What is "enough" when it comes to doping controls?

With all the accusations being thrown around, what would you personally accept as a reasonable level of doping control?

I'd say at least twice a month with samples stored for not less than 5 years for re-testing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
King Boonen said:
With all the accusations being thrown around, what would you personally accept as a reasonable level of doping control?

I'd say at least twice a month with samples stored for not less than 5 years for re-testing.
Once a week! and samples stored for 10 years.

I think that a % of purse money should go to the payment for testing and storage.

It always gets me when competitors ***** about being tested instead of celebrating that the relevant authorities are trying to catch dopers and they are very pleased to have this opportunity to prove they are doing it clean.

Instead we get what is meant as anger, but comes out as whinging.
 
Biopassport: Monthly blood draws.
Plus prerace
Plus post race for stage races. (and and least once during the race for GTs)

Other Blood:
Rarely, but if necessary you could use the biopassport samples taken above

Urine:
Pretty much as is now. Look for stimulants/diuretics during races.

Its very hard to catch anabolic agents unless the timing is just right. So no fixed schedule but target testing during specific training blocks.
 
King Boonen said:
With all the accusations being thrown around, what would you personally accept as a reasonable level of doping control?

I'd say at least twice a month with samples stored for not less than 5 years for re-testing.
Easy. When Pat McQuaid is behind bars for sporting fraud. That will represent reasonable level of doping control.

Dave.
 
May 29, 2012
169
0
0
Before changing any controls, surely, as Travis Tygart has stated recently, there needs to be a "Truth And Reconciliation Commission to clean up the sport of cycling once and for all." Associated Press
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
King Boonen said:
With all the accusations being thrown around, what would you personally accept as a reasonable level of doping control?

I'd say at least twice a month with samples stored for not less than 5 years for re-testing.
I think samples ought to be taken with at least enough for 6 tests. An A and B set for immediate testing, plus two more sets to be stored for 10 years. When a test is developed for a drug that is known to have been widespread at a particular time (and let's not pretend they don't have an idea what is used when), you test one of the extra sets.

The first three placed athletes on any stage plus the top five on GC get tested at the end of the day for stage races, and the top 5 in a one-day. Anyone wishing to be in contention for being awarded a title after another rider tests positive must have been tested, voluntarily if needed. They must have been tested on that day for a stage or classic and at least half as much as the rider who initially came first.

Let's publicise who was tested and when, as well. Too much is kept behind closed doors, and is one corrupt bureaucrat away from a scandal. Publish the figures and let "the Apostles" look at them. Another important procedural factor is to take as much control as possible away from governing bodies. There is a lot of evidence that people essentially act in their self-interest. Let's not give anyone any incentive for corruption.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Benotti69 said:
Once a week! and samples stored for 10 years.
Effective, but extremely expensive. Also it seems to be really invasive.

Keep in mind that a lot of sportsman don't earn much above the minimum, so it's impossible to put the cost on their shoulders.

A cheap realible tamperproof selftest would be nice. No idea if that's remotely possible though :)
 
Franklin said:
Effective, but extremely expensive. Also it seems to be really invasive.

Keep in mind that a lot of sportsman don't earn much above the minimum, so it's impossible to put the cost on their shoulders.
They hold for eight now, so the expense isn't so much. Eight seems like a good number.

AFAICT, testing old samples is not done frequently. I've long been an advocate for much more back-dated testing.

One of the fundamental problems with the anti-doping system is all authority rests with the federation. This is where we get the issue of suppressed positives among other corruption issues at the UCI. I'd say let WADA handle all the test processing including issuing the AAF with the federation the athlete advocate.

The problem that giving WADA more authority is that then the IOC has lost control of anti-doping and that *will* harm the Olympic brand. They've got a very dope-friendly attitude inside the IOC. See the Sports Illustrate Armstrong article for a USOC example.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Doping control needs to happen really, really early.

I have been wondering if you could force a potential cyclist to spend 6months - 1 year off the bike while they undergo baseline testing to establish "normal" parameters - given HGH and T, etc should not have much effect if you are not training.

Similar to the Kierin in Japan, but not as stringent.

Unrealistic and expensive, I realise, but otherwise - eg: USAC doping juniors and when they enter pro ranks their baseline is already enhanced so they can continue to dope right?

I'll keep thinking ;)
 
D-Queued said:
Easy. When Pat McQuaid is behind bars for sporting fraud. That will represent reasonable level of doping control.

Dave.
Well you have to wonder. Armstrong's assertions that he never tested positive against the USADA's statement that they have found clear blood anomalies in Lance's samples. In parallel with the shocking record of Tour riders that made the podium and tested positive at the time or later. There is a stench in the air and what of the ASO and their testing ?
 
WADA in control, much more out of competition testing.

How many are planned for these Olympics? 3000? They could have 300 for all the good it will do, and use the other 2700 three months ago.

Beauty of OOC is the event itself is not tarnished, I'm surprised IOC doesn't see it that way (although 75% if the current competitors might be missing lol)
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
12 truly random (dates) tests per year OOC conducted on all riders between the months of March and October. Ten (truly) randomly chosen riders each day at each major event. Perhaps having a particularly strong emphasis on the months of April - June.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
zero, nada, none

is "enough" :rolleyes:

Everyone is presumed guilty ... or else they would not have testing. So the more you treat the riders as criminals ... the more likely they're gonna become criminals.

But wait ! .... some will say . If we don't test then everyone will take as much of whatever they want to. I say ... LET THEM ! So what ? "Testing" protects who from what ? Pro cycling is a corrupt sport, through and through. Testing protects not the riders from other riders .. or the sponsors ... it protects those behind the scenes that are profiting in infinite ways from the sport being kept alive at any cost to human beings. "Clean cycling" ... as so many seem to think is gonna happen ... is not gonna happen as long as it is set up with such grand rewards and run by corrupt people .
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
King Boonen said:
With all the accusations being thrown around, what would you personally accept as a reasonable level of doping control?

I'd say at least twice a month with samples stored for not less than 5 years for re-testing.
Either none....

Or total body hemoglobin count out of competition and in......thats it. :)
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
BigBoat said:
Either none....

Or total body hemoglobin count out of competition and in......thats it. :)
Whatever happened to total haemo testing - it was mentioned what seems like years ago. Still no test done? Not ratified?
 
Jul 8, 2012
105
0
0
More than is done now, at least 10-12 per year, with the emphasis on out of competition testing. When caught ban them for life (may make others think twice if there is a draconian punishment).
 
This is interesting to me because my Ph.D. was done developing and using technology that could be used as an in-field urine analysis device.

This would allow for many more tests to be done, and then for a B sample to be analysed at a lab at a later date should the initial test produce a positive.

It 's good to see there are a lot of sensible suggestions, once a month seems fair as a minimum.

I also agree with dirtyworks, it should be a completely independent body that handles all dope testing and sanctioning that should be the same across all sports. This body would have to be funded by the sports themselves, either through reduced prize money or particular sponsors sponsoring the tests (I believe Glaxo provided the lab for the 2012 Olympics).
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Doping control is an expensive business. I was working casually for a company called IDTM for a little while and they are charging national sporting federations somewhere in the range of US$500-1000 PER SAMPLE to be analyzed. So the issue of out of competition testing is a matter of economics.

After reading that article by Victor Conte about "ducking and weaving" I think the best cost effective approach is targeted testing. Maybe you have 6 mandatory random out of competition tests annually, but as soon as any athlete fails to show, then you hit them with tests on a weekly or fortnightly basis in the specific prep phase.

It won't take long for athletes to learn that if you "duck and weave" and miss a single test at any stage in the year, then you can expect to be hassled like ******y when you most want/need to be using your PEDs.

Of course this all requires buy-in from the IOC, UCI, IAAF, FINA, ITU, FISA etc and NSOs of individual nations or it just goes nowhere.
 
Krebs cycle said:
Doping control is an expensive business. I was working casually for a company called IDTM for a little while and they are charging national sporting federations somewhere in the range of US$500-1000 PER SAMPLE to be analyzed. So the issue of out of competition testing is a matter of economics.

After reading that article by Victor Conte about "ducking and weaving" I think the best cost effective approach is targeted testing. Maybe you have 6 mandatory random out of competition tests annually, but as soon as any athlete fails to show, then you hit them with tests on a weekly or fortnightly basis in the specific prep phase.

It won't take long for athletes to learn that if you "duck and weave" and miss a single test at any stage in the year, then you can expect to be hassled like ******y when you most want/need to be using your PEDs.

Of course this all requires buy-in from the IOC, UCI, IAAF, FINA, ITU, FISA etc and NSOs of individual nations or it just goes nowhere.
Sounds like a fair price, we'd charge an external company about 350 dollars for accurate mass measurements and that's pretty cheap.

Sounds like a good plan, I like the idea of targeted testing. Are there any laws that would prohibit this though?
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
King Boonen said:
Sounds like a fair price, we'd charge an external company about 350 dollars for accurate mass measurements and that's pretty cheap.

Sounds like a good plan, I like the idea of targeted testing. Are there any laws that would prohibit this though?
Not in Australia that I know of. Athletes can be tested literally everyday afaik.

Where I believe there is lose control is on enforcing the rules on missed tests. Athletes routinely do not update their whereabouts data and they miss random tests. Missing that one test is all the warning you need that another random check might come again within the next 7 days, and in my experience what actually happened on several occasions is that a test was missed, then we found the athlete a few day as later, tested them, and since the test was completed within a 2 week window, then it was not recorded as an official "strike". Problem is that the athlete thus had advance warning in those circumstances.

It's a tough sell though to launch anti-doping proceedings against some young 20yr old kid who simply forgets that he has to be at home at a certain time on a certain day of the week, but then again, if you don't like the added responsibility that comes with being a competitor at international level, then chose another vocation.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
the big ring said:
Whatever happened to total haemo testing - it was mentioned what seems like years ago. Still no test done? Not ratified?
This really would be awesome, but logistically I think it would be impossible to implement because the method in its re-breathing form is way too easy to sabotage. It might work if the carbon-monoxide is introduced via injection somehow, but I'm not aware of any method yet that does this. Could be really awesome though if one was developed.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS