar thing) and if the regulations say DNA testing, then not much they can do (other than wear bad rainbow and gold outfits and bleat).

No idea if DNA testing will help detecting drug usage.

[CNY rider]

What exactly are they proposing testing the DNA for?

[Marcusaurelius]

I doubt that DNA testing would stand up under most legal systems. I know criminals can be compelled to submit DNA but the average person are still has rights--at least in most civilized parts of the world he (or she) does.

To be honest I think there's enough intrusion into cycling lives with the present random dope testing without adding DNA testing. There just seems like something really big brother about all this.