The inconsistency and inadequacy of anti-doping tests

[Vonn Brinkman]

As you all know, Ezequiel Mosquera and David Garcia Dapena were both caught for an EPO-masking agent just a while back. Later on, Garcia Dapena was also caught for EPO, confirming that he used the masking agent to hide his EPO use.

As far as I know, Mosquera wasn't caught for EPO. But the masking agent (sorry I can't spell the name of the agent) doesn't do anything else than hide EPO right? Or do I have that wrong?
Because if this is true, than Mosquera obviously used EPO, for otherwise he wouldn't take the agent. But if that didn't show up during an anti-doping test, it definitely shows that the tests are not accurate enough. I mean, of course you can't catch everything, but this proves to me that what Kohl said seems to be true:
You can get away with doping very easily, and you only get caught once in 100 times. It's all just bad luck.

This pushes me further to really believe in the legalisation of doping. I know it won't happen, but I can't see another way out.
Anti-doping tests are not going to improve very greatly in the coming decades, because the dopers and producers of doping get smarter to.

What do you guys think about anti-doping tests? As far as I see it, they are simply not accurate, not adequate and certainly not consistent. It's unfair to catch some and demonise them as dopers and evil people, but let others walk around freely.

 

[Animal]

Can't catch all criminals?

Abolish the law then.

 

[Lanark]

If you can catch dopers once in a 100 times, that just means you have to increase the tests, not abolish them. I really don't think that's a big problem, unless you absolutely want to catch every doper the first time they use EPO. Don't forget: Kohl can say all he want about how the tests don't work, but they did catch him in the end.

Just because you can't catch everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't try, just legalising the stuff is gonna cost a lot of fatalities.

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

If you can catch dopers once in a 100 times, that just means you have to increase the tests, not abolish them. I really don't think that's a big problem, unless you absolutely want to catch every doper the first time they use EPO. Don't forget: Kohl can say all he want about how the tests don't work, but they did catch him in the end.

Just because you can't catch everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't try, just legalising the stuff is gonna cost a lot of fatalities.

I'm not saying legalisation is an option. It's never going to happen of course.

But I'm arguing that the tests are simply not accurate enough. Increasing them is not going to help a lot.
If it doesn't show up on a test, having three more tests isn't going to make it appear.

 

[scribe]

How do you legalize something that is constantly changing and usually unregulated for safety?

Better to keep it out and keep working on the controls. It is much tighter now than ever. The stakes are high for getting caught. Look at contador. Like they said during chaingate: if you pull that sword out, make sure you don't fall on it.

 

[hrotha]

I assumed García Dapena messed up with the doses of the masking agent and that's why he tested positive for EPO.

More tests means more probabilities of catching someone when he has messed up.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm not saying legalisation is an option. It's never going to happen of course.

But I'm arguing that the tests are simply not accurate enough. Increasing them is not going to help a lot.
If it doesn't show up on a test, having three more tests isn't going to make it appear.

So, is this thread a plea to the test developers to make them more accurate?

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

So, is this thread a plea to the test developers to make them more accurate?

Yes, to all you test developers out there

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, to all you test developers out there

OK cool. I join your fight to implore test devolopers to make the tests more accurate.

 

[TERMINATOR]

As you all know, Ezequiel Mosquera and David Garcia Dapena were both caught for an EPO-masking agent just a while back. Later on, Garcia Dapena was also caught for EPO, confirming that he used the masking agent to hide his EPO use.

As far as I know, Mosquera wasn't caught for EPO. But the masking agent (sorry I can't spell the name of the agent) doesn't do anything else than hide EPO right? Or do I have that wrong?
Because if this is true, than Mosquera obviously used EPO, for otherwise he wouldn't take the agent. But if that didn't show up during an anti-doping test, it definitely shows that the tests are not accurate enough. I mean, of course you can't catch everything, but this proves to me that what Kohl said seems to be true:
You can get away with doping very easily, and you only get caught once in 100 times. It's all just bad luck.

This pushes me further to really believe in the legalisation of doping. I know it won't happen, but I can't see another way out.
Anti-doping tests are not going to improve very greatly in the coming decades, because the dopers and producers of doping get smarter to.

What do you guys think about anti-doping tests? As far as I see it, they are simply not accurate, not adequate and certainly not consistent. It's unfair to catch some and demonise them as dopers and evil people, but let others walk around freely.

The tests are accurate. Stop being obtuse. And 99% of speeders get away with it. Doesn't mean you don't enforce speeding laws.

How many top cyclists have been caught and suspended because of those very same tests you claim are pointless? Let's see:

Heras
Valverde
Landis
Rebellin
Kohl
Schumacher
Hamilton
DiLoser
Lance (next in line, bee-yatch)
O'Bee
Clenbutador
Pantani (>50% hematocrit)
Garzelli
Vandenbroucke
González de Galdeano
Rumsas
Camenzind
Casagranda
Hondo
Pettachi
Stahurskaya
Aitor González
Vinokourov
Mayo
Sinkewitz

 

[indurain666]

The tests are accurate. Stop being obtuse.
Sinkewitz

Funny, how you try to insult the intelligence of the original poster and yet you post some garbage that shows any intelligent human being that you totally missed the point and failed to comprehend the topic.

 

[ChrisE]

....

Why do you start your posts out that way? It obscures your message by making your post personal, instead of subjective. TS is now on the defensive because you have attacked him, and your message is lost.

I suggest some inward reflection. You're welcome.

 

[scribe]

Why do you start your posts out that way? It obscures your message by making your post personal, instead of subjective. TS is now on the defensive because you have attacked him, and your message is lost.

I suggest some inward reflection. You're welcome.

Because certain forum personalities get away with Ad Hominem attacks in their positions. You know, the ones that ride on one side of the fence.

The question is, why would he stop?

 

[ChrisE]

Because certain forum personalities get away with Ad Hominem attacks in their positions. You know, the ones that ride on one side of the fence.

The question is, why would he stop?

I dunno. He called Brodeal that same name the other day. Maybe that was staged just to throw us off.

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

The tests are accurate. Stop being obtuse. And 99% of speeders get away with it. Doesn't mean you don't enforce speeding laws.

How many top cyclists have been caught and suspended because of those very same tests you claim are pointless? Let's see:

[long list of names]

First of all, Terminator, i am not sure what you do here on this forum if you just go about and insult people based on their posts, and then post some irrelevant, obscure information that only shows one side of the issue at hand.

Of course, doping tests have taken down many sinners, but I am trying to argue here that doping tests fail to take down many more dopers.
Simply posting a long list of names of dopers does not strengthen your argument. Since Mosquera did not get caught for EPO, I am wondering if the test simply did not find it, because if the test didn't it means that the agencies must be missing much more.

Actually, nobody even knows what your argument is. So please clarify or go play in a little children's playground with your buddies.

 

[Barrus]

Because certain forum personalities get away with Ad Hominem attacks in their positions. You know, the ones that ride on one side of the fence.

The question is, why would he stop?

Lets not have that talk invade into every thread, now shall we?


Anyway, my opinion is that legalisation is not the way to go. Perhaps nothing can be done about doping, but that does not mean there should not be an attempt to stop up or at least curb it in some.

 

[ChrisE]

.....Actually, nobody even knows what your argument is. So please clarify or go play in a little children's playground with your buddies.

Actually I'm not sure I am following what your argument is. OK, some dopers get away with it. And?

Every day I see people speeding up and down the freeway. Obviously the cops are not catching all of them. And?

What is your point again?

 

[The Hitch]

The tests are accurate. Stop being obtuse. And 99% of speeders get away with it. Doesn't mean you don't enforce speeding laws.

How many top cyclists have been caught and suspended because of those very same tests you claim are pointless? Let's see:

Heras
Valverde
Landis
Rebellin
Kohl
Schumacher
Hamilton
DiLoser
Lance (next in line, bee-yatch)
O'Bee
Clenbutador
Pantani (>50% hematocrit)
Garzelli
Vandenbroucke
González de Galdeano
Rumsas
Camenzind
Casagranda
Hondo
Pettachi
Stahurskaya
Aitor González
Vinokourov
Mayo
Sinkewitz

Valverde wasnt caught by tests I dont think. He got caught because of Operation Puerto. A lot of guys passed tests but got caught in OP which shows just how flawed the tests are.

 

[lean mean &green]

i like to think i'm a bright guy but i don't have the faintest idea what "legalisation" means. essentially, PEDs have been and will continue to be legal to a certain point no matter how good testing technology becomes. the goal is only to make tests more "consistent and adequate" as you say in order to drive down that limit. that is a slow process. passionate fans are often disappointed to find out the easter bunny doesn't exist and predictably look for the quickest fix. while it took about 20 years for the pharmaceutical industry to take over athletic competition, it might take even longer to set things right again and we've only been serious about anti-doping for approx ten years. be patient my friends, please step back from the ledge.

i think cycling and the UCI are at a crossroads. they will provide the example to other sports leagues for years to come one of two ways. they will either succeed by realizing that doing everything in their power to get drugs out of the sport is in their best long term financial interests ....or they will be exposed as fraudulent, become unprofitable, and will be forced to fold becoming a cautionary tale for other leagues/sports. eventually, whether the UCI becomes a casualty or not all sports leagues need to move toward independent testing, passport based systems, etc in order to maintain credibility. to me the UCI looks like one last and final money grab before they fail miserably but who knows?

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

Valverde wasnt caught by tests I dont think. He got caught because of Operation Puerto. A lot of guys passed tests but got caught in OP which shows just how flawed the tests are.

That's exactly my argument.
I am not for legalisation. I just wanted to point out that the tests are not accurate enough. And something needs to be done to improve that, and I am not sure increasing the number of tests will be that solution.
And please people, stop comparing this to speeding laws or stuff like that, this is a bit different.

 

[Oldman]

i like to think i'm a bright guy but i don't have the faintest idea what "legalisation" means. essentially, PEDs have been and will continue to be legal to a certain point no matter how good testing technology becomes. the goal is only to make tests more "consistent and adequate" as you say in order to drive down that limit. that is a slow process. passionate fans are often disappointed to find out the easter bunny doesn't exist and predictably look for the quickest fix. while it took about 20 years for the pharmaceutical industry to take over athletic competition, it might take even longer to set things right again and we've only been serious about anti-doping for approx ten years. be patient my friends, please step back from the ledge.

i think cycling and the UCI are at a crossroads. they will provide the example to other sports leagues for years to come one of two ways. they will either succeed by realizing that doing everything in their power to get drugs out of the sport is in their best long term financial interests ....or they will be exposed as fraudulent, become unprofitable, and will be forced to fold becoming a cautionary tale for other leagues/sports. eventually, whether the UCI becomes a casualty or not all sports leagues need to move toward independent testing, passport based systems, etc in order to maintain credibility. to me the UCI looks like one last and final money grab before they fail miserably but who knows?

It does appear that the UCI reaction to certain cases is inconsistent. The cynics (me included) would attribute much of that to incorrigible corrupt interests within the UCI. If true the tests can be perfect and still have credibility problems. Start with the UCI & stay on it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'm arguing that the tests are simply not accurate enough.

I'm missing the point of your argument? You are saying testing doesn't catch all the cheats, therefore we should _____________.

You fill in the blank. Because to leave it empty the way you did offers little construction to the discussion. The same goes for nearly every other post on here, actually.

The biggest problem with the testing is the amount of false negatives, and corruption of the UCI. The potential solutions to this are overhauling of the UCI from top to bottom, improved testing, more frequent testing (due to half-life), altering accepted standards for positive tests, harsher punishment for all involved (riders and support), or external investigations (OP, Oil for Drugs, Leogrande, FDA, etc.). WADA and various other groups are working at this. No, it hasn't fixed the problem, the sport is rotten to the core, but we are seeing an increase of pressure lately, and I'd like to see all of those solutions implemented to one degree or another.

What is your solution?

 

[The Hitch]

I'm missing the point of your argument? You are saying testing doesn't catch all the cheats, therefore we should _____________.

I dont think theres much we can do sadly.

Offer incentives for riders to confess. 1 year ban if you name your suppliers, dates on which you took drugs, how you beat the tests, tell all basically. Striped of titles on those dates when you took drugs.

Life bans for those who dont tell all + stripped of all previous titles. Im hoping that this would basically become a temporary state for all dopers. If you get stripped of all your titles and cant compete, theres absolutely no reason to go on with Omerta unless you are about to retire anyway.


If the information you give turns out to be wrong in any way,(eg if Basso claims to have doped during Vuelta 09 Tour 04 etc, but not during Giro 2006, and it comes out one day that he did dope Giro 06, life ban + charged with obstruction of justice (if possible) + hefty fine.

Probably would have to have a cut of point. Whole system starts Jan 2012. You dont have to admit to ped use in any event before Jan 2012. But all samples are kept and anyone caught doping has their samples from races they won tested annually.

Anyway, theres the solution boys and girls.

 

[baker0127]

In regards to testing

One would think that by now there is enough testing/tests that are accurate enough to catch most of these things, that the riders are not suppose to use. I think most of what the UCI "does" is just a smoke screen, for the public, sponsors etc... Why would they want to ruin a good thing that they have had for a very long time. IMHO the time is NOW, no more of this crap ruining what started out as a good sport, the sport of cycling. JB

 

[scribe]

Valverde wasnt caught by tests I dont think. He got caught because of Operation Puerto. A lot of guys passed tests but got caught in OP which shows just how flawed the tests are.

Scratch that and insert "limited" the tests are, and you and I agree.