Changes Cookson has implemented at UCI

[roundabout]

Ok, here is a timeline

80 days between being asked for an explanation and the case being opened

160 days and counting from the case being opened to the hearing

tick tock

 

[zigmeister]

The politics, bureaucracy and nonsense continues at the UCI.

Here is the problem, relying on a bio-passport program.

How about working to improve the actual tests? Furthermore, the testing process? We know how OOC testing has gone way down the past few years. How do you expect to catch people stone cold, get them on excuse violations/availability, if you don't actually try to find them and test them out of competition. The altitude training camps is when its is going to be likely used (EPO).

Anybody doping during a race is stupid today. Guys are much smarter thanks to Hamilton, Landis and the likes. They explained how they did things to not be detected. Floyd was just dumb at the TDF at the end to feed his ego, took dumb risks and got caught. Same with Hamilton later. LA/George, they knew the safe/proper methods of OOC doping.

Sadly, the UCI is half the problem, and that means Cookson. Just like the stupid issue with the TOC and WADA wanting to get access to the testing results. UCI says the rules/privacy state no local doping can get the results from the testing??? Why? A simple waiver the rider's sign saying their medical tests/doping tests are open to scrutiny and can be shared amongst the various organizations only solves that easily.

 

[thehog]

The politics, bureaucracy and nonsense continues at the UCI.

Here is the problem, relying on a bio-passport program.

How about working to improve the actual tests? Furthermore, the testing process? We know how OOC testing has gone way down the past few years. How do you expect to catch people stone cold, get them on excuse violations/availability, if you don't actually try to find them and test them out of competition. The altitude training camps is when its is going to be likely used (EPO).

Anybody doping during a race is stupid today. Guys are much smarter thanks to Hamilton, Landis and the likes. They explained how they did things to not be detected. Floyd was just dumb at the TDF at the end to feed his ego, took dumb risks and got caught. Same with Hamilton later. LA/George, they knew the safe/proper methods of OOC doping.

Sadly, the UCI is half the problem, and that means Cookson. Just like the stupid issue with the TOC and WADA wanting to get access to the testing results. UCI says the rules/privacy state no local doping can get the results from the testing??? Why? A simple waiver the rider's sign saying their medical tests/doping tests are open to scrutiny and can be shared amongst the various organizations only solves that easily.

Landis & Hamilton weren't stupid. They were intercepted by a nasty UCI acting on behalf of a certain Texan.

I mean, how in the hell did Landis test positive?

Hamilton? For a blood transfusion? Seriously?

 

[King Boonen]

Zigmeister, I can assure work is being done to improve testing. However it is neither easy nor cheap, and funding is scarce for research with wide benefits, let alone something as small and inconsequential as doping in sport.

 

[Benotti69]

Zigmeister, I can assure work is being done to improve testing. However it is neither easy nor cheap, and funding is scarce for research with wide benefits, let alone something as small and inconsequential as doping in sport.

Funding is available. Make the teams pay for it.

The real work to improve testing would be to talk to whistleblowers.

 

[King Boonen]

Funding is available. Make the teams pay for it.

The real work to improve testing would be to talk to whistleblowers.

I agree the teams should pay for it, I've said it in the past. But while that isn't happening, and is unlikely to happen, there is very little funding available. Very little.

How would talking to whistleblowers improve testing?

 

[Benotti69]

I agree the teams should pay for it, I've said it in the past. But while that isn't happening, and is unlikely to happen, there is very little funding available. Very little.

How would talking to whistleblowers improve testing?

If Whistleblowers tell anti doping what they are taking..........

But antidoping needs to be independent from federations.

 

[King Boonen]

In terms of implementing tests, certainly. The test will already exist for any experimental drugs though, except for naturally occurring things, then you'd usually use a secondary marker to monitor it.

 

[del1962]

The crux of the problem is that if you want effective anti-doping testing, then it does not come cheap, and someone has to pay for it.

And who is going to pay for it?

Sponsors, teams, race promoters, tv companies?

The money from the sponsrs and the tv companies has to go to the teams and the race promoters and you dont get the feeling that they are awash with cash.

Obviously there are other sources like government contributions, but this has to spread around all sports.

 

[King Boonen]

The crux of the problem is that if you want effective anti-doping testing, then it does not come cheap, and someone has to pay for it.

And who is going to pay for it?

Sponsors, teams, race promoters, tv companies?

The money from the sponsrs and the tv companies has to go to the teams and the race promoters and you dont get the feeling that they are awash with cash.

Obviously there are other sources like government contributions, but this has to spread around all sports.

Technically, any anti-doping funding is for the benefit of all sports. If a test is developed it's not just going to be used in cycling (unless they are the only ones who bother to do it, but it wouldn't be restricted to just cycling).

And that could easily form the bulk of an argument the teams and sponsors should make. Why should they fund the development of global anti-doping methods if other sports are not going to? I know the arguments against this, but it's certainly a legitimate position.

Oh, and personally I'd be very annoyed if I found out about government funding going to develop anti-doping methods. In the grand scheme of things it's inconsequential compared to where the funding could be used.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Zigmeister, I can assure work is being done to improve testing. However it is neither easy nor cheap, and funding is scarce for research with wide benefits, let alone something as small and inconsequential as doping in sport.

WADA fund some research. Who else would benefit from that research?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The crux of the problem is that if you want effective anti-doping testing, then it does not come cheap, and someone has to pay for it.

Except you are ignoring the simple fact we know positives are not being processed.

And when USADA "threaded the needle" in the little tiny bit of power given them in the most unlikely scenario the federations, not just cycling, were wailing that WADA overstepped it's authority.


Why throw more money at testing when the federations won't open cases?

 

[King Boonen]

WADA fund some research. Who else would benefit from that research?

It depends on the research, which is listed on the WADA website but I've not been through it.

If they are looking at long term effects of certain things used to dope this could be helpful to the medical community, and detection of certain compounds can help with stratified medicine, but I would think a lot of the research is pretty specific to anti-doping. There are better sources of funding than WADA if your research has wider applicability.

Of course, fundamental technique developments will help in all research,but I can't honestly say how much of that type of work is done under WADA funding, but I'd guess pretty much none.

 

[Hawkwood]

Research funding

The anti doping research some of my colleagues were involved in about ten years ago was funded by the European Union, IOC, WADA, and USADA.

 

[King Boonen]

WADA for the guys I know.

 

[neineinei]

IOC are filthy rich. They are making big money and have billions stored away in funds. Compared to all they money they have they spend next to nothing on anti-doping. The money needed for resarch and imporived testing already exists with them, but WADA is just something IOC had to come up with after Samaranch's idea of legalizing doping after the Festina scandal just didn't fly. Doping is a good thing for IOC. Why fight it? And why spend good money fighting it? As long as not too many athletes drops dead during the Olympics evertyhing is just fine. A big chunck of the money IOC spends on anti-doping is used on a astronomic amount of tests during the Olympics, which only catches fools and people with really poor doping skills/advisers.

 

[Hawkwood]

IOC are filthy rich. They are making big money and have billions stored away in funds. Compared to all they money they have they spend next to nothing on anti-doping. The money needed for resarch and imporived testing already exists with them, but WADA is just something IOC had to come up with after Samaranch's idea of legalizing doping after the Festina scandal just didn't fly. Doping is a good thing for IOC. Why fight it? And why spend good money fighting it? As long as not too many athletes drops dead during the Olympics evertyhing is just fine. A big chunck of the money IOC spends on anti-doping is used on a astronomic amount of tests during the Olympics, which only catches fools and people with really poor doping skills/advisers.

Interesting post. The team from my university that was working on detecting GH went to a meeting with the IOC to explain some of their findings. Samaranch had brought in a pet statistician (I understand he was a friend) whose only role appeared to be to rubbish the research.

 

[King Boonen]

Statisticians, they can make any data say anything...

 

[Hawkwood]

Statisticians, they can make any data say anything...

Yep the subtext in this case being `although we paid for this research, we don't like the fact that it was successful and you actually discovered something'!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yep the subtext in this case being `although we paid for this research, we don't like the fact that it was successful and you actually discovered something'!

If only this were video taped or minutes were taken...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Statisticians, they can make any data say anything...

And studies are only published when they have positive findings. *mutter*

eg: https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe

(TED can be dodgy as f*ck, so happy to be corrected on the talk's content)

 

[Hawkwood]

If only this were video taped or minutes were taken...

One colleague in particular was quite upset by the whole thing. Apparently Samaranch's mate was coming out with spurious statistical reasons as to why the research wasn't valid. The end result, `oh dear we can't use your method at the next Olympics, that's a shame'!

I've just looked the two studies up and the meeting was a `workshop' organised by the IOC in Rome in 1999, WADA reported that the main issue raised was that there `might be possible ethnic effects on the proposed markers', as the majority of the volunteers had been white European. This led to a further study funded by WADA and USADA, in which my colleagues were also involved, that effectively showed that the original study had been correct. Interestingly in university terms a `workshop' wouldn't normally be minuted, while a `meeting' would be.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I can believe your colleague was upset!

IOC is dirty, dirty business.

 

[King Boonen]

And studies are only published when they have positive findings. *mutter*

eg: https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe

(TED can be dodgy as f*ck, so happy to be corrected on the talk's content)

Can't watch the talk, I know of Ben though and have read most of what he writes so I'm kind of going off that.

He's completely correct in saying that negative data does not get published very often and that it should be. Of course making sense of negative data is much harder, just saying to doesn't work isn't good enough because, especially with drugs, you've already shown they have the desired effect in vitro, model organisms etc. so it can take a lot of investigation, some of which isn't possible anyway, to work out what is going on and for the publication to actually be beneficial.

In terms of drug trials I'm in full agreement that all of the data should be published regardless and so are most drug companies to be fair, it's just an old convention that started it and stops it happening.

Where I have a problem with what Ben talks about is that the people who really matter when making the decisions about what gets approved and what effects must be listed form the studies do get all of the information (at least it is a legal requirement to submit it all, companies breaking the rules is speculation but worth noting). In the UK that is the MHRA and they have several expert panels who assess all of the data submitted and decide on approval, packaging etc. It is all regulated and the information doctors require is there.

Most doctors who are not specialists have no idea what they are prescribing anyway. That's not a criticism, they can't be expected to know what every drug is, how it interacts with things and whether it is worse for a certain sub-set of a population than another, but the idea every doctor is going to research what they prescribe to everyone is insane, you could only ever expect a specialist to do that and even then most probably wont.

In an ideal world a doctor would diagnose and a pharmacist, who does have this knowledge or at least a much more in depth knowledge than the physician, would prescribe, but getting the prescription pads out of the hands of doctors isn't going to happen.

So yes, he's correct. But he's also making out like doctors have both the time and ability to make sense of the data and many of them do not.

He also attacks the MHRA over things that are completely beyond their control but I'll leave that for a different discussion.

 

[Tinman]

Cookson losing the honeymoon momentum rapidly. Whatever appearance of cleaner, and hope for clean that there was shortly after his election, after the Giro is now well and truly gone again.