[Thomas A. Fine]

I was asked in another thread why I hadn't designed a better anti-doping scheme. I thought that in my criticisms, I had been doing that. But let's see if I can get many ideas all into one place. What would a Better Anti-Doping Agency (BADA) look like for me?

I believe that anti-doping would be better served by a system that was based on these principles:

1. BADA must have rider involvement, to build confidence and trust in the system, and therefore, to provide real motivation to remain clean.
2. BADA must be as public and transparent as possible, while protecting athletes' right to privacy.
3. BADA must not comment on ongoing cases or investigations. BADA must not comment on individual athletes or teams.
4. BADA must set policy based on practical analysis of available information on test reliability, presumed doping rates, etc.

Reasons. For point 1, if the riders aren't involved, they may not trust the system. Any doubts in the rider's minds about the anti-doping system undermines the anti-doping effort. Rider involvement also builds trust in each other, which bolsters the anti-doping effort. Rider involvement will also create fairer hearing processes, for example providing access to other test data. Rider involvement would also prevent premature use of new tests.

For point 2, this also goes to trust, and also accountability. How do we know if WADA is being effective? They have the best statistics and studies on this. How do we know their testing procedures are as good as they say they are? An open system fosters more rapid growth and improvement. It's also about fan trust.

For point 3, this is obviously aimed at Dick Pound. It'd be nice if such a rule could cover the entire sport, e.g. to keep people like McQuaid and many others. The primary purpose here is to protect the image of cycling. It would also help the hearing process if it wasn't so politically charged by the time it actually happened, i.e. if everyone wasn't so entrenched. There's other ways in which WADA could be shut up also -- right now the message from WADA is basically "every one of your competitors are cheating", which leads to an obvious related question: "why aren't you?"

If you think this goes to far, and that it is not the job of WADA or BADA to protect the image of cycling, I'll agree with that sentiment. But I would put it this way, which underscores my point: It is not the job of WADA to affect the image of cycling.

For point 4, I think this is central. It is possible to get some sort of estimate on the prevalance of doping based on various studies and statistical analaysis, and BADA would do this. How can you decide how to handle a positive result, if you have no basis by which to estimate the accuracy of your result? WADA's method has been to pretend that they are perfect, and need not be questioned at all. This is unacceptable. Longer sentences and elimination of B sample testing are both ideas put forth by WADA, seemingly in complete contradiction to the available statistical information.

Well, that's a start anyway.

tom

[floridacyclist]

What would a Better Anti-Doping Agency (BADA) look like for me?

I believe that anti-doping would be better served by a system that was based on these principles:

1. BADA must have rider involvement, to build confidence and trust in the system, and therefore, to provide real motivation to remain clean.

Agreed. I'm sure you're aware that WADA has a long-standing Athletes Commission (currently chaired by the great Russian swimmer, Dr. Alexander Popov), and that one of its members, Rania Amr Elwani (Egyptian swimmer), serves on the WADA Board's Executive Committee. So it's not as though WADA hasn't done what we agree should be done. Have they done it to an ideal extent? I think not. I don't even want to get into the UCI. Suffice it to say, I agree substantial improvement could and should happen in this area

However, let's face it, outside of a pollyana world, there are strong forces in the ranks of the athletes themselves that work against getting this sort of genuine participation, not least of which is that it's a no win position for an athlete to be a rider representative. Anything at all he agreed to sign onto would contain something less than ideal, some flaw, some compromise. Even a perfect agreement would subject him to suspicion of "consorting with the enemy". What athlete wants to divert time from training and race focus for that thankless task with no personal upside? And imagine what would happen to any poor soul who engaged in such representative input and actually supported more inconvenient testing. Everyone knows one of the huge loopholes in testing is the window between morning random test times and race starts. Tons of time to get topped up before the daily grind, then for the body to dilute back down by end of day after the race for those tests. Imagine the fate of the honest cyclist who supported changing the morning test routine such that racers were tested immediately prior to the day's start and permitted no opportunity to go from the test facility back to the team hotel or bus prior to lining up? That guy would be toast in the peloton.

Last but not least, it's not like pro cyclists are not painfully aware of anti-doping rules, regs, policies and the impact on their workplace and lives. They know darned good and well how to deliver specific, constructive requests for change if it matters to them. The only time that ever happens, it seems is in the case of the small handful of riders who test positive. It smacks of foxhole religion, and although I'm sure the indignance and outrage and protest are genuine, born of true innocence, we know that in a great many cases (later verified by admissions) that's just not the case. You're right this should happen, but let's not let the victim mentality run so far amok that we act as though pro cyclists are completely helpless in stepping up and make things happen when they really want to. When Lance Armstrong wanted things in the world to change, he invested the time and energy and made them change.

BADA must be as public and transparent as possible, while protecting athletes' right to privacy.

This borders on meaningless it's so vague. In what ways is the current system worse than none at all? In what ways must the current system be changed? Me, the thing I find most offensive about the current system from the athletes' perspective, is the arbitration rules governing discovery. I find it repugnant that an accused athlete cannot engage in a full, robust discovery process. But again, despite how repugnant I find that, would I rather see the USADA blown up and the entire process thrown out? No.

BADA must not comment on ongoing cases or investigations. BADA must not comment on individual athletes or teams.

Agreed, assuming you mean during the period of adjudication. Post-adjudication, BADA can and should provide full public access to all documents, transcripts and other evidence, and should provide a full and exhaustive explanation of the particulars of the case and its actions. FWIW, I happen to believe it is in the best interest of cycling for similar rules to be applied to both sides equally. Just as BADA should be constrained (and severely penalized, including personal liability and auto-engaging penalties for individuals, not just their organizations), so too should defendants. The O.J.-like p.r spin games, the Swift-boating of anti-doping agencies, and the like are damaging to cycling on the whole, and to the livelihoods generally of the rest of pro cyclists. Barring some showing of necessity, the general procedural rules ought to put gag orders on both sides.

BADA must set policy based on practical analysis of available information on test reliability, presumed doping rates, etc.

Again mostly agreed, although this too is a statement so vague as to be meaningless. Where exactly is the current system in conflict with what you propose? Where in UCI anti-doping policy or testing is anything NOT based on practical analysis of available information? Where has the UCI anti-doping policy and/or methodology, however imperfect it may be, failed to aim for testing reliability? As for "presumed doping rates", that's impossible. I reject your previous attempted statistical game there. It's fundamentally flawed.

Reasons. For point 1, if the riders aren't involved, they may not trust the system. Any doubts in the rider's minds about the anti-doping system undermines the anti-doping effort. Rider involvement also builds trust in each other, which bolsters the anti-doping effort. Rider involvement will also create fairer hearing processes, for example providing access to other test data. Rider involvement would also prevent premature use of new tests.

For point 2, this also goes to trust, and also accountability. How do we know if WADA is being effective? They have the best statistics and studies on this. How do we know their testing procedures are as good as they say they are? An open system fosters more rapid growth and improvement. It's also about fan trust.

For point 3, this is obviously aimed at Dick Pound. It'd be nice if such a rule could cover the entire sport, e.g. to keep people like McQuaid and many others. The primary purpose here is to protect the image of cycling. It would also help the hearing process if it wasn't so politically charged by the time it actually happened, i.e. if everyone wasn't so entrenched. There's other ways in which WADA could be shut up also -- right now the message from WADA is basically "every one of your competitors are cheating", which leads to an obvious related question: "why aren't you?"

If you think this goes to far, and that it is not the job of WADA or BADA to protect the image of cycling, I'll agree with that sentiment. But I would put it this way, which underscores my point: It is not the job of WADA to affect the image of cycling.

For point 4, I think this is central. It is possible to get some sort of estimate on the prevalance of doping based on various studies and statistical analaysis, and BADA would do this. How can you decide how to handle a positive result, if you have no basis by which to estimate the accuracy of your result? WADA's method has been to pretend that they are perfect, and need not be questioned at all. This is unacceptable. Longer sentences and elimination of B sample testing are both ideas put forth by WADA, seemingly in complete contradiction to the available statistical information.

Well, that's a start anyway.

tom

[Pelotonium]

Holy cow - has this discussion eluded the peloton completely? Tom and floridacyclist - you guys rock!

I have very little to add that you guys haven't already covered in spades. But I just want to give kudos to Tom for a terrific attempt at a constructive debate about doping. And then, floridacyclist, wow - terrific stuff! I hope this thread gets read by everyone here.

This is what the DP Forums should be like all the time.

Cheers!

Andy

[Cal]

Again mostly agreed, although this too is a statement so vague as to be meaningless. Where exactly is the current system in conflict with what you propose? Where in UCI anti-doping policy or testing is anything NOT based on practical analysis of available information? Where has the UCI anti-doping policy and/or methodology, however imperfect it may be, failed to aim for testing reliability? As for "presumed doping rates", that's impossible. I reject your previous attempted statistical game there. It's fundamentally flawed.

I think this article has some relevance to your question.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60217091705.htm

As I have read about the science, I keep hearing the complaint that WADA, because it is in a hurry to catch dopers, is not statistically validating some of its tests and procedures. That is where this point makes sense.

A quote from the article listed above, "Key to their finding was a lack of scientific evidence and protocol at the heart of WADA’s operations."

Cal

This post has been edited by Cal: 23 February 2007 - 01:49 PM

[Thomas A. Fine]

[...] What athlete wants to divert time from training and race focus for that thankless task with no personal upside? And imagine what would happen to any poor soul who engaged in such representative input and actually supported more inconvenient testing. [...]

I agree it's not simple. But it's also not impossible. If a group of 10 to 15 trusted riders were involved, that would go along way to alleviate the problem of one or two cyclists doing something unpopular. But more importantly, this could only work if the rider representatives actually communicated with the rest of the peloton on a regular basis.

Sure, nobody wants to do this. But nobody wants to compete in a scandal-ridden peloton either. People will step up when the alternatives are laid out.

This borders on meaningless it's so vague. In what ways is the current system worse than none at all? In what ways must the current system be changed?[...]

Transparent, as in, we should be able to get all kinds of information out of them. In the history of testosterone testing, what do all the positive profiles look like, and negative, and inconclusive. This data could easily be released in a way that jeopardizes no one's privacy, especially considering the large number of positives. They are intentionally as opaque as they can get away with when it comes to testing procedures. They are secretive about many aspects of their organization. Why? I just want everything to be in the open. Not sure why you ask about "none at all", I'm not advocating for that.

Agreed, assuming you mean during the period of adjudication. Post-adjudication, BADA can and should provide full public access to all documents, transcripts and other evidence, and should provide a full and exhaustive explanation of the particulars of the case and its actions. FWIW, I happen to believe it is in the best interest of cycling for similar rules to be applied to both sides equally. Just as BADA should be constrained (and severely penalized, including personal liability and auto-engaging penalties for individuals, not just their organizations), so too should defendants. The O.J.-like p.r spin games, the Swift-boating of anti-doping agencies, and the like are damaging to cycling on the whole, and to the livelihoods generally of the rest of pro cyclists. Barring some showing of necessity, the general procedural rules ought to put gag orders on both sides.

I want to agree on full disclosure, post-adjudication. But this could be a rider privacy issue. Perhaps it should be left up to the rider. There would be heavy pressure to disclose. But suppose for example it came out in a hearing that a rider suffered from some embarassing disease? Retire, or face public humiliation. Not an acceptable choice.

Should athletes have to keep quiet before the hearing process is complete? This is a tough question. If an athlete is exposed to media scrutiny after a positive, they should be able to defend themselves in the media, even if the ADAs are gagged. Ideally, no one would ever know about anything until the final hearing is complete. But that's unworkable - even if trials were much faster, you'd have to either allow AAF'ed athletes to continue competing, or you'd have a really hard time explaining why the new Tour winner suddenly dropped all the rest of the races for the season. I'd actually adovcate for the former, allowing the athlete to continue to compete. But that's not likely to be a popular item in my agenda. So we're back to reality, where Floyd had no choice but to to come forward and admit that the postiive was his. At that point, he has no choice but to defend himself publicly.

I reject your previous attempted statistical game there. It's fundamentally flawed.

It's 2+2=4. It's widely accepted statistical analysis. Where's the flaw?

tom

[Pelotonium]

I reject your previous attempted statistical game there. It's fundamentally flawed.

Well, I think Tom did go a little overboard in drawing conclusions, but Duckstrap's original statistical analysis question was well posed. In a nutshell, use Bayesian statistics to answer the question: "Given that Floyd tested positive, what is the probability that he was really doping?"

Duckstrap and Tom didn't have the longterm data to answer this question properly so they had to improvise. But given a larger sample size and proper longterm data, I think the idea of quanitfying the uncertainty in the tests is a good one.

Something like: "Our tests will determine a doped rider 999 times out of 1000. Here's all our longitudinal data to support it. Still want to be a pro rider? ... Great, sign here. Agree to this level of uncertainty. No exceptions." It's called an operational definition of guilt.

Basically, challenges to the system should happen upstream, in the development of the protocols. Not at the testing stage itself. By then, it's too late. An honest process that properly documents its own uncertainties, but where everyone agrees to live by them, is what's needed.

Andy

[roadkill]

One suggestion to your outstanding proposal:

B samples are always tested at a different lab than A samples.