• 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!

One in 10 athletes may be doping, warns World Anti-Doping Agency

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ti-doping-agency/story-e6frg7mf-1226265443732

THE World Anti-Doping Agency is warning that new research findings expected before the London Olympics could suggest that as many as one in 10 athletes who compete internationally may be doping.

Accepted wisdom until now, drawn from annual testing statistics, was that "maybe between 1 and 2 per cent of athletes who are tested are cheating," WADA director general David Howman said.

However, WADA is supporting research projects into the prevalence of doping among international-level athletes, with findings expected before the London Games open in July, Howman said.

Based on the initial results, "we think those numbers are more in the double digits. Now that's a concern. If there is more than 10 per cent of the athletes in the world being tempted to take the shortcut by taking prohibited substances, then we've got an issue that is not being confronted as well as it should be."


Howman gave no details about how the research is being conducted, the methodology, or who is conducting it. In a separate interview with The Associated Press, Howman stressed the research is not finalised and suggested it would be wrong to conclude that 10 per cent of athletes who compete in London might cheat.

"People go to the Olympic Games very well prepared for a big event, knowing if they are going to make a mistake it is the worst shame they can bring upon themselves, their family ... (and) therefore less likely for people to take the shortcuts," he said.

"The dopey guy is going to be picked up, and probably going to be picked up in pre-games testing. The real sophisticated guy might try to get away with it. But the program is going to be extensive."

WADA president John Fahey said in an AP interview there was "a concerted effort being made by most countries to weed out any cheats before they get to London; that's to be encouraged".

"The likelihood of cheats succeeding in the London Olympics is somewhat remote."

Howman also said, however, that "we should not be complacent, sit back and think, 'We are only dealing with one per cent or one-and-a-half per cent of the elite athlete population"' who are cheating. "It could be much higher, and the initial responses from this research indicates that it is."

He said it was "very easy to catch the dopey doper", but "the sophisticated doper is becoming harder to detect and that's a big challenge for the anti-doping movement".

WADA wants more testing of blood samples from athletes, not just urine, and more testing for the banned performance-enhancer EPO. The 258,267 samples analysed by WADA-accredited labs in 2010 produced only 36 positive cases for EPO, even though the substance is favoured by cheats.

The reason for that "very disappointing" low number seems to be that labs aren't actually looking for EPO in many samples, apparently to save costs. Testing for EPO is considerably more expensive than for standard urine tests.

"Of course, you're not going to get positive cases if you're not even undertaking the analysis. That's regrettable also and we're going to do something about that," Howman said.

He added WADA would prefer labs "do fewer tests and make sure that each test counts".

Fahey added: "It just seems to me to be a tragedy that we are taking a sample and we are effectively saying there's a percentage, that despite there being ingredients in that sample that are in the prohibited list, we are not going to find out because there are dollars involved."

Fahey also warned that mounting concern in sports about illegal gambling and match-fixing should not detract from efforts to catch drug cheats. He urged sports bodies and governments not to take their eyes off anti-doping "simply because there is another threat that seems to be gaining some momentum".

AP

Financial constraints and complacency worry WADA

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/uk-doping-finance-idUKTRE8161CZ20120207
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Lol 1 in 10? I'd wager it's more like 8 in 10. Seriously, how many products are being used by international athletes that cannot be tested for? I'm not a scientist but I imagine there are quite a few. Designer drugs etc.
 
This backs up my estimation that the probability for a false negative is extremely high.

-Someone specifies a limited number of tests based on budget. Any way you slice it, the chances for an AAF go down. Imagine what happens if a team knows what's being tested...

-The role of the lab is biased toward the organizer/federation. Do you think an AAF from a lab is going to generate repeat customers?

-His comment about more quality testing suggests the some tests run aren't relevant. There's no public information about tests being run. That is good and bad. I think mostly bad because of the comments made by WADA.

As an FYI, many of the tests present a range of values described as negative, suspicious, and positive with a heavy bias towards false negatives. WADA likely has lots of suspicious values to get to their double-digit claim. In the past athletes have relied on no AAF's as proxy for dope testing returning a true negative. The "Never tested positive" defense in action. I would be very interested to see some WADA statistics on the number of suspicious values for sports like Tennis, Cycling, and some Skiing disciplines.

Finally, the title of the article sets a mental limit of 1 in 10 as a form of damage control. The article SAYS 'more than 1 in 10' and only uses 'double digits' which could mean any number between 1 and 9 in a population of 10. I'll be fair and say there's a likely bias towards the low end, so 1-5 in a population of 10.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
gooner said:
Like i already said in another thread, last night I was watching John Fahey doing a 30 mins interview on the BBC News show Hardtalk.

He said the war on drugs will never be won and that there will always be cheats who are one step ahead of the testing. He commented on Contador`s ban and the BOA. I found this very interesting on the Armstrong investigation. He said he was surprised that it ended all of a sudden as he heard himself that various witnesses were going to be interviewed this week.

Look out for a link to the interview in the coming days. I am sure it will be put up just like the David Millar one with Hardtalk was. Here is a brief video from it where he talks about Contador`s ban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9694193.stm

thanks for the link. great. I like him. On contador's ban:
"A great day for clean athletes."..."a case where a high profile athlete has been shown to be a drug cheat".

This guy is saying it how it is.

Regarding the RFEC: "clearly patriotism sometimes overtakes common sense".
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
By the way, Fahey couldn't possibly claim publicly that 9 out of 10 are dirty, even though that may well be what he actually believes.
 
sniper said:
thanks for the link. great. I like him. On contador's ban:
"A great day for clean athletes."..."a case where a high profile athlete has been shown to be a drug cheat".

This guy is saying it how it is.

Regarding the RFEC: "clearly patriotism sometimes overtakes common sense".

Not more than logical you like him. I hate him, but you probably already figured that out.
 
I wish we could stop reading this "taking shortcuts" term about doping - as though if only a clean athlete worked a bit harder they could be going up mountains like Armstrong and Ullrich or running sub 10 sec 100's. Certainly in cycling no one is "taking shortcuts" they're working just as hard but also taking the magic sauce to go another X% faster.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Why with all these dopers, worse than heroin and blow, maybe we should increase WADA's budget? Good way to spend taxpayer money. Lets increase the funding. Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah.
 
That 1 in 10 figure may be closer for the local industrial park criterium.
Pro sports is probably closer to 9 in 10, maybe 5-6 in 10 for Olympic sports, dragged down by curling and synchronized swimming (among others).
 
Makes sence. All those clean benevolent footballers, tennis players, gold medal winners with sponsorships etc make up 90% of world sport.

But all those evil malevolent cyclists dope and as such ruin the reputations of the real heroes.
 
Jan 21, 2012
13
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
That 1 in 10 figure may be closer for the local industrial park criterium.
Pro sports is probably closer to 9 in 10, maybe 5-6 in 10 for Olympic sports, dragged down by curling and synchronized swimming (among others).

a recent study shows that it can be 5 in 10 in track and field:
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762.long

9 in 10 for pro sports sounds right as well.
 
Hugh Januss said:
That 1 in 10 figure may be closer for the local industrial park criterium.
Pro sports is probably closer to 9 in 10, maybe 5-6 in 10 for Olympic sports, dragged down by curling and synchronized swimming (among others).

Hugh and others, he leaves plenty of room in his words for a 9 out of 10 dope discussion doesn't he?

Readers can't bear the idea that much of their sports entertainment is drug-fueled. It would call into question the very foundation of the IOC's media product. And so the title reads 1 in 10, not a more accurate "10x more dopers in the Olympics than previously thought."
 
DirtyWorks said:
Hugh and others, he leaves plenty of room in his words for a 9 out of 10 dope discussion doesn't he?

Readers can't bear the idea that much of their sports entertainment is drug-fueled. It would call into question the very foundation of the IOC's media product. And that would bring the IOC storming into the issue in full denial mode.

I wasn't finding fault with his statement, I was just interpreting it.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Altitude said:
Lol 1 in 10? I'd wager it's more like 8 in 10. Seriously, how many products are being used by international athletes that cannot be tested for? I'm not a scientist but I imagine there are quite a few. Designer drugs etc.

The Spanish ski jumpers aren't doping. There's no point. They aren't even remotely competitive and there's no money to be made by them. The same goes for a big chunk of Olympic style athletes, so maybe pushes the numbers down artificially. What you (and I) are sure of is that 9 out of 10 (so low?) of the 100m quarterfinalists are doing something more than lift weights and run a lot.
 
1980 Olympic 100M - Won in 10.25
_57896923_wells.jpg



2008 Olympic 100M - Won in 9.69
16sld01.jpg



The upper body development especially in the latter shot is amazingly different. I don't think training for sprints has chnaged THAT much since 1980.
 
BigBoat said:
I googled "bike pure athletes dope" not expecting to find any matches....lol, even I was surprised to quickly find a match!

You cant compete in top level sports clean while money is there to be made.....doping is simply too tempting for most pros.

http://bikepure.org/2011/02/rui-costa-interview/

I'm repeating myself for most, but the anti-doping process it is equivalent to designing a test everyone can pass. This is intentional. Heaven forbid the IOC have an Olympic event where most of the sporting events have doping positives.

Specific to cycling and as a model for other Olympic disciplines, go ahead and dope. The UCI bio-passport is designed to be sure you don't kill yourself.

And then there's the UCI popularity contest. They actively pursued some Operation Puerto/dopers all over the world. (Li FuYu, Ullrich) Others got the gentlest touch possible. (Contador, Armstrong) Remember that Contador's positive was suppressed by the UCI until German media got word. Witness too UCI's statements at the end of each decision:
-silence for Ullrich,
-sorrow/pity for Contador. Why? the system worked. The correct response is, "Clear evidence our anti-doping system works great. Witness the glory!"
-pleasure for Armstrong.

WADA's current leader is doing an excellent job letting the world know this is how the system is working without drawing direct fire from the IOC and sports federations.