Financials of UCI drug testing

[Tinman]

So how much should drug tests cost and how much should UCI charge. As they are not necessarily the same. And should UCI have the exclusivity to execute these tests.

Context here, cancellation of Tour of NZ womens event blamed on this. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...I-response-over-costlier-doping-controls.aspx

How much should be spent on drug testing as a rough percentage of revenue takings. Revenue takings by all concerned, including event organizers, media companies, and UCI. So how much should each of these chip in to ensure a cleaner sport?

And should UCI be running their drug testing arm as a profit center? Check the annual reports, in recent years they declare a profit from this stuff...

 

[martinvickers]

So how much should drug tests cost and how much should UCI charge. As they are not necessarily the same. And should UCI have the exclusivity to execute these tests.

Context here, cancellation of Tour of NZ womens event blamed on this. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...I-response-over-costlier-doping-controls.aspx

How much should be spent on drug testing as a rough percentage of revenue takings. Revenue takings by all concerned, including event organizers, media companies, and UCI. So how much should each of these chip in to ensure a cleaner sport?

And should UCI be running their drug testing arm as a profit center? Check the annual reports, in recent years they declare a profit from this stuff...

on the one hand, you should spend as much on drug testing as it takes.

Personally i think the funding should be 50% pro teams, 50% race sponsors, but that's negotiable - but most importantly, the testing shouldn't be done by anyone with a vested interest. and that, by definition, includes UCI.

2c

 

[del1962]

Proper dope testing just does not come cheap with all the cross checks required.

How its paid for is a big issue, I know UKAD gets government funding as does USADA, perhaps a broadcasting rights tax could be levied to help fund anti-doping.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So how much should drug tests cost and how much should UCI charge.

For the Tour of NZ, the promoter assumes all costs of anti-doping along with paying for a couple of layers of UCI officials, a tax on the prize purse and more.

The promoter blaming anti-doping costs is dishonest at best. He could have easily blamed the other UCI fees. It just goes to show you how deeply ingrained doping is inside bicycle racing business.

Bottom line is every other cycling discipline subsidizes Pat and Hein's finding bigger suckers to fund Men's elite road racing.

FYI, the business model is intentionally difficult to make profitable for an organizer below the UCI's elite men's category where the promoter costs are much bigger than the Tour of NZ, but the money buying the UCI's show is much, much bigger. An example of this Anschutz funding the Tour of California. Paying the UCI for a cycling event is play money compared to their other projects.

You had a ton of other questions in there that I didn't answer because the reply would be a mess.

 

[del1962]

30,000 NZ dollars for drugs testing

this means they will sent a UCI drugs inspector to New Zealand, we will have to import all testing devices from overseas, do at least 20 tests during the five days of racing, get a license to export human samples overseas, send all samples to a laboratory in Sydney to be tested all at our cost, this is approximately $30,000 per even

What I don't inderstand is could the cost not be shared with mens race?

 

[DirtyWorks]

What I don't inderstand is could the cost not be shared with mens race?

The promter probably has sponsorship tiers for each field and then does the business math that way. IMHO, the promoter is being a bit dishonest.

Now, being a promoter is a thankless job many times with people riding $10,000 in gear and complaining about how "expensive" entry fees are.

The promoter is not entirely to blame for the situation. Again, the UCI's costs for getting the UCI sanction are enormous on these smaller events.

 

[fmk_RoI]

should UCI be running their drug testing arm as a profit center? Check the annual reports, in recent years they declare a profit from this stuff...

As someone who *has* actually read the UCI accounts, perhaps you could enlighten me on where it is shown that CADF is run at a profit. Cause it isn't.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Fyi

Here's some hard information about costs in the U.S.:http://nyvelocity.com/content/featu...a-cycling-administered-anti-doping-crowd-fund

$6000 for 10 tests at USADA. What constitutes "10 tests" isn't specified. Getting testing through UCI is higher for sure.

 

[peterst6906]

So how much should drug tests cost

There's no single answer to that question. It's country, laboratory and event specific.

Labs charge for tests based on the cost to them of completing the test. Different tests require different prep and analysis methods and different people are involved in the testing process. These costs are known for each lab, but different labs will charge differently for the same test (for a host of reasons, the costs to run laboratories, maintain accreditation, pay staff, replace equipment, develop new methods, comply with government requirements, etc. are different and different labs may be using different methods and technology to perform a specific test).

In addition, there is the logistics of the sample handling and delivery from the event to the lab. That is a variable cost that is event specific.

So it isn't really possible to put a single figure on how much should a drug test cost. As a general principle, it should cost enough to maintain the business of the laboratory (including business factors, not only technical requirements) and testing regime, but not more.

What would be good to see would be the development of a set of field deployable laboratories accredited through a single agency such as WADA, but allowed to operate in all countries part of the WADA code. There is a cost model that could work for this if the admin/legal aspects could be worked out. Not as the sole testing labs, but as a major part of testing with fixed costs irrespective of location (is. costs associated with transport would be part of the overall running, but shared equally across all events. In that way, the revenues from bigger and more frequent racing in Europe would help subsidise the costs associated with expansion of the calendar and the running of smaller, more remote events). Just a thought.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Proper dope testing just does not come cheap with all the cross checks required.

How its paid for is a big issue, I know UKAD gets government funding as does USADA, perhaps a broadcasting rights tax could be levied to help fund anti-doping.

What's a cross check?

 

[del1962]

What's a cross check?

What I mean is cross checking that you have got the right sample for the right person, that people can't tamper with it etc, making sure no hidden bags of urine all that stuff, getting people to collect hwo can't be corrupted

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The cost of testing is something that needs to be looked into, IMO. Saugy had an interesting LA EPO result in Lausanne back in early 2000 and even though that resulted in some recent polemic, low and behold, 2011/12 his lab now runs the entire ABP program.

If a Sysmex automatic blood analysis machine costs $200k new, and you have to spend $60k on 2 events that are usually run every year, in a country housing a very successful track program (NZ) with an established anti-doping organisation (http://www.drugfreesport.org.nz/Testing.html) that conduct their own testing for 50 different sports in that country...

DFSNZ [Drug free sport NZ] also conducts doping control tests on behalf of other World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code signatories, including other National Anti-Doping Organisations. DFSNZ conducts doping control tests or athlete testing in approximately 50 sports in New Zealand.

Why are the testing machines being imported?
Why are the samples being exported to Sydney?
What is the cost breakdown?
Why was this not a problem the other years the races were run - what has changed?

So good to see the media asking some tough questions based on their knowledge of the industry. Or not.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What I mean is cross checking that you have got the right sample for the right person, that people can't tamper with it etc, making sure no hidden bags of urine all that stuff, getting people to collect hwo can't be corrupted

And that's what makes it expensive?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Proper dope testing just does not come cheap with all the cross checks required.

How its paid for is a big issue, I know UKAD gets government funding as does USADA, perhaps a broadcasting rights tax could be levied to help fund anti-doping.

Seems to be OK to use lottery funding for UK sport, how about for anti-doping?

 

[Kender]

The cost of testing is something that needs to be looked into, IMO. Saugy had an interesting LA EPO result in Lausanne back in early 2000 and even though that resulted in some recent polemic, low and behold, 2011/12 his lab now runs the entire ABP program.

If a Sysmex automatic blood analysis machine costs $200k new, and you have to spend $60k on 2 events that are usually run every year, in a country housing a very successful track program (NZ) with an established anti-doping organisation (http://www.drugfreesport.org.nz/Testing.html) that conduct their own testing for 50 different sports in that country...



Why are the testing machines being imported?
Why are the samples being exported to Sydney?
What is the cost breakdown?
Why was this not a problem the other years the races were run - what has changed?So good to see the media asking some tough questions based on their knowledge of the industry. Or not.

in the past the race organiser was allowed to use new Zealands local drug testing agency which dont need to send their samples away to australia to complete the tests. the costs therefore are significanty less.

new rules imposed on them by UCI meant for the race to be run as a UCI Sanctioned event they'd have to pay UCI to do it for them, and they were going to use a lab in Australia to do the tests, and therefore increase the price



couple of articles in relatin to this

Women's race a casualty of UCI controls

Tour not affected by new doping-control costs

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So it was the UCI who stuffed it up. Seems ridiculous that NZ have so much drug-testing infrastructure in place and the UCI circumvent it.

This is another ridiculous UCI-led situation.

Any link between the Sydney lab and NSWIS? Where the Suttons are from?

 

[peterst6906]

So it was the UCI who stuffed it up. Seems ridiculous that NZ have so much drug-testing infrastructure in place and the UCI circumvent it.

This is another ridiculous UCI-led situation.

Any link between the Sydney lab and NSWIS? Where the Suttons are from?

The only WADA accredited laboratory in the Oceania is the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory (ASDTL), located at the National Measurement Institute in Sydney.

Even for NZ, many samples are routinely shipped to the ASDTL by DFSNZ because accredited capabilities don't exist within NZ.

Blaiming the UCI for this particular issue is perhaps not warranted for this situation. Moves to strengthen testing by insisting on the use of WADA accredited labs for testing shouldn't be seen as a backwards step, though it looks as though the introduction of changes could have been better managed (though I don't know the exact details). In any case, the promoter seems to be complaining more about the lack of value from the testing because it doesn't do anything to make the race look better. That is a short sighted view imo.

As far as NSWIS, samples from athletes supported by NSWIS are subject to testing at the ASDTL (but no link between NSWIS and ASDTL, they are separate and independent organisations, one being state and the other federal).

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

More from @SSbike on the subject.

Basically, the race organiser hasn't been coughing up for enough tests, but instead of making the race director fix that.....the UCI have reclassified the race with respect to testing requirements.....which just happens to mean they can grab full control of results management. The excuse offered is that on one occasion they didn't receive the original documents after they got the email copies.

Talk about cracking a nut with a sledge hammer! Carparni's moan about USADA and NZADA not recognising UCI as the results management authority points to the real motive behind this IMO.

@peterst6906, UCI has now made it clear that they will allow to race to revert to the local lab if UCI gets full results management. This isn't about WADA accreditation, it's about control.

 

[del1962]

Seems to be OK to use lottery funding for UK sport, how about for anti-doping?

UK government makes a significant contribution to UKAD.

 

[peterst6906]

@peterst6906, UCI has now made it clear that they will allow to race to revert to the local lab if UCI gets full results management. This isn't about WADA accreditation, it's about control.

Fair enough in relation to the control angle and since it's the UCI involved, I'll happily drink that cool aid and believe it.

As with everything, multiple truths in the same story and it is still a good thing to require the use of a WADA accredited lab for testing. Neither the UCI nor race promoters should have their fingers in the testing process. Once a standard is set by the UCI, it should be truly independent from there. However, the UCI as a promoter of racing should be working to keep these events going even when they are not the company promoting the individuals event. They should have handled the issue of change better from the start, even where the change is a step in the right direction (irrespective of the original motive). In the end I'm a little suspicious of the statements made by the promoter, which don't really demonstrate a commitment to clean sport (certainly that is not his highest priority after making money and seems to be lower down his list of importance).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

UK government makes a significant contribution to UKAD.

Yes, I imagine roughly the same level of govt financial support as for USADA and ASADA, with the former roughly twice the budget of the latter (approx $12M v $6M). Which is a drop in the ocean of what's needed when you are looking at $500-$1k per test and covering all sports, let alone cycling.

My point was that untold millions are poured into sport from various other sources, how about a bit of that going to ADAs?

 

[peterst6906]

My point was that untold millions are poured into sport from various other sources, how about a bit of that going to ADAs?

+1

The question to be resolved in each country is whether (1) the ADA exists to catch the cheats, or (2) to provide an veneer of cleanliness while really doing little more than providing a service that ensures your own cheats aren't caught by others.

For USADA it clearly seems to be the first case. For others, it isn't so clear, but the answer to that question (whether it's a deliberate approach or not) can have a significant bearing on funding.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

More from @SSbike on the subject.

Basically, the race organiser hasn't been coughing up for enough tests, but instead of making the race director fix that.....the UCI have reclassified the race with respect to testing requirements.....which just happens to mean they can grab full control of results management. The excuse offered is that on one occasion they didn't receive the original documents after they got the email copies.

Talk about cracking a nut with a sledge hammer! Carparni's moan about USADA and NZADA not recognising UCI as the results management authority points to the real motive behind this IMO.

@peterst6906, UCI has now made it clear that they will allow to race to revert to the local lab if UCI gets full results management. This isn't about WADA accreditation, it's about control.

So it was the UCI who stuffed it up. Seems ridiculous that NZ have so much drug-testing infrastructure in place and the UCI circumvent it.

This is another ridiculous UCI-led situation.

<snip>

Fancy that. National ADAs recognising UCI as a corrupt barrel of monkies. I mean not recognizing their results management authority.

I'll remove the lab-based theory - but the original "UCI farce" looks pretty good again...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Fair enough in relation to the control angle and since it's the UCI involved, I'll happily drink that cool aid and believe it.

As with everything, multiple truths in the same story and it is still a good thing to require the use of a WADA accredited lab for testing. Neither the UCI nor race promoters should have their fingers in the testing process. Once a standard is set by the UCI, it should be truly independent from there. However, the UCI as a promoter of racing should be working to keep these events going even when they are not the company promoting the individuals event. They should have handled the issue of change better from the start, even where the change is a step in the right direction (irrespective of the original motive). In the end I'm a little suspicious of the statements made by the promoter, which don't really demonstrate a commitment to clean sport (certainly that is not his highest priority after making money and seems to be lower down his list of importance).

The event organisers comments made me wince too. Classic example of why a robust regulatory structure is necessary.

Must admit I've reached the point I find it difficult to accept that exchanging a non accredited lab with independent results management, for an accredited lab with UCI results management is an improvement. That's probably somewhat influenced by my expectation that NZADA is likely to be competent and genuinely interested in anti-doping not anti-scandal.

It's always good to have a reminder not to instantly leap to the assumption that the UCI is messing with some part of cycling for reasons separate from proper governance of the sport. After following cycling carefully for a few years, I now genuinely believe that when odd events come to light, the assumption of UCI skulduggery is a reasonable default setting. But I also remember when I suspected anyone with that attitude was a bit of a raving conspiracy theorist.

@dear_wiggo, Yep more farce IMO. Would be nice if they surprised us just occasionally....