fmk_RoI said:
King Boonen said:
I'm pretty sure it all basically comes down to there being nowhere near enough funding to support what is actually required.
I recall reading some Don Catlin interviews from years ago where he discusses this, I think with particular reference to the cost of machines. It's not an issue many think about in relation to anti-doping.
Yes and it's a huge cost. I think you can get an Orbitrap qExactive for around £200,000 (there are several models, fragmentation is required for most analyses now I think so that increases the price) which is pretty much the standard, benchtop, high res mass spec. Thermo currently hold the patent which means older instrument support is dependent on them and there is no choice in vendor. I think this will change soon but the more powerful instruments can easily top £500,000. There are associated bits of kit, pumps, nitrogen generators etc. that also cost not-insignificant amounts along with LC systems and so on. On top of this the instruments cost us about £1000 a day to run or leave idle, so this needs to be covered even before you consider staff with relevant experience, computation power, freezers for sample storage, centrifuges for prep and so on and a building to house everything.
If WADA or an NADO can't support the facility it has to do other research. Some may be able to get enough funding for doping detection development but many will have to look elsewhere, and for many researchers the interesting stuff is elsewhere. Doping detection is essentially busywork to help pay the bills. Staff retention can then become an issue, most researchers don't care much about money, we care about interesting projects, so bigger wages need to offered to get people with the right experience.
The money to fund a lab could be a drop in the ocean for say Formula One, The Premier League, NFL, MLB etc. but for the UCI or a national cycling body it's completely unfeasible. If we want sport to fund anti-doping then we need a wholesale change in attitude towards doping from the sports that make the most money.
King Boonen said:
Ideally, anti-doping needs a complete overhaul in terms of funding and distribution of funding.
Some of this comes back to the plan to bring all anti-doping under one wing, yes? WADA are moving forward with what they've said will be a voluntary system, you have Lappartient trying to position the CADF as a player here. But, still, the funding issue isn't being addressed, either how to extract the money from the feds (and through the feds the teams, athletes and organisers) or from the media (anti-doping's own land grab on the much dreamed of TV revenue gold mine). Making the labs fully stand-alone - as you suggest - strikes me as a necessity to unlock the funding, otherwise people can't be sure the money they pay is going to the services they need (and not, say, some other research project in a wholly unrelated area).[/quote]
One wing or at least one body that administrates and distributes funds to regional bodies. In the pharmaceutical industry companies are required to pay the local body so they can be inspected. they have no say in how the money is used or how much it is, if you don't pay you can't be inspected and can't operate. Unfortunately, it would be a hard model to work for a single body covering all sports. Rich sports could easily afford to pay for sample analysis but poor sports couldn't. To get it to work properly you would either have to only test sports that can afford the bills or the rich sports would have to fund the testing for everyone. The cost would likely be small but you can imagine the reaction of FIFA if they are told their money is going to pay for other sports testing regimes. It's a really difficult problem to sort out which is probably why it never gets mentioned.
King Boonen said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there are many labs, funded privately by sports teams, that have the capabilities to analyse these kind of samples (even if they are not). That money being invested on that side could massively help anti-doping.
Are there any rules on this? I recall McQuaid trying to kick up a fuss when CSC, HTC + Garmin started with the team-funded in-house testing programmes, trying to say they couldn't do this, but is it actually blocked, and if so is it policed?[/quote][/quote]
As far as I'm aware no. There will be local laws and protocols governing collection and analysis of human samples, and labs connected to unis, hospitals etc. will have more stringent ethics requirements, but it could all easily be passed off as research or patient monitoring. That's likely not even a lie, the data you would get from such facilities would be hugely valuable, even if just in-house. This is assuming everything they are doing is legal though. I have no idea what the laws are if they are looking for doping.
The way to solve this would be independent doctors, funded by WADA, that are assigned to teams to monitor health. I've mentioned this several times as a way to deal with the dodgy doctor hiring in cycling and would be easier to fund as you just make the team pay the salary to WADA who then pass it on to the doctor. They can be rotated every now and then and banned from any financial incentives (eg, teams can't give them clothing, bikes, nice hotel rooms etc.). Very similar to how doctors are now required to interact with drug reps. Any visit to a different doctor must be documented like a TUE and examined by the WADA appointed doctor.
Again, this requires money and oversight, but mainly it would require a massive attitude change towards sports medicine. Sports would have to want to change and teams, owners, sponsors etc. would have to accept that the legal aspect of sports medicine would be constrained. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.