should riders be controlled at 3 am ?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

should rider be controlled at 3 am ?

  • Not decided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Mar 11, 2009
1,927
0
0
+1

They are never going to do what's being talked about here. I don't know what 'testing at night' means but it will never mean dragging folk out of bed at 3am. I know we like to characterise these people (dope control folk) as idiots but I have met them and they are not. They care about the sport, the people and being fair just as much as you or I. They screw up occasionally but they are not morons :) thankfully.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Arnout said:
What? That's like saying referee's should sometimes randomly give a team an extra goal, as it will create a bit of tension and excitement :confused:
Not what I was implying... Besides, cycling vs. football makes for a poor analogy.

All I was saying was that if a fair percentage of the peloton is getting a sh*t night's sleep because of the vampires waking them up, then there will be more riders crying out for better daytime testing and/or more efficient testing protocols.

Nonetheless... it's pretty funny watch Dekker lose his mind...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Arnout said:
So what if you're not a doper and you have to wake up at 5am (meaning you lose 3 hours of sleep) on a decisive day?

Is that fairer than your opponent doping? I doubt it.
if you're not a doper you start speaking out about doping to get rid of it from your sport instead of playing dumb. if you read the report it is a wada recommendation for certain riders who they have a high suspicion of doping, so i imagine they will target the right riders....;)
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Benotti69 said:
if you're not a doper you start speaking out about doping to get rid of it from your sport instead of playing dumb. if you read the report it is a wada recommendation for certain riders who they have a high suspicion of doping, so i imagine they will target the right riders....;)
+1 That was sort of my point. Getting woken up at night sucks for you? Open your freakin' mouth and start p*ssing about doping. I'm a bit surprised that lying and adhering to the Omerta isn't keeping them up at night, anyway...
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
Dekker_Tifosi said:
I'm baffled 11 people voted yes.

I'm sorry but you must be either a complete moron without a brain, or a total nut who has never ridden a bike if you vote that.

You CANNOT disturb night rest, and certainly not during something as exhausting as a one-week or grand tour. It will make the competition unfair, something anti-doping controls should actually try to prevent.

If rider A gets a control at night, he is worthless the next day, while rider B had a good sleep and takes the advantage. It's really not hard to understand.
This should, never, ever, be allowed. Because it's way to cheat a competition, something doping controls should avoid, instead of do.

Worst idea in the history of WADA.
If you can't test a rider between 22.00-6.00 that leaves and 8-hour window for drugs to get out of your system. IMO if you don't test the riders between certain hours it's almost like saying "ok, feel free to dope at that time you won't get caught"

It's a question about preventing doping vs. the comfort of cyclists. I've never ridden a 3-week tour so can't comment on the affect of waking up at nigh but before a 1-day race it wouldn't kill my performance - or the night after the race. I understand your concern for unfair disadvantages to those riders tested during the night but I feel that just the possibility of nigh-time testing could deter riders from using some substances. You don't need to test them every night.
A rider would certainly think twice before using a substance if he had even (only) a 2% possibility of getting caught vs. having 0-possibility of getting caught.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
RdBiker said:
If you can't test a rider between 22.00-6.00 that leaves and 8-hour window for drugs to get out of your system. IMO if you don't test the riders between certain hours it's almost like saying "ok, feel free to dope at that time you won't get caught"

It's a question about preventing doping vs. the comfort of cyclists. I've never ridden a 3-week tour so can't comment on the affect of waking up at nigh but before a 1-day race it wouldn't kill my performance - or the night after the race. I understand your concern for unfair disadvantages to those riders tested during the night but I feel that just the possibility of nigh-time testing could deter riders from using some substances. You don't need to test them every night.
A rider would certainly think twice before using a substance if he had even (only) a 2% possibility of getting caught vs. having 0-possibility of getting caught.
The problem however is that a rider not tested will always have an advantage over one that is tested at night. In this way it creates unfair competition, the exact opposite of what doping tests should be targeting. If this is done during a stage race, or just before a one-day race, it will undoubtly affect the race.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,927
0
0
RdBiker said:
If you can't test a rider between 22.00-6.00 that leaves and 8-hour window for drugs to get out of your system. IMO if you don't test the riders between certain hours it's almost like saying "ok, feel free to dope at that time you won't get caught"

It's a question about preventing doping vs. the comfort of cyclists. I've never ridden a 3-week tour so can't comment on the affect of waking up at nigh but before a 1-day race it wouldn't kill my performance - or the night after the race. I understand your concern for unfair disadvantages to those riders tested during the night but I feel that just the possibility of nigh-time testing could deter riders from using some substances. You don't need to test them every night.
A rider would certainly think twice before using a substance if he had even (only) a 2% possibility of getting caught vs. having 0-possibility of getting caught.
The point is - this is not how you will catch people doping but it is exactly how you will screw up someones perfromance!
 
If the police shows up at my house late at night to search my house without a search warrant it'd be one thing, but if they have a search warrant because I'm suspect of a crime, I wouldn't like it but they'd be doing the right thing. Of course it's pointless if these suspicious riders according to the biological passport aren't even being tasted in the day, but assuming that part gets sorted out, I think targeted night testing would be fair.

It's true that being tested at night would put you at a disadvantage, but there are ways to minimize it. Do blood tests only and make sure it takes as little time as possible (it shouldn't have to take more than a few minutes, although I suppose the team doctor would probably have to be notified first to get everything ready and only wake up the rider at the last moment; his roommate wouldn't necessarily have to be disturbed).

It would still be a disadvantage, but not necessarily a major one. And anyway, right now wearing the yellow jersey is a disadvantage in that you get less rest than everyone else. It's not like it would take the purity out of the competition.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
The UCI and WADA are Parinoid over this thing untill they take a look at them selves from a distance they are never going to stop the doping this way it only ailianates every one concerned.

The reason for this is the way which the media handle it .
Health issues are private for that reason only specialists understand the issues behind it so how can we make a judgement from something that was leaked to the media.
stop that and all will be well. get all the facts up front first.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
180mmCrank said:
The point is - this is not how you will catch people doping but it is exactly how you will screw up someones perfromance!
Actually the point is this is how you will catch someone doping....how have you missed that?

It will of course also screw up their performance somewhat. So to make it fair, why not test say, the top ten in a random 3am test? Whats unfair for one is unfair for all of them.
 
straydog said:
Actually the point is this is how you will catch someone doping....how have you missed that?

It will of course also screw up their performance somewhat. So to make it fair, why not test say, the top ten in a random 3am test? Whats unfair for one is unfair for all of them.
Because part of the problem is the tests are too predictable. Testing the top 10 is predictable, as is testing a suspicious rider right after notifying him that his values are weird. It's all in the report.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
3 am is also flat out unsafe. Put someone through that and then watch them try to bomb down a mountain the next day.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,927
0
0
straydog said:
Actually the point is this is how you will catch someone doping....how have you missed that?

It will of course also screw up their performance somewhat. So to make it fair, why not test say, the top ten in a random 3am test? Whats unfair for one is unfair for all of them.
You can't just say if we test people at night we will catch more people doping. There is no evidence of that the folk who are systematically cheating are more likely to be found out if we test them at 3am? At least not any of which I am aware. It's simplistic in the extreme to make statements like 'it will be out of their system by the morning'

It won't make any difference.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
180mmCrank said:
You can't just say if we test people at night we will catch more people doping. There is no evidence of that the folk who are systematically cheating are more likely to be found out if we test them at 3am? At least not any of which I am aware. It's simplistic in the extreme to make statements like 'it will be out of their system by the morning'

It won't make any difference.
Ok....I will explain in case you missed Floyd's analysis, or Bernard Kohl's testimony.

If you carry out random tests at 3 am during a GT, hopefully you won't catch more people because it is the most likely deterrent to those who do dope during such an event.

For example: Microdosing (if correctly administered) EPO at 11 pm at night does ensure that you will not post a positive following the next days stage if you are tested. Likewise, transfusing smaller amounts of packed blood cells in the evening will again not cause your off scores to vary into non negative territory the following day. However both of these scenarios could be detected if the athlete happened to be tested 3-4 hours after carrying them out.

So if a rider has been tested following a stage....is again tested at 3 am that night....there are suspicious upward fluctuations in his haematocrit, haemaglobin or indeed now, plasticizer levels. Bang. Caught.

Likeiwse, EPO's half life, even at low doses, means that three to four hours after administeration you will post a positive.

It aint rocket science. It is why this year the UCI have started testing in the mornings before stages rather than just after stages as was the case previously.

Testing at 3 am would tighten the net. Definitely.
 
Aug 14, 2009
14
0
0
i'm pretty sure the majority of the riders are up taking a leak in the middle of the night anyway because of all the water they drink after a stage.

A 5 minute gently wakup zero to two times during a tour would not change any performance other than if you where actually doping and not get any sleep because you're afraid of a possibly visit :)
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,927
0
0
straydog said:
Ok....I will explain in case you missed Floyd's analysis, or Bernard Kohl's testimony.

If you carry out random tests at 3 am during a GT, hopefully you won't catch more people because it is the most likely deterrent to those who do dope during such an event.

For example: Microdosing (if correctly administered) EPO at 11 pm at night does ensure that you will not post a positive following the next days stage if you are tested. Likewise, transfusing smaller amounts of packed blood cells in the evening will again not cause your off scores to vary into non negative territory the following day. However both of these scenarios could be detected if the athlete happened to be tested 3-4 hours after carrying them out.

So if a rider has been tested following a stage....is again tested at 3 am that night....there are suspicious upward fluctuations in his haematocrit, haemaglobin or indeed now, plasticizer levels. Bang. Caught.

Likeiwse, EPO's half life, even at low doses, means that three to four hours after administeration you will post a positive.

It aint rocket science. It is why this year the UCI have started testing in the mornings before stages rather than just after stages as was the case previously.

Testing at 3 am would tighten the net. Definitely.
Thank you that helps.

But I am still not convinced that this will actually make any difference to either who gets caught or the amount of doping in cycling. To me this needs to be much more about addessing deep cultural issues in the sport.

And I say again getting folk up in the night is not the answer.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
hrotha said:
Because part of the problem is the tests are too predictable. Testing the top 10 is predictable, as is testing a suspicious rider right after notifying him that his values are weird. It's all in the report.
Testing will always be predictable to some extent. But predictability can be a positive (pardon the pun).

If it is the top ten, (plus, let's say, 3 randoms) and the top three from the stage. Do you really think there are going to be riders who will be saying "As long as I stay out of the top ten I will be alright"?

That kind of negates the point of doping in the first place. Riders do it to win. To do as well as they can.

The point of it being the top ten is that it is fair. In the sense that the rider who comes second overall can't say that number one didn't get woken up at 3am all the time.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
180mmCrank said:
Thank you that helps.

But I am still not convinced that this will actually make any difference to either who gets caught or the amount of doping in cycling. To me this needs to be much more about addessing deep cultural issues in the sport.

And I say again getting folk up in the night is not the answer.
Ok....I am convinced. I am also convinced that part of the reason we saw a more "human" tour this year was because morning testing was expected by the riders. And therefore, less of them were prepared to take the sort of risks that were previously the norm.

You are right though. This won't stop doping in cycling, or other elite sports for that matter. And honestly, I don't think anything will. One of the few things I agree with Lemond on is that I think it will be a case of "controlling" doping. Setting certain parameters.

The advances in doping products and practices that will happpen in the next five to ten years will be staggering and unavoidable. And while they exist, temptation will always exist. It is human nature. Right or wrong doesn't really come into it.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,927
0
0
straydog said:
Ok....I am convinced. I am also convinced that part of the reason we saw a more "human" tour this year was because morning tested was expected by the riders. And therefore, less of them were prepared to take the sort of risks that were previously the norm.

You are right though. This won't stop doping in cycling, or other elite sports for that matter. And honestly, I don't think anything will. One of the few things I agree with Lemond on is that I think it will be a case of "controlling" doping. Setting certain parameters.

The advances in doping products and practices that will happpen in the next five to ten years will be staggering and unavoidable. And while they exist, temptation will always exist. It is human nature. Right or wrong doesn't really come into it.
I think we probably agree on more than we disagree here :)
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
180mmCrank said:
You can't just say if we test people at night we will catch more people doping. There is no evidence of that the folk who are systematically cheating are more likely to be found out if we test them at 3am? At least not any of which I am aware. It's simplistic in the extreme to make statements like 'it will be out of their system by the morning'

It won't make any difference
.
I agree with you except the last line. It would make an incredible difference as Scribe pointed out. And the way the UCI manages who they test at this point it's not beyond belief they would harass the rider not making payoffs by interrupting his sleep. They may as well put sand in his water bottles and flatten the tires.
 
python said:
a simple yes/no poll:

one of the wada io recommendations was to test riders at night.

wake’em up drag’em in a sanitized room, suck some blood, make’m pee in a bottle at 3 am and let’em have some legal sleeping pills if they whine.

do you agree ?

some call it a witch hunt, some call it insane.

some say ‘zero tolerance’ never sleeps.
Simply enforcing the actual protocols as they exist (as the AFLD did in the '09 Tour) is plenty. Not chaperoning riders, letting them "shower" or "having coffee" with them makes the whole thing farsical.

The rules are fine. Gut the UCI and enforce them.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
the tour de france is won in bed

reading the IO report makes it pretty obvious there's a lot of room for improvement without resorting to 3 am controls but...

...3 am controls aren't that big of a deal. riders are forced to, *GASP*, go to bed a half-hour earlier and then guess what...whether they're woken or not the earth will continue spinning on it's axis. anti-doping authorities should have this power and should of course, use it very rarely. the threat, though rarely acted upon, should be there. as the title of my post suggests, rest and sleep are of paramount importance to athletic success and i don't need to be instructed of those facts (i'm actually somewhat obsessed with getting good rest in my personal life). there are ways in which testers can minimize the disruption and additionally, there are ways for riders to successfully cope.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
python said:
i agree. tbh, just having the mind set for getting the riders up this early in the middle of a grand tour is not right.

current rules allow iirc knocking on the door between 6 am and 10 pm. the anti-doping bodies should imo put the onus on the test developers, not the riders.

if the current window of detectability is shorter than 8 hours, make it longer.
Unfortunately it really isn't that simple. The rate at which the human body metabolises compounds is what it is. Hence pretty precise definitions of a drug's half life. The only way to detect a substance is if there are still traces of it in the body. If the particular compound's half life (taking into account dosage etc) is undetectable after 8 hours, there is nothing the testers can do to change that. To put it plainly, the half life expiration means that the drug simply no longer exists in the body.
 
Oct 6, 2010
330
0
0
No way for this, they have plenty of time to test them during the day, they should have at least 8-10 hours a day when no one can bother them and they can have some time to themselves. As was said before it is also unfair to the riders who are woken up in a stage race to the ones that are not...
 
Marcus135 said:
No way for this, they have plenty of time to test them during the day, they should have at least 8-10 hours a day when no one can bother them and they can have some time to themselves. As was said before it is also unfair to the riders who are woken up in a stage race to the ones that are not...
It's more to do with catching dopers at a time when they may actually test positive. 8-10 hours is plenty of time for someone to be microdosing EPO, every day of the Tour, without testing positive in any morning tests. If you give them a window of no tests, you're basically writing their doping regime for them.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A The Clinic 119

ASK THE COMMUNITY