Athletes and Anti-Doping Testing: How Far is Too Far?

This weekend the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency announced they were stripping Lance Armstrong of all his cycling titles, nullifying in thier books his vicotires in the Tour De France and other cycling accomplishments. What's interesting though is that the International Cycling Union, along with the International Olympic commitee have yet to make any ruling on the matter. There's no question in my mind that doping of any kind is harmful to the sport and to other athletes who choose to compete the old fashioned way: hard work, sweat and determination. But the ruling of the USADA raises questions in my mind in regards to how far back you can go in time to test the credibility of athletes who have since left their sport? Clearly the technology is always improving and detection methods are much more advanced today than they were years ago. But is that right? To use current technology to go back in time and overturn the outcome of events. It seems to me to be a dangerous precident.

If you applied the same principle in other sports years of wins, losses and world records could be contended. Apply new video or timing technology and suddenly you can show that what people thought happened all those years ago, really didn't happen at all. Like the ball that didn't quite cross the end-zone or the toe that was slightly out of bounds or the two athletes that crossed the finish line so close it was hard to call.

I completely agree with testing athletes who are currently competitve in their sport and taking disciplinary action if athletes test positive. But what about an athlete who has retired? How far is too far? With Armstrong we're talking records and victories that go back 14 years. Who knows what the technology will be 14 years from now and how it could affect current records and performances that athletes are putting out today? It seem that Armstrong is going to continue with his life as normal, he's opted not to contend the USADA's rulling and has not made any public statements in response.

What do you think? How far back in time should agencies like the USADA be able to go? Should their be a limitation as to when samples can be tested?

--Sarah