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

[python]

@Escarabajo

very informative post and thanks for putting it all together.

i spoke several times to the problem you highlighted - the uci insufficient action on biopassport data. it is both their fault (lack of will) and not their fault (lack of solid scientific legal foundation).

rhetoric aside in a nut shell it comes down to the overused yet true cliché whether the punishment fits the crime. xplaing...

(i) lack of political will.
the uci is not a strong organization. compared to many of its counterparts in other sports it does not enjoy the same authority. this creates a mentality where ad is run by the uci lawyers who are, is it really a surprise, trapped between the uci political proclamations (‘zero tolerance’), corruption, and the objective lack of successful cases based on bio profiling.

(ii) lack of solid scientific legal foundation
it’s a real double- edged sword, just as it sounds, that can chop down ones own head if hes not careful. a bio profile-based sporting sanction that would stick in cas is inherently more difficult than the one based on direct testing (substance presence/absence). the legally defensible level of confidence needs to be very high. the pechstein case proves the point: her % retics was so out of whack in so many cases that it was impossible to ignore.

is there a fair solution?

absolutely!

ashenden pointed to it many times. and some federations (again my favorite fis but not the uci) already practice it - suspend an athlete from competition for a number of weeks not years if his blood profile (z-score, off-score. %rets) is are suspicious.

this is both fair and logical. fair because an athlete can return to racing soon. logical because the scientific level of confidence is insufficient in many cases to justify a 2 year suspension. the suing fest never started and avoided.

very simple - if the punishment fit the crime armstrong would i am certain have sat out the 2009 tour. I care little if hes “actually” caught with the hand in a cookie jar. i harbor no revenge or ill feeling towards the cancer survivor. my driver is simple - if he or anyone else is micro dosing their own blood, it’s dangerous to their health and they don’t compete. Period. No police raids, no night searches, no garbage sniffing.

what we got instead was the almost certain doper flinging his ’values’ in our faces fully aware of and exploiting the uci’s impotence. why? because the UCI is unrealistic with regard to both its political proclamations and the state of science.

a case of having a cake and eating it too?

 

[Offtheback]

Haven't looked, but I wonder if there's an active soccer forum that concerns itself much on their doping players, or do the fans just enjoy watching the game and their favorite team?

 

[nslckevin]

I certainly can't refute what you've written, but consider this quote from Paul Kimmage.

“Lemond was in trouble. He had a bout of diarrhea. He rode by me with thirty kilometers to go, surrounded by his domestiques bringing him to the front. God the smell was terrible. It was rolling down his legs. I know if it was me I would stop. But then I am not capable of winning the Tour de France. He is, and I suppose that's the difference."
-- Paul Kimmage

This was in 1986 and Lemond went on to win that Tour de France.

My point is that it IS possible to have diarrhea and make it through the Tour just fine. If that is the case, then blood doping is NOT the only possible explanation of the blood values that you cite. Can you really justify taking away somebody's career (anybody in cycling, not just Armstrong) without definitive proof that they are doping?

Forget what you "KNOW", what can you PROVE? If you can't PROVE that blood doping is the only possible explanation, then they (UCI, WADA, etc.) are doing all that they reasonably can.

Kevin

 

[Race Radio]

I certainly can't refute what you've written, but consider this quote from Paul Kimmage.

“Lemond was in trouble. He had a bout of diarrhea. He rode by me with thirty kilometers to go, surrounded by his domestiques bringing him to the front. God the smell was terrible. It was rolling down his legs. I know if it was me I would stop. But then I am not capable of winning the Tour de France. He is, and I suppose that's the difference."
-- Paul Kimmage

This was in 1986 and Lemond went on to win that Tour de France.

My point is that it IS possible to have diarrhea and make it through the Tour just fine. If that is the case, then blood doping is NOT the only possible explanation of the blood values that you cite. Can you really justify taking away somebody's career (anybody in cycling, not just Armstrong) without definitive proof that they are doping?

Forget what you "KNOW", what can you PROVE? If you can't PROVE that blood doping is the only possible explanation, then they (UCI, WADA, etc.) are doing all that they reasonably can.

Kevin

How does having diarrhea make your body stop producing RBC?

Armstrong's numbers are questionable not just because his Hct increased 10% from his off season baseline during the third week of the Tour but also because his Reticulocytes dropped off the map. This is a very good sign that he took a bag of blood.

 

[Digger]

I certainly can't refute what you've written, but consider this quote from Paul Kimmage.

“Lemond was in trouble. He had a bout of diarrhea. He rode by me with thirty kilometers to go, surrounded by his domestiques bringing him to the front. God the smell was terrible. It was rolling down his legs. I know if it was me I would stop. But then I am not capable of winning the Tour de France. He is, and I suppose that's the difference."
-- Paul Kimmage
This was in 1986 and Lemond went on to win that Tour de France.

My point is that it IS possible to have diarrhea and make it through the Tour just fine. If that is the case, then blood doping is NOT the only possible explanation of the blood values that you cite. Can you really justify taking away somebody's career (anybody in cycling, not just Armstrong) without definitive proof that they are doping?

Forget what you "KNOW", what can you PROVE? If you can't PROVE that blood doping is the only possible explanation, then they (UCI, WADA, etc.) are doing all that they reasonably can.

Kevin

Problem with your point: That occured in the Giro. He won the Tour, not the Giro.

 

[poupou]

My point is that it IS possible to have diarrhea and make it through the Tour just fine. If that is the case, then blood doping is NOT the only possible explanation of the blood values that you cite. Can you really justify taking away somebody's career (anybody in cycling, not just Armstrong) without definitive proof that they are doping?

To have one day diarrhea is one thing... but to have diarrhea just the most important day and to perform well is very different.

Did you notice riders or journalists speaking of that kind of incident? Which riders did it smell or had saw something?
Do you smell something wrong here?

 

[Race Radio]

Problem with your point: That occured in the Giro. He won the Tour, not the Giro.

Sounds like Public Strategies needs to fine tune their talking points.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

(ii) lack of solid scientific legal foundation
it’s a real double- edged sword, just as it sounds, that can chop down ones own head if hes not careful. a bio profile-based sporting sanction that would stick in cas is inherently more difficult than the one based on direct testing (substance presence/absence). the legally defensible level of confidence needs to be very high. the pechstein case proves the point: her % retics was so out of whack in so many cases that it was impossible to ignore.

is there a fair solution?

absolutely!

ashenden pointed to it many times. and some federations (again my favorite fis but not the uci) already practice it - suspend an athlete from competition for a number of weeks not years if his blood profile (z-score, off-score. %rets) is are suspicious.

this is both fair and logical. fair because an athlete can return to racing soon. logical because the scientific level of confidence is insufficient in many cases to justify a 2 year suspension. the suing fest never started and avoided.

very simple - if the punishment fit the crime armstrong would i am certain have sat out the 2009 tour...

Good points Python. I am afraid that you are right about a definite proof. But I also think and am a believer that shorter penalties would fit the purpose better. Having Lance sit down for 2-3 weeks for his irregular values would have made a huge damage to his image. Even if the penalty happens after the tour once the UCI panel of scientists finished evaluating the information.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Kevin

Thanks for your response Kevin.

I think I made my point clear that the UCI still needs to properly use their best high tech anti doping tool which is called the Biological Passport. Even if it is shorter penalties (weeks or few months) for offenders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?

To go back to the original question - many sports claim they are the most effective however none are.

As long as the individual sporting authorities are in charge of their Anti-Doping collection and sanctions most of what we hear and read is simply 'window dressing' for the media.

 

[nslckevin]

How does having diarrhea make your body stop producing RBC?

Armstrong's numbers are questionable not just because his Hct increased 10% from his off season baseline during the third week of the Tour but also because his Reticulocytes dropped off the map. This is a very good sign that he took a bag of blood.

I was replying to what Escarabajo wrote (see below):

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.

...

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.

As was pointed out in another reply, I wasn't quite correct in my mention of Lemond having diarrhea in the 1986 Tour. It was the Giro and Lemond finished 4th in 1986, 2:26 behind Visentini.

So, it turns out that you CAN have diarrhea in the middle of a stage race and still finish well. This implies that blood doping is NOT THE ONLY way for those numbers to be out of whack.

So, again the question is: Can you punish somebody for an offense using evidence that may or may not be proof of doping? I want to see dopers caught and punished, but only if we can PROVE that they doped. Where PROVE means 100%, not maybe/probably.

Kevin

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Problem with your point: That occured in the Giro. He won the Tour, not the Giro.

....And it occured in the Giro of 89 - not 1986 - where Lemond finished 39th.

 

[Winterfold]

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.

I am not confused. You could be less patronising.

I used the term 'busted' not failed a specific test for a particular substance.

Tell me another sport where big name participants are banned on account of suspicion of them having blood-doped. I chose the tennis analogy carefully - we have reasonable grounds to believe that there were tennis players seeing Fuentes. Where are the busts and bans?

If someone is spending big money on an elite blood-doping programme it is difficult to know how you catch them, short of them inadvertently using a bag with some off-season substance in it. EG Landis. Categorically not a small fish.

The OP and points I was respondiing to were about the overall testing programme and then several posters commented on 'small fish'. I was not referring to the biological passport specifically - if you are then that's fine - but please dont tell me I am confused.

 

[workingclasshero]

....And it occured in the Giro of 89 - not 1986 - where Lemond finished 39th.

haha. the straw keeps getting thinner

mr kevin, how about answering race radio's question. in stead of just saying that wasn't what you were addressing before - address it now?? any chance at all?

 

[Race Radio]

As was pointed out in another reply, I wasn't quite correct in my mention of Lemond having diarrhea in the 1986 Tour. It was the Giro and Lemond finished 4th in 1986, 2:26 behind Visentini.

So, it turns out that you CAN have diarrhea in the middle of a stage race and still finish well. This implies that blood doping is NOT THE ONLY way for those numbers to be out of whack.

So, again the question is: Can you punish somebody for an offense using evidence that may or may not be proof of doping? I want to see dopers caught and punished, but only if we can PROVE that they doped. Where PROVE means 100%, not maybe/probably.

Kevin

As has been pointed out Lemond finished way back in the 1989 Giro. The Diarrhea excuse has been used effectively to escape a sanction by Micheal Schumacher. He had a Hct of over 50% the day before the Worlds in his home town of Stuttgart. His mother, a doctor, wrote a note saying he had the $hits. His extreme dehydration did not seem to hurt him as he made the podium...only to test positive for CERA later.

Armstrong's numbers have been questioned by many experts. He has not provided any explanation. Instead of saying he had a bad tummy he took his numbers down and stomped around like a baby. Riders world wide are looking forward to hearing about how diarrhea helped him have such a good final week of the Tour.

So back to my question, How does having diarrhea make your body stop producing RBC?

 

[Escarabajo]

I am not confused. You could be less patronising.

I used the term 'busted' not failed a specific test for a particular substance.

Tell me another sport where big name participants are banned on account of suspicion of them having blood-doped. I chose the tennis analogy carefully - we have reasonable grounds to believe that there were tennis players seeing Fuentes. Where are the busts and bans?

If someone is spending big money on an elite blood-doping programme it is difficult to know how you catch them, short of them inadvertently using a bag with some off-season substance in it. EG Landis. Categorically not a small fish.

The OP and points I was respondiing to were about the overall testing programme and then several posters commented on 'small fish'. I was not referring to the biological passport specifically - if you are then that's fine - but please dont tell me I am confused.

Thanks for the reply.

The confusion comes where most of the busts are not because of the UCI but because of accidental occurrences by other authorities. Actually most of them have come despite of the UCI. If it was because of the UCI we would be watching a Tour the France with: Ricco, Rasmussen, Ulrich, Basso, Sevilla, Mancebo, Valverde, Botero, Piepoli, Beloki, etc.

Now I think I made my point clear.

 

[Winterfold]

Ok fair point - I am thinking of the collective of anti-doping authorities that exist - not just the UCI. I agree if it were down to them, many of the big busts would not have taken place.

Similarly I dont expect the ATP to be catching any big name tennis players soon, despite the incredulous, er, sorry, fantastic physical performaces the high ranking male players put in these days.

 

[Ferminal]

As has been pointed out Lemond finished way back in the 1989 Giro. The Diarrhea excuse has been used effectively to escape a sanction by Micheal Schumacher. He had a Hct of over 50% the day before the Worlds in his home town of Stuttgart. His mother, a doctor, wrote a note saying he had the $hits. His extreme dehydration did not seem to hurt him as he made the podium...only to test positive for CERA later.

Armstrong's numbers have been questioned by many experts. He has not provided any explanation. Instead of saying he had a bad tummy he took his numbers down and stomped around like a baby. Riders world wide are looking forward to hearing about how diarrhea helped him have such a good final week of the Tour.

So back to my question, How does having diarrhea make your body stop producing RBC?

The ****s in the cockpit wouldn't be nice

 

[nslckevin]

....And it occured in the Giro of 89 - not 1986 - where Lemond finished 39th.

Looks like I should have had more faith in my memory. It WAS in the Tour and it WAS in 1986 when he won!

http://www.pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=15990

"I've seen many interviews with you conversing French and you're very competent in the language.
GL: Well, I never really did learn the polite version of the language. Years later, being interviewed by French TV, I would make grammar mistakes and sound really rough. For example, the first year I won the Tour de France, I had diarrhea on one stage, and when they interviewed me afterwards I said; "I had the ****s" on TV. That night, a French professor drove something like six hours and sat in front of my house waiting for me to get home. When I finally did, he told me I should be using the polite grammar forms and to never swear on TV - but I never really changed much!"

BTW, it takes a lot of balls to correct somebody and be wrong yourself... I mean, if you're going to tell somebody in a public forum that they are wrong, you'd think you'd want to make sure that you actually knew what the hell you were talking about. But maybe that's just me...

Kevin

 

[nslckevin]

And finally, my original point has nothing to do with whether or not Armstrong is doping. Frankly it has nothing to do with this discussion. My point is that it was pointed out that Armstong's numbers could only come from blood doping or maybe diarrhea and it was supposed that diarrhea would preclude a good performance in the Tour.

The Lemond story goes to show that you CAN have diarrhea one day and still do well (WIN!) the Tour. Of course it would do you well to pick the right day to be sick!

It is also possible to have diarrhea without being in a situation where you have to **** yourself on the bike. Like perhaps, all night long, but things "firm up before the next day's stage, and you got blood tested that morning. Yes, that is a lot of things that have to happen all at once, but it is certainly possible.

Circumstantial evidence generally isn't enough all by itself to convict somebody of a crime and I believe it should be the same for convicting somebody of a doping offense.

If somebody wants to have the discussion as to whether or not Armstrong or any other rider who hasn't been caught is getting away with doping, have at it. I'm not interested in that discussion until there is proof. Real, convictible proof. Not, maybe, probably, points towards, "who else could he...", etc.

I want to see people use objective and logical thought. And frankly, I don't see a whole lot of it on these forums.

Thanks,

Kevin

 

[Race Radio]

And finally, my original point has nothing to do with whether or not Armstrong is doping. Frankly it has nothing to do with this discussion. My point is that it was pointed out that Armstong's numbers could only come from blood doping or maybe diarrhea and it was supposed that diarrhea would preclude a good performance in the Tour.

The Lemond story goes to show that you CAN have diarrhea one day and still do well (WIN!) the Tour. Of course it would do you well to pick the right day to be sick!

It is also possible to have diarrhea without being in a situation where you have to **** yourself on the bike. Like perhaps, all night long, but things "firm up before the next day's stage, and you got blood tested that morning. Yes, that is a lot of things that have to happen all at once, but it is certainly possible.

Circumstantial evidence generally isn't enough all by itself to convict somebody of a crime and I believe it should be the same for convicting somebody of a doping offense.

If somebody wants to have the discussion as to whether or not Armstrong or any other rider who hasn't been caught is getting away with doping, have at it. I'm not interested in that discussion until there is proof. Real, convictible proof. Not, maybe, probably, points towards, "who else could he...", etc.

I want to see people use objective and logical thought. And frankly, I don't see a whole lot of it on these forums.

Thanks,

Kevin

How does having diarrhea make your body stop producing RBC?

 

[nslckevin]

How does having diarrhea make your body stop producing RBC?

Ask Escarabajo who in post number 21 on this thread said:

"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."

I think that the Lemond 1986 Tour de France story shows that Escarabajo was talking out of his ***.

Thanks,

Kevin

 

[auscyclefan94]

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.

Cycling hired AFLD to test athletes to catch them so Cycling was behind it. Valverde was caught by police but teams involved with OP pulled out their riders and got rid of them off their teams.

 

[Race Radio]

Ask Escarabajo who in post number 21 on this thread said:

"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."

I think that the Lemond 1986 Tour de France story shows that Escarabajo was talking out of his ***.

Thanks,

Kevin

As expected, no answer.

If Armstrong had such a huge case of diarrhea that it caused a close to 20% swing in his Hct it would have been part of every interview, his comeback book, and it would be his key excuse for not winning.

He would surely start a foundation to help sufferers and sell millions of brown CrapstrongTM bracelets to his followers.

 

[nslckevin]

As expected, no answer.

If Armstrong had such a huge case of diarrhea that it caused a close to 20% swing in his Hct it would have been part of every interview, his comeback book, and it would be his key excuse for not winning.

He would surely start a foundation to help sufferers and sell millions of brown CrapstrongTM bracelets to his followers.

You might be right. Or you might be talking out of your ***. I don't know. That's the difference between you and me. I admit that I don't KNOW.

And again, taking Lemond's diarrhea as an example it would be a "crappy" excuse since Lemond WON when he had diarrhea.

It would seem to me that using blood passport type of data is really only going to show something provable if they tested the riders EVERY day, maybe twice a day and also monitored them more or less around the clock so that they could factor in other information that might be useful. But again, I don't KNOW.

Thanks,

Kevin