> However this did not deal with Parisotto's critcisms and he is a member of
> the team. Privately the team accept that the IOC decision to go for the on
> model means that some athletes could escape EPO.
>
> However, one source said: "In conducting the blood tests we will also look
> for EPO use for longer than five days but we will not take any action on
it.
> If we find anything suspicious it will be sent on to the national
> federations to keep a watch on this athlete. A person using EPO will be a
> marked person and they will catch up with him or her sooner or later."
Whoa!
So the test is not good enough to reliably determine EPO use more than 5
days out, yet information about possible longer term use will be shared with
federations? Presumably this info is not reliable enough for court, yet it
is reliable enough to give to USATF or British Athletics so they can do more
tests on an athlete.
I don't know about in other countries, but in the U.S. if USATF conducts
extra tests on certain athletes based on something that is not reliable
enough to stand up in court, they will be the recipient of a @!## lawsuit.
To me this is the clearest sign yet that the IOC decision has NOTHING to do
with legality and evrything to do with PR. Although I recognize that this
statement was not "official", it also suggests that individually, at least,
they are beginning to feel the heat of the negative press.
- Ed Parrot
