Which sport DOES have the toughest, most effective testing program?

Jul 1, 2009
226
0
0
Responding to Mark McGwire's baseball steroid admission today, baseball commissioner Bud Selig stated (in part):

"While we, along with all sports organizations, continue to battle the use of such drugs and continue the intensive search for a valid test for HGH, I believe our drug testing program is the toughest and most effective in professional sports."

He goes on to quantify the high number tests and low number of positives. Full statement here:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_relea...ent_id=7900902&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I think Selig is deluding himself with this (not so) old "we test and don't catch many" measure of effectiveness. I also don't know when the last baseball player was suspended for two years (and some virtually for life) and where he gets toughest.

Has anyone come across a journalistic lineup of sports and their testing programs, practices and statistics? I'm on the lookout to see if any baseball writer (or maybe cycling editor) will care to give some relative attention to what cycling has done so far as opposed to the normal mainstream MO of just bashing cycling when someone is caught.

Could cycling claim to have the toughest and most effective drug testing program in professional sports?
 
It's better than any sport I can think of, but saying that more can be done.

Even if they only do catch the guys with not much money on small programmes (occasionally a big fish), it's still more than I hear in other sports.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
A sport can have the most effective drug testing program on earth, and it doesn't mean a thing without repercussive action against all those involved in cheating.

Cycling is trying... they're just not DOING. Granted, they are trying harder than many other sports, they do need to get their collective a$s in gear.

Do not get me started on baseball's ignorance, denial, and inaction.
 
luckyboy said:
It's better than any sport I can think of, but saying that more can be done.

Even if they only do catch the guys with not much money on small programmes (occasionally a big fish), it's still more than I hear in other sports.

Or does the fact that is all they catch make it more arbitrary and unfair?
 
No sport has an effective doping testing program. No sport wants to have one. They just want a public relations project that occasionally catches someone so they can claim they are doing something and the dope testing program works.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Psalmon said:
Could cycling claim to have the toughest and most effective drug testing program in professional sports?

Cycling may be able to claim the toughest program, I can't think of another sport that has two year bans for 1st time offenders. But cycling cannot claim to have the most effective program until it convinces us that the program really seeks to remove all dopers from the peloton.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
The testing for cycling is the same as other Olympic sports, it is all under the WADA code. Track and Field (Athletics) is actually tested more.
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
Cycling is trying, but the base argument of no positive test results is not proof of an effective system.

Baseball for the most part does not have much need of PED's other than steroids. So not a great one to one comparison to track and field, cycling, triathlon, cross-country skiing, rowing and related endurance sports.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
It would have to be cycling, they catch the real big fish but get scapegoated in the general media for having a full sport of dopers.

Our swimmers on the other hand are saints and all the results are clean and have always had good results. :rolleyes:
Swimming doesn't catch many big fish at all and doesn't really catch any sardines metaphorically speaking.

Each day during the olympics we had 7 replays of the same event of swimming when their were far more entertaining and interesting events.

During the 2006 Commonwealth Games, our cyclists won far more medals percentage based than the swimmers but we hardly got any coverage.:mad:

It annoys me how "innocent" and awesome the australian media percept the swimmers are.
 
tifosa said:
A sport can have the most effective drug testing program on earth, and it doesn't mean a thing without repercussive action against all those involved in cheating.

Cycling is trying... they're just not DOING. Granted, they are trying harder than many other sports, they do need to get their collective a$s in gear.

Do not get me started on baseball's ignorance, denial, and inaction.
I'll second this thought.

The high tech system is worthless if you don't use it.

What cycling is doing is crab, because is only catching the small fish.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
shouldn’t we come up with the set of criteria before comparing different sports?

and even if we had, do we know other sports as well as we know cycling to compare’m properly?

to me whatever the spread of opinions they’re all wild guesses b/s of one key unknown - prevalence of doping in the particular sport… the percentage of those who actually dope.

w/o the objective knowledge there is no way to compare realistically.

we do have some broad lines to go by. i trust cycling b/c it has seven mothers has done more than many other sports.

if the question is narrowed to only the testing effectiveness, based on some personal experience id have to go with the xc skiing. fis has introduced blood parameters limits a while back and they've been comparatively less corrupt enforcing them. also most nordic countries(with the noticeable exceptions of the fsu republics) have established very tough self policing measures.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
small fish?

Vino, Basso, Rasmussen, Di Luca, Ullrich etc etc

that is like in tennis if Murray, Roddick, Nadal, Djkovic and a couple of other top 20 players all got busted between now and Wimbledon 2011.

imagine the outcry - it will never happen of course, but you look at the size of some of those guys and how quick they can move for four hours every other day for 2 weeks and :rolleyes:
 
Winterfold said:
Vino, Basso, Rasmussen, Di Luca, Ullrich etc etc

that is like in tennis if Murray, Roddick, Nadal, Djkovic and a couple of other top 20 players all got busted between now and Wimbledon 2011.

imagine the outcry - it will never happen of course, but you look at the size of some of those guys and how quick they can move for four hours every other day for 2 weeks and :rolleyes:

Basso, Rass and Ullrich didn't get banned for a positive test. And Jan just "retired".

Which is reason for alarm over the system not working. No doubt they were doping most of their careers but it takes other circumstances to find them guilty, not a positive test.
 
Winterfold said:
Vino, Basso, Rasmussen, Di Luca, Ullrich etc etc

that is like in tennis if Murray, Roddick, Nadal, Djkovic and a couple of other top 20 players all got busted between now and Wimbledon 2011.

imagine the outcry - it will never happen of course, but you look at the size of some of those guys and how quick they can move for four hours every other day for 2 weeks and :rolleyes:
You are confused. Here is why:

- Ulrich: Operacion Puerto: Thanks Madrid Police and German authorities.
- Basso: Operacion Puerto: thanks Madrid Police and Italian Authorities.
- Rasmussen: Thanks Italian commentator Cassani who broke the news that he was in Italy training and not in Mexico. At the same time the Danish authorities were pulling him off from the national Danish team for the Worlds. UCI did nothing but watch until the end.
- Vino: tested positive for homologous blood doping. Not related with the Biological Passport at the time. Tested by the french lab. The Biological passport came into effect at the end of 2007 so it could not have been the work of the passport either.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2007...sts-positive-astana-withdraws-from-tour_12910

- Di Luca: tested for CERA. Probably made a mistake when doping with his blood bags. The UCI claims that it was targeted by the passport, but so are all the GC contenders in the Grand Tours. Besides they loose credibility when they said it was the CERA that was found in the blood which is easily tested for nowadays.

Up to date with the use of the Biological Passport the UCI have opened a doping infraction in the following riders:

Igor Astarloa, Ricardo Serrano and Rubén Lobato, and Italians Pietro Caucchioli and Francesco De Bonis

Here is the link: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/biological-passport-panel-to-discuss-suspect-cases

So based on the so high tech testing process they have no big fish.

I rest my case.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
Escarabajo said:
I'll second this thought.

The high tech system is worthless if you don't use it.

What cycling is doing is crab, because is only catching the small fish.

Please define "don't use it".

Lance Armstrong for instance got tested somewhere close to 40 times last year. I am sure that many others were tested frequently also.

Are you saying that they did not test these riders enough? How often would be enough? 50? 80? Every day of the year?

Are you saying that they took the samples, but didn't actually test them?

Are you saying that WADA has a magic machine that can catch any doper, but that they only use it on lower level riders? (Like Di Luca, Rebellin, Schumacher, Ricco, Hamilton, Landis and Kohl???) Didn't Landis and Hamilton win some fairly big races before they got popped?

If you MEAN that the testing capabilities are not up to the science of doping, then maybe that is what you should say.

Or are you really saying that you just "__KNOW__" that Armstrong and Contador are as dirty as they come and until they finally test positive WADA, USADA and AFLD aren't really trying?

Thanks.

Kevin
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
It would have to be cycling, they catch the real big fish but get scapegoated in the general media for having a full sport of dopers.

Our swimmers on the other hand are saints and all the results are clean and have always had good results. :rolleyes:
Swimming doesn't catch many big fish at all and doesn't really catch any sardines metaphorically speaking.

Each day during the olympics we had 7 replays of the same event of swimming when their were far more entertaining and interesting events.

During the 2006 Commonwealth Games, our cyclists won far more medals percentage based than the swimmers but we hardly got any coverage.:mad:

It annoys me how "innocent" and awesome the australian media percept the swimmers are.

Do any of the bike riders look like Jodie Henry or Stephanie Rice? Look at the Rowing thread and compare those two with the picture of the female rider. Swimming has more lookers for a start. Oh and we always have a winner in the pool.
 
nslckevin said:
Please define "don't use it".

Lance Armstrong for instance got tested somewhere close to 40 times last year. I am sure that many others were tested frequently also.

Are you saying that they did not test these riders enough? How often would be enough? 50? 80? Every day of the year?

Are you saying that they took the samples, but didn't actually test them?

Are you saying that WADA has a magic machine that can catch any doper, but that they only use it on lower level riders? (Like Di Luca, Rebellin, Schumacher, Ricco, Hamilton, Landis and Kohl???) Didn't Landis and Hamilton win some fairly big races before they got popped?

If you MEAN that the testing capabilities are not up to the science of doping, then maybe that is what you should say.

Or are you really saying that you just "__KNOW__" that Armstrong and Contador are as dirty as they come and until they finally test positive WADA, USADA and AFLD aren't really trying?

Thanks.

Kevin

Schumacher, Ricco and Kohl got done by AFLD for CERA, not the passport. Rebellin same thing but WADA.

What he's saying is that they are testing enough, but not acting on them (i.e. not using the passport).

Armstrong's values show use of transfusions, no doubt Contador's look the same, as with Menchov for the Giro etc etc. If they were using the passport seriously they wouldn't be allowing mid-GT transfusions.

Then again they could just bring in CO testing.
 
nslckevin said:
Please define "don't use it".

Lance Armstrong for instance got tested somewhere close to 40 times last year. I am sure that many others were tested frequently also.

Are you saying that they did not test these riders enough? How often would be enough? 50? 80? Every day of the year?

Are you saying that they took the samples, but didn't actually test them?

Are you saying that WADA has a magic machine that can catch any doper, but that they only use it on lower level riders? (Like Di Luca, Rebellin, Schumacher, Ricco, Hamilton, Landis and Kohl???) Didn't Landis and Hamilton win some fairly big races before they got popped?

If you MEAN that the testing capabilities are not up to the science of doping, then maybe that is what you should say.

Or are you really saying that you just "__KNOW__" that Armstrong and Contador are as dirty as they come and until they finally test positive WADA, USADA and AFLD aren't really trying?

Thanks.

Kevin
I probably should have said “properly used” instead of “don't use it”.

But FWIW, I am basically and simply saying that Lance Armstrong Blood Doped during the Tour de France. So practically speaking, with the Bio Passport, is still possible to catch the dopers but the max and low parameters considered for doping are just too far off. The UCI needs to improve or properly use this tool to punish the dopers.

Tell me or explain to me, how does an athlete like Lance keep his retics at around 0.5% during most of his tour while the rest of the year his numbers were clearly above this value?

Here is the data for Lance Armstrong numbers that he posted on the web. You can check it yourself:

http://cdn-community2.livestrong.co...c981f7be-e46c-4245-aa9d-d61ae110a264.Full.jpg

This is a graphical plot of the same data:

Mellow Velo said:
Found this elsewhere and thought it the clearest, "idiot proof" (well almost) depiction of whats' wrong with Armstrong's stats:-

lancearmstrongblood2009.png


As the poster said: "A picture paints a thousand words."

It actually was discussed in this thread:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=3216

And in this one also:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=3379

Here is a chart of the variation of the offscore during the year:

Cobber said:
OK, just entered all of LA's blood values from the past year into a spreadsheet and graphed it. Shaded in blue is the normal range (85-95) for OFF-score. Anyone want to bet that LA got transfused immediately before the TdF? Based on how quickly it dropped after 6/16/09, if he was tested a week earlier he may have been above the 133 cutoff. Seems ironic to me that these values were posted by LA as evidence that he doesn't dope...

2qnab02.jpg

This is an explanation from one of our resources in this forum:

Cobblestones said:
Great graph. Says more than a thousand words.

You see the drop during the Giro. You would expect a similar drop for the TdF. But what you get is something completely different...

Some of you ask: why would LA post these values at all if they're so incriminating. I think the answer is that LA couldn't care less about it as long as it's below the official limits. It's the old Vreiman excuse: 'not sanctionable'.

I do remember that in the other thread (where we discussed the mysteriously changing values) I came out and said: look at the December 08, it looks like he got blood drawn and then likely microdosed. You can see that in the curve here. It looks a little like the Giro drop.

Also, have a look at Wiggins's charts for the TdF and the Giro. Similar pattern there.

In the second thread check the first link where there is another Doctor “Local Cyclist” discussing Lance Armstrong numbers and the natural trend of the blood parameters.

Finally the translation of the analysis done by a Danish Scientist. In fact this is the same scientist that is working on the autologous blood transfusion Doping test.

Here is the translation into English.

http://translate.google.com/transla...article1215712.ece&sl=da&tl=en&history_state0

Note that unless he had a bad case of diarrhea or dehydration those numbers are not normal. And between you and me I don’t think that an athlete that had a strong case of diarrhea or dehydration (during the rest day) could climb with the best the following few days.

So yes, I don’t care if he is tested 1000 times; I could care less because they don’t have a test for autologous blood transfusion doping. The only thing that they can use is the Bio Passport and it looks like is not being properly used.

Last but not least, if you want to really punish the dopers with the Bio Passport, the only thing that they have to do is compare the hematocrit levels from <2007 and 2006 versus the ones they have today and they would wipe at least 50% of the peloton. But who cares now, it looks like the UCI have given some am misty to the dopers.

Sorry for the long post.
Thanks.
 
Aug 6, 2009
32
0
0
Funny when people say no "big fish" they are clearly referring to Lance.

But it is quite clear from list alredy given that cycling has netted some big names. I dont think Ricco or his other teamate has been mentioned yet and Valverde is also walking on a tightrope at the moment. Also forgot Thomas Dekker who was a future tour contender until the source of his potential was discovered.
 
awal3207 said:
Funny when people say no "big fish" they are clearly referring to Lance.

But it is quite clear from list alredy given that cycling has netted some big names. I dont think Ricco or his other teamate has been mentioned yet and Valverde is also walking on a tightrope at the moment. Also forgot Thomas Dekker who was a future tour contender until the source of his potential was discovered.

Ricco was caught by the AFLD. Cycling had nothing to do with it.

Valverde was caught by the police. Cycling had nothing to do with it.

Who knows why the UCI wanted to test Dekker's old samples. They could have just as easily retoractively tested numerous other riders. That is why no one trusts the UCI. They could have tested a large, random selection of samples from 2008 that were taken prior to the AFLD revealing that they could detect CERA. Instead the UCI refused to test the 2008 Giro samples. So it leaves the fans to wonder why the UCI takes one rider down and ignores the obvious doping in others.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
1
0
Hey the horse racing has a good policy . A top Jocky found with Efedera he used for waight control . he got two weeks suspension poor b!!!
dont know what the horse was on
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Winterfold said:
Vino, Basso, Rasmussen, Di Luca, Ullrich etc etc

that is like in tennis if Murray, Roddick, Nadal, Djkovic and a couple of other top 20 players all got busted between now and Wimbledon 2011.

imagine the outcry - it will never happen of course, but you look at the size of some of those guys and how quick they can move for four hours every other day for 2 weeks and :rolleyes:

There is a local tennis player at the age of 17 (IIRC) by the name of Bernard Tomic who was a wildcard at the Australian Open last year, and probably will get it this year as well (?), and in the last year he has grown 10cm (nearly 4'') to 196cm (6ft 4") and can now serve a tennis ball up to 200km/h. WTF?!