Others who follow cycling more closely than I will undoubtedly have more detailed answers, and I need to make sure that by officially accused, you mean by the UCI. I am also be concerned with the effect that unwarranted suspicions prematurely released into the public domain have on the sport. The riders that were bumped from the tour this year because of the Spanish investigation that have now been reinstated, along with riders like Vinokourov who suddenly found themselves without teams because of accusations, have clearly been hurt by the mere suspicion of doping. I'm not sure they were ever officially accused by the UCI, but clearly the accusations of the Spanish authorities were enough to make them miss a major part of their seasons as well as depriving fans of some of the sports biggest stars. IMO this is indicative of a bigger problem. Too much of the process is played out in the public eye where an accusation is perceived by many as a conviction. It seems to me that this hurts the sport even more than it hurts the rider. Despite those that seem to think I am in love with a rider, it is the sport I love. The cheats will be forgotten long before the scandal is. This is why it is important to follow the process and not pass judgement without all of the facts. In the early stages of an investigation it is important for the privacy of the rider but much more important for the credibility of the sport that vigorous investigations be conducted outside the public eye. When enough evidence to officially accuse a rider is obtained then it should be released. We did not see this in the Landis situation. Results of the "A" test should never be made public unless the rider admits to use. It seems to me that only after the "B" test is complete should the results be made public. Furthermore, why should the lab even know who the samples are from? A trusted intermediary could keep the list of who the samples are from. Blind testing like this is used in clinical trials to reduce the possibility of bias. This would eliminate one possible source of press leaks while reducing the possibility and perception of bias. At this point in the sport, we need to do all we can to catch the cheats while preserving the ability of the non-cheaters to perform and to make sure the process is as clean and unbiased as possible. It seems to me that to do this would be better for the sport as a whole as well as for individual riders. To do it requires that labs and the UCI withhold incomplete results from the press. I know in my career it would be considered (at best) unprofessional to reveal trusted information from my company or my customers. Should we expect less from those who play such a vital role in both the daily life and the future of our sport?