• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Are WADA fit to 'police' doping in sport

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Benotti69

Benotti69

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
8 countries using non accredited labs for WADA testing. Russia using a WADA lab, which is more "shocking".

Kenya & Jamaica not on the WADA watch list.

Brazil, Belgium, France, Greece, Mexico & Spain on WADA "watch list". Must improve by March 2016 or possibly be declared non-compliant.

Most of South America "non compliant". (wonder does that include Colombia). Oh yes, in case you forgot Olympics in Rio. ;)
 
B

BullsFan22

Jun 22, 2010
4,994
1,075
18,680
Re:

Benotti69 said:
8 countries using non accredited labs for WADA testing. Russia using a WADA lab, which is more "shocking".

Kenya & Jamaica not on the WADA watch list.

Brazil, Belgium, France, Greece, Mexico & Spain on WADA "watch list". Must improve by March 2016 or possibly be declared non-compliant.

Most of South America "non compliant". (wonder does that include Colombia). Oh yes, in case you forgot Olympics in Rio. ;)
Click to expand...

Russia using a WADA lab is probably due to the recent investigation/ban/ongoing issues. Kenya and Jamaica not on the WADA list is not that shocking, really. These two countries have been dominating track and field for the past couple of decades. If the beans spill on them, it could be pretty big. It would be interesting to see the reactions if similar investigations and bans come for them as it did for Russia. Likewise the US. But it's also not surprising to not see the US and the UK on the list. Remember, these are squeaky clean federations, not like those pesky Ruskies, East Europeans, South Americans, Asians, and everyone else that doesn't have English as their mother tongue.
 
M

More Strides than Rides

Mar 15, 2011
2,760
71
11,580
WADA is an organization who's sole purpose is to monitor how The Code is being maintained by its member sports and federations.

The most damning consequence WADA can give is removing accreditation. or not give it at all.

Some don't care what WADA thinks: NFL, MLB, etc.

Some have to pretend to care what WADA thinks as part of their business model of selling clean sport: IAAF, UCI, IOC etc.

People are turning to WADA because their is no better option. Unfortunately, that is like turning to the mailman to stop burglaries. People might think he has some sort of official government standing, and he does, but not in any way that is relevant to solving the problem.

I don't blame WADA for its inaction; it is by design. Unfortunately the entire structure allows the bodies with actual authority to abdicate responsibility, and pretend that WADA is a magical, cure-all organization, knowing full well that nothing will change. The consuming public doesn't know better, sees WADA do, *something*, and accepts the situation as solved.
 
Benotti69

Benotti69

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
WADA is the least worst option available right now.
Click to expand...

If WADA is not part of the solution to clean sport and it would appear it is not, then it is part of the problem.
 
vedrafjord

vedrafjord

Jan 15, 2013
1,130
0
10,480
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Catwhoorg said:
WADA is the least worst option available right now.
Click to expand...

If WADA is not part of the solution to clean sport and it would appear it is not, then it is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

What would you preferred anti-doping setup/division of labour be in an ideal world? The sports federations have a conflict of interest. The NADAs have a conflict of interest. If its powers were greatly expanded and it was run by the right people (a lot more *** Pounds and a lot fewer Craig Reedies), we be in a much better place than we are now.
 
M

More Strides than Rides

Mar 15, 2011
2,760
71
11,580
Benotti69 said:
It is there to 'police' sport.
Click to expand...

This gets at my post.

WADA is not here to police the sport. WADA exists to make sure that whoever does police a sport does so in the same way as the police for another sport, and that the police within a sport police in one country do so the same way as in another country.

It doesn't police. It doesn't even exist to make sure that those caught by the metaphorical police are judged the same way.
 
M

More Strides than Rides

Mar 15, 2011
2,760
71
11,580
Re: Re:

vedrafjord said:
Benotti69 said:
Catwhoorg said:
WADA is the least worst option available right now.
Click to expand...

If WADA is not part of the solution to clean sport and it would appear it is not, then it is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

What would you preferred anti-doping setup/division of labour be in an ideal world? The sports federations have a conflict of interest. The NADAs have a conflict of interest. If its powers were greatly expanded and it was run by the right people (a lot more **** Pounds and a lot fewer Craig Reedies), we be in a much better place than we are now.
Click to expand...

The only solution is a WADA-esque body that sports/federations sign onto which does have the authority to process monitor athletes, results, and sanctions.

In the same way that signing on to WADA only benefited self interested bodies as a PR move ("We love clean sport!"), and gave up autonomy as a trade off, a new authority to police the sport would have to do the same:
-Signatories would have to yield the power to monitor athletes, process results, and deal sanctions, and the only thing they have to gain is the PR "We love clean sport!".

It would take the IOC to leverage participation in the Olympics for self interested federations to sign on. And we can assume pretty accurately that the IOC is not interested in valid anti-doping management.

Further, federations have found out that they can get the same "We love clean sport!" PR by forming more and more independent tribunals, ethics reviews, investigative commissions, and independently operating independents monitoring the independence of the independent committees.

In a very complicated world of overlapping authority, responsibility, and interests, unfortunately, I think the answer to your question is this simple.
 
DirtyWorks

DirtyWorks

Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
More Strides than Rides said:
Benotti69 said:
It is there to 'police' sport.
Click to expand...

This gets at my post.

WADA is not here to police the sport. WADA exists to make sure that whoever does police a sport does so in the same way as the police for another sport, and that the police within a sport police in one country do so the same way as in another country.

It doesn't police. It doesn't even exist to make sure that those caught by the metaphorical police are judged the same way.
Click to expand...

As you posted earlier, the federations tell a completly different story intentionally confusing who does what.

Vaguely related is a great veloclinic post:
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/133554461013/the-conclusion-was-that-the-highest-incidence-of
 
E

eleven

Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Re:

People are turning to WADA because their is no better option. Unfortunately, that is like turning to the mailman to stop burglaries. People might think he has some sort of official government standing, and he does, but not in any way that is relevant to solving the problem.
Click to expand...

The Postal Service joke writes itself, no?
 
S

sniper

Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Govt documents on Coe (via FoI request) also reveal DCMS paid $50,000 to WADA to "support Craig Reedie as president"

https://mobile.twitter.com/martynziegler/status/690604148652445697/photo/1

If WADA are not above board, why expect anyone in sport to be?
Click to expand...
it isn't difficult to do the math on reedie.
he builds a lot of bridges between a lot of corrupt people.
is close to Coe and Verbruggen (I remember a couple of RR posts on that); he's a genuine IOC boy and also knows Cookson well of course. Then he's close to the Russians, too.
Under Reedie WADA is officially corrupt and no big names will test positive.
 
D

dwyatt

Jul 8, 2009
162
0
0
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
WADA is the least worst option available right now.
Click to expand...

Exatcly this. They have plenty of issues i'm sure, but they are somuch better than letting sports do their own "testing"
 
Benotti69

Benotti69

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Re: Re:

dwyatt said:
Catwhoorg said:
WADA is the least worst option available right now.
Click to expand...

Exatcly this. They have plenty of issues i'm sure, but they are somuch better than letting sports do their own "testing"
Click to expand...

Which sport does not do its own testing?
 
Benotti69

Benotti69

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Craig Reedie defends Radcliffe.

WADA not fit for purpose!

http://europe.newsweek.com/exclusive-wada-president-sir-craig-reedie-athletics-doping-crisis-part-two-423466?rm=eu

I hope that she is at least satisfied she has made her point. She has spoken to me on a number of occasions and I would like to think I have been as helpful as I could be. In law, you cannot assume someone is doping from that level of evidence. Paula always wanted WADA to analyse her personal readings, and I’m afraid we can’t do that. We have to do it in generality. But it’s now clear that the allegations against her were unjustified.
Click to expand...


An off score over 100 = "unjustified" .................Professional sport is corrupt.
 
S

sniper

Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
WADA not fit for purpose!
Click to expand...
i think 'totally fit for purpose' is what you actually mean.

Reedie doing exactly what he was appointed for. Shoving (British) doping under the rug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom