Why Tenerife?

[thehog]

Okay... amazing hopscotching around the real issue. You know, a daily test, now that would be effective

Slight issue though that is registered and then immediately shoved aside as it's more fun to speak about how much testing should be enough:

Who is going to pay for all of this?

I see a ton of indignant remarks about how they do not want people to be caught, even how anti-doping is underfunded, but not a squawk where the money has to come from.

Perhaps someone can answer this one? As that's a much more important issue than the amount of tests.

The teams pay for anti-doping. Some of which was taken away to pay for races in China.

So think of it as a teams marketing budget line item for anti-doping. Thats about all it is.

 

[King Boonen]

I am sorry, but I find quite a strong negative reaction happening when I write, repeatedly, that the riders are tested, on average, 3 times OOC, for around 300 days of OOC, non-racing time. This is 1 test every 100 days, or approx 1 test every 3 months.

To then have you write:
1. Ashenden says BP is fine, software is at fault
2. Ashenden says testing should happen once a month
3. Ashenden says this is happening

kinda makes me want to look at you with a frown on my face and mutter, "<something derogatory>" under my breath.

average IC days: 60
average OOC days: 290

There's no time frame reference on that table, are your numbers below accurate?

Those statements are just what I remember and I'm only saying it to basically say I can't discuss it with you as I don't have the information, just what I have read.

I deleted the rest of your post because if the numbers are correct I agree with you, so no point discussing it.

Yeah. I thought King Boonen worked with stats and stuff so I was kinda weirded out by his wholesale acceptance of what Ashenden was saying.

Kind of, stats is part of what I do. I only accept it because I've never looked up the numbers myself, and it's more me saying this is what he says than this is what I believe...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Kind of, stats is part of what I do. I only accept it because I've never looked up the numbers myself, and it's more me saying this is what he says than this is what I believe...

Understood. They are the 2012 CADF testing stats, available here: http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&LangId=1

Under CADF business report in the middle of the page.

 

[King Boonen]

In 2012 all cyclists on World Tour teams and Pro Continental teams were ABP tested. There were 18 World Tour teams with up to 30 riders on each team = 540 World Tour riders. And there were 22 Pro Continental teams with at least 14 riders = at least 308 pro continental riders. If they all were tested once a month it would require more than 10,000 tests.*

In 2012 6,424 ABP samples were collected in cycling in total. (p. 142)

* And that is not counting any female riders, or MTB, track etc. etc, which the Russians or the Portugese might have spent some of their testing on.

If we take it as just road riders on the numbers you suggest:

that's a difference of 3752 samples, so 312 riders not getting tested, or none of the PCT.

Thanks for the numbers, does seem alarming.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If we take it as just road riders on the numbers you suggest:

that's a difference of 3752 samples, so 312 riders not getting tested, or none of the PCT.

Thanks for the numbers, does seem alarming.

All the numbers are in the CADF report, including costs and break down betwen various disciplines, and % of urine that are EPO tested, etc.

 

[Franklin]

The teams pay for anti-doping. Some of which was taken away to pay for races in China.

So think of it as a teams marketing budget line item for anti-doping. Thats about all it is.

Okay... so how much do you think you would need for all those extra tests we want all over the world? A Protour BP contribution is ±200K (high estimate!), Pro Continental is 100k(high estimate!), so we have at most 2,7 million to fund all this. Now we need to consider travel, legal counsel, salaries, some office space besides the actual analysis for which you hire labaratories.

I doubt this will be anywhere near easy, even if we stop spending it on other purposes.

And the (non-Pro) continental teams and higher amateur teams afaik have no BP contribution, but we need to tackle that too (indeed maybe even more important!).

I'm not saying it's no use and we should give up, but the funding question is a very, very real one.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Given the sheer numbers attending training on Tenerife, it would be trivial for the Spanish Authority to retain a locally based nurse or two and train them to take and ship samples.

A local officer would cut down on any travel costs.

 

[Franklin]

Given the sheer numbers attending training on Tenerife, it would be trivial for the Spanish Authority to retain a locally based nurse or two and train them to take and ship samples.

A local officer would cut down on any travel costs.

1. The BP money is not paid to the Spanish Union, but to the UCI.
2. What about the extra costs for the analysis?

And even if this gets all paid for, what is the effect if the dopers pack up and go to the Etna*? This is not solved by focusing on Tenerife (though it's a fine idea to get the ball rolling), if there needs to be better targeted testing this is not the solution.





* Fill in excuses as better weather, less tourists or fill in what anyone can think of.

 

[King Boonen]

A conservative estimate, to fund the sample analysis only for the ABP passport for a year, for the WT, would be £1-1.5 million I would think. But that's a guess, if anyone has some hard numbers it would be good.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So they do get access to ADAMS?

My understanding is ADAMS is the athlete's interface to the data stored in the APMU along with the whereabouts entry function. The individual can only see their data.

The APMU is the centralized store of test data. My proposal is the NADO's are granted access to their nation's athletes. With that access, they review test scores and should have the power to open cases based on any positive they find in the APMU. Currently, they have no power to sanction on test scores they themselves did not collect.

The common misunderstanding is when a NADO is contracted to collect samples and run tests, it's assumed they have some authority. There is none. They NADO can't see the results or act on the results. This is by design. IOC federations make sure to repeat this bit of misinformation to portray NADO/WADA as ineffective.

So what was that USADA vs UCI argument about then?

Currently, the only body able to open cases is the testing authority, (ex. ASO or UCI) This is why the UCI always insists it be the Doping Authority at events. This way they can maintain "the cleanest peloton ever" message.


When USADA complains about testing for high-ranking UCI events, they are complaining that the UCI will not allow USADA to be the anti-doping authority. Any NADO contracted to collect and test has no access to whatever tests the UCI does or does not run.

What tests are run are whatever the UCI chooses to run. It is another huge hole in the bio-passport system worthy of its own thread.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A conservative estimate, to fund the sample analysis only for the ABP passport for a year, for the WT, would be £1-1.5 million I would think. But that's a guess, if anyone has some hard numbers it would be good.

As I mentioned previously, it's all mentioned in the CADF report I linked earlier.

 

[Catwhoorg]

1. The BP money is not paid to the Spanish Union, but to the UCI.
2. What about the extra costs for the analysis?

And even if this gets all paid for, what is the effect if the dopers pack up and go to the Etna*? This is not solved by focusing on Tenerife (though it's a fine idea to get the ball rolling), if there needs to be better targeted testing this is not the solution.





* Fill in excuses as better weather, less tourists or fill in what anyone can think of.

The UCI sub-contracts a lot of OOC collection to the local NADOs.

If they move to Etna, then get some locals there.

The actual collection in not hard for a trained professional, and the main thing to be trained for is handling the paperwork and the processing.

(and how to deal with Athlete's Egos)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

My understanding is ADAMS is the athlete's interface to the data stored in the APMU along with the whereabouts entry function. The individual can only see their data.

My understanding is different:


What is ADAMS?

Under the World Anti-Doping Code (the document harmonizing anti-doping rules in all sports), WADA has an obligation to coordinate anti-doping activities and to provide a mechanism to assist stakeholders with their implementation of the Code.

The Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (ADAMS) was developed for this purpose. It is a Web-based database management system that simplifies the daily activities of all stakeholders and athletes involved in the anti-doping system—from athletes providing whereabouts information, to anti-doping organizations ordering tests, to laboratories reporting results, to anti-doping organizations managing results. It is easy to use, available in several languages, and free to WADA’s stakeholders, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the fight against doping in sport.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/adams/qa-on-adams/

So I need to go back and try and work out what the polemic between USADA and UCI at ToC is wrt results.

From my reading on the documentation of APMU and ADAMS, an APMU can be set up within ADAMS, and is therefore a subset within ADAMS, which is used to manage and administer the functions required to maintain an APMU.

http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/APMU+-+Athlete+Passport+Management+Unit

 

[King Boonen]

As I mentioned previously, it's all mentioned in the CADF report I linked earlier.

The costs as well?

I'll have a look if I get the chance.

 

[DirtyWorks]

From my reading on the documentation of APMU and ADAMS, an APMU can be set up within ADAMS, and is therefore a subset within ADAMS, which is used to manage and administer the functions required to maintain an APMU.

http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/APMU+-+Athlete+Passport+Management+Unit

Very good. Happy to be corrected on the topic.

But, I think I'm right about the UCI's insistence they be the anti-doping authority. The NADO's just collect and test as directed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Very good. Happy to be corrected on the topic.

But, I think I'm right about the UCI's insistence they be the anti-doping authority. The NADO's just collect and test as directed.

Yeah, agreed on the NADO vs UCI management aspect of what you are saying. It was telling that within such a short time span of Cookson's election, there's this jitter between USADA and UCI, based on testing. There's puffery and PR from both sides, but the tenor of the response from UCI was pretty much, "well tough!" to anything USADA were saying, which for my money does not bode well for "independence of testing".

At all.

 

[King Boonen]

Would it really be any better if the NADO's were the anti-doping authority?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Would it really be any better if the NADO's were the anti-doping authority?

CoI is reduced. Iff they are funded separately to the national federations of the country then they just get on and do their job.

eg:

UCI does not want their big fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
ASO do not want their big fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
ACF do not want their big Aussie fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
Hopefully ASADA, with the remit to test and monitor all IOC sport athletes under their jurisdiction do not care who they are testing, they just get on and do their job. If someone gets pinged they raise a case. End of story. They don't or shouldn't care who that person is or how important they are to the sport in question. (revenue unaffected / gain face for job well done)

 

[King Boonen]

CoI is reduced. Iff they are funded separately to the national federations of the country then they just get on and do their job.

eg:

UCI does not want their big fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
ASO do not want their big fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
ACF do not want their big Aussie fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
Hopefully ASADA, with the remit to test and monitor all IOC sport athletes under their jurisdiction do not care who they are testing, they just get on and do their job. If someone gets pinged they raise a case. End of story. They don't or shouldn't care who that person is or how important they are to the sport in question. (revenue unaffected / gain face for job well done)

I need to look up the funding then, but I can see an NADO having more pressure on it to cover things up, especially if it has all the power to do it. And I think they are government funded. The same government, in the UK at least, that plow huge resources into sports.

In theory, the UCI can just burn the rider. In the current situation it seems 50:50 as to whether that would be good or bad for cycling to be honest, as rubbish as it is cycling is leading the way in anti-doping, I'm not sure a few more positives would make too much difference to the thoughts about the sport at the moment.

 

[Franklin]

CoI is reduced. Iff they are funded separately to the national federations of the country then they just get on and do their job.

eg:

UCI does not want their big fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
ASO do not want their big fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
ACF do not want their big Aussie fish frying. (revenue is affected / loss of face)
Hopefully ASADA, with the remit to test and monitor all IOC sport athletes under their jurisdiction do not care who they are testing, they just get on and do their job. If someone gets pinged they raise a case. End of story. They don't or shouldn't care who that person is or how important they are to the sport in question. (revenue unaffected / gain face for job well done)

100% agreed. Putting the responsibility with the sport union just won't work. Even without nefarious motives this gives extreme tension... and consider we are talking IOC, UCI, FIFA etc. and ther national subsidiaries... heeeelllll no.


So what we need is a transfer from BP funds from the UCI to WADA/NADO, or that fee towards UCI needs to be reduced substantially and (partly) replaced by a direct payment per rider to the WADA*, who then spread it over the NADO's.

*I think it should go to the WADA as I would imagine costs per rider would differ per country. Testing in the Ntherlands probably has another pricetag than testing in Venzuela, if only in the difference in price-level/wage-level.

But for sure, taking away the testing/analysing from the (national)sport unions is paramount.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I need to look up the funding then, but I can see an NADO having more pressure on it to cover things up, especially if it has all the power to do it. And I think they are government funded. The same government, in the UK at least, that plow huge resources into sports.

In theory, the UCI can just burn the rider. In the current situation it seems 50:50 as to whether that would be good or bad for cycling to be honest, as rubbish as it is cycling is leading the way in anti-doping, I'm not sure a few more positives would make too much difference to the thoughts about the sport at the moment.

Jamaica being a prime example of a NADO that was under undue pressure.


No matter who holds the anti-doping responsibility, pressure can be brought.

Until the act of catching a cheat is actually celebrated, rather than seemingly thought of as am embarrassment, this will remain true,

 

[Bexon30]

Jamaica being a prime example of a NADO that was under undue pressure.


No matter who holds the anti-doping responsibility, pressure can be brought.

Until the act of catching a cheat is actually celebrated, rather than seemingly thought of as am embarrassment, this will remain true,

The last sentence sums it up nicely. Too many people involved scared of the fall out.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In theory, the UCI can just burn the rider. In the current situation it seems 50:50 as to whether that would be good or bad for cycling to be honest, as rubbish as it is cycling is leading the way in anti-doping, I'm not sure a few more positives would make too much difference to the thoughts about the sport at the moment.

And I need to look it up also, but I think you will find IOC gets embarrassed by naughty federations, and they also fund said federations. Governments fund IOC sports more than any other (I believe), and the IOC can remove you from the Olympic body if you are too naughty, etc.

It's not just the local environment pulling the strings, in fact I'd say the IOC pull is the strongest.

 

[elduggo]

Contador on Tenerife despite one of Saxo's main sponsors being a hotel chain in Gran Canaria? Why didn't he just go to Gran Canaria?

 

[andy1234]

Contador on Tenerife despite one of Saxo's main sponsors being a hotel chain in Gran Canaria? Why didn't he just go to Gran Canaria?

Probably for the same reason he didn't go mountain training in the Netherlands....