[Steve in ATL]

There's been some talk recently about problems with the Anti-Doping System, both from a time standpoint, and from a "information leak" standpoint. So I thought I'd re-has an old post and see what everyone thought.

Here's how I would do anti-doping:

1) No appeals of the results. No hearings, no trials, etc, except before CAS. So you get one shot to object, and there's a punishment if you are not successful - details on that later.
2) I'm going to leave out all the obvious stuff, like OOC rules, escort rules, etc. We all know the best practices, so I'll not re-hash them.
3) Who gets tested is determined by results. The more and better your results, the more you get tested. Both in competition, and OOC. This will have to involve a sliding scale to heavily weight the Grand Tours, and World Championships, and other major races so that, for instance, a Lance Armstrong-type rider who wins one big race / year doesn't end up getting tested the same amount as someone who wins the Tuesday Night Parking Lot Crit.
4) Testing happens like this: The sample is take, divided into two (A & and sent to two separate (accredited) labs. both samples must be tested within a set amount of time (I suggest 2 days for races like the Tour, a little longer for one-day races, etc).
4a) UCI maintains rider name vs. sample number. WADA only knows sample number.
4b) A positive test results only when both the A and B sample test positive. If this happens, WADA notifies the UCI as Rider #12345 tested "positive." If one or both samples are negative, WADA reports back ONLY "negative." Note: If WADA or the WADA-accredited lab leaks information that one sample is positive and one negative, they will be sanctioned (don't know how, but it will have to be done).
4c) Once notified of a positive result, the UCI provides the matching rider name to WADA, who then performs the current results management function that it now performs. The athlete's hearing becomes optional - there is no objection to the results. The hearing becomes one of determining punishment only (no setting aside the positive).
5) Punishment is assessed on a sliding scale based on both number of violations and degree of severity ( anabolic steroids gets you a bigger punishment that, say (for cycling) marijuana.
6) Initial punishment times are SHORT (in order to facilitate quick resolution) - I recommend 2 weeks - 4 weeks. Repeat punishments then escalate rapidly (4/8/16/32/64/128 weeks, etc).
7) During the suspension phase, and for a set amount of time after, the rider enters an OOC testing phase that THEY and THEIR TEAM must PAY FOR. The team pays for the testing, otherwise the rider loses his license, and cannot race until another team pays for his testing. This testing is done at a high number of tests per week - random, OOC and In-comp so that a rider knows he's being tested 3, 4, 5+ times per week.
8) Once the suspension ends, the rider can return to racing, however the team and/or the rider must continue to pay for the OOC testing for a period of time (TBD) until a rider has a specified number of negative tests, then the OOC program ramps down in frequency. (This allows WADA to concentrate its $$$ on initially catching an athlete, then the monitoring costs are foisted off on the team if they want their rider to continue riding.)

Some Pros:
- Increased volume of testing will result in cheaper (per test) testing.
- Teams will have to set aside at least some budget for anti-doping.
- Teams that want to will have access to cheaper testing for their own internal testing through WADA.
- There is a team punishment for one of its riders doping.
- There are repercussions for malfeasance on the part of WADA.
- The sort time-frame for testing and the automatic testing of the B-Sample result in a much shorter dope / detect / punish cycle. None of this "athlete has trial two weeks before his 2-year suspension ends" stuff.

Cons:
- Lesser riders (mainly the worker bees) might be victimized by this program. The may just be let go by their teams, never to race again. Therefore, a clause may have to be added that requires teams to pay for a certain amount of testing of riders making below some $/year salary level.
- Some will look at the initial punishments as too short. Then again, I'm sure that there are some out there who look at them as too long. Just as well, there are also probably some out there who think the rider should just be shot.


Discuss!

[vanishingPoint]

5) Punishment is assessed on a sliding scale based on both number of violations and degree of severity ( anabolic steroids gets you a bigger punishment that, say (for cycling) marijuana.


Discuss!

Problem with recreational drugs are they make it into the news and make cycling look bad. Perhaps out of competition testing should exclude rec drugs unless there's a persistent violator of e.g. coke which is a proven performance enhancer particularly for O2 deficit which could serve a purpose in out of comp training.

[fab]

With the different kind of testing and the requirement of equipment needed, not sure that all tests could be done in a same lab.

Probably it would be better to have specialized labs, and maybe for 4 samples (2x2 samples for 2x2 labs)

I do think it's possible for expensive testing to test just one sample when his brother wait in an other lab. For example , the sample could be delayed by storage in an area where technician could not know if it's a fresh sample or 4 four days old sample ("B" confirmation) that they have to test.

[N.B.O.L.]

Steve,

I don't remember if your original post was in the same thread as this came from, but this was my reply to a survey that Vaughn posted last year.

The survey has two questions:

1. If you were in charge, how would you want to tackle the drug problem in cycling? What you would actually do:

I would need to be in charge of WADA as well as cycling. First I would put the guy who writes the WADAwatch blog in charge of rewriting the WADA code, adding provisions for liability (with penalties) on all participants to follow the letter of the code. The code should clearly state the rules for everybody without the need for someone involved in writing it to tell you what they meant for it to say. It should also have clear guidelines for validation of all tests before they are used, and clear guidelines for validation of the labs before they are trusted to test samples that could affect an athletes life.

Rather than doing away with the B sample as some would like, there should be an A, B & C sample. When tests are done, the A & B samples would be tested at different labs. Only if the A & B tests came back with a positive for the same substance would an AAF be issued. The rider would be suspended immediately on issuance of the AAF and a public announcement of the AAF would be made by the governing body. The C sample would be stored at the A testing facility and would be available for the athlete to test at a lab of his choosing at his expense. He would be responsible for all expenses involved including transportation in a manner that would maintain chain of custody to the testing facility.

Once there is a testing system in place that has the confidence of the organizations, the athletes, and the public increase the frequency of testing complete with longitudinal records (ie. Blood passport). Revise the penalty scheme to have a lighter penalty than 2 years for a first offense, that would apply to all levels of cycling (no additional penalty time for the top level), and a lifetime ban for a second offense.

2. Do you still follow cycling despite the drug problems in cycling? why or why not?

Yes, Rabidly. I even follow some cycling forums . I love riding my bike. I love watching people that ride theirs much better than I ride mine. From local Crits to the highest level, the sport is a wonder to behold.

Comment: I know my system takes a more athlete's leaning approach than many. My observations from life in general is that people are more likely to follow rules or laws that are clear, fair, and reasonable. They will often ignore rules or laws that are not. Sure some people will break them no matter what, but in general you get more compliance with clear, fair, and reasonable.

I also know my system will have additional costs in the testing. At least a portion of that should be recovered by costs savings in less and/or speedier hearings when there is an AAF.

While my penalty section only has two levels, I would be willing to add a third level, but think than anyone with three actual violations needs to be out of the sport.

[Velo]

The rousers are too busy dancing around the fires of damnation to contemplate such matters..

Some of us are pretty satisfied with the way things are. The "system" could be improved, of course, but then, what couldn't be? But the process is also nowhere near as corrupt, unethical, or incompetent as some dearly like to believe it is.

[frenchfry]

The rousers are too busy dancing around the fires of damnation to contemplate such matters..

At a certain level I can understand your type of being a fan.

What I don't understand is why you constantly feel the need to condemn those who don't think like yourself or don't propose the same solutions to what is obviously a problem that needs fixing.

[Steve in ATL]

At a certain level I can understand your type of being a fan.

What I don't understand is why you constantly feel the need to condemn those who don't think like yourself or don't propose the same solutions to what is obviously a problem that needs fixing.

Because the other side of fandom continually calls them things like "doping apologists?"

Just sayin'!

[frenchfry]

Because the other side of fandom continually calls them things like "doping apologists?"

Just sayin'!

My reaction was more to the notion that somehow by taking a stand against doping and refusing to buy into many of the lazy excuses presented by many a rider caught doping, that there is any pleasure involved when said dopers are caught. There might be some satisfaction when an unrepenting doper is finally prevented from stealing more races from others, but in general the whole situation depresses me.

Maybe I am caught up in the illusion that doping is bad for the sport, bad for the fans but above all it's bad for the athletes.

[Velo]

Doping athletes are a product of the system that creates them

Sorry, but that's bs.

[Lister Farrar]

then with your scenario of brilliance we keep catching the athletes one by one, while, another one just takes their place.. get it?? You're living in a dream world.. you don't repair the 10th floor of a building without ensuring the foundation can even support it..

I agree, to the extent that the system is a major factor in convincing an athlete who has devoted their life to training that there is no other way. But the riders are also adults, with brains and consciences. Somehow they manage to organize themselves when they objected to helmets, or to police raids. Why can't they say, "jesus guys, it's all getting kinda stupid, why don't we host a truth and reconciliation commission, admit what we've done, and start over. There's no way they can boot the entire peloton."

But for some reason they don't. They've done the Bernie Madoff and have given up, decided the only way to go is to milk the system and then get out.

I also agree that the other half of the system, UCI and teams are to blame. They haven't done enough either. The need an invite to that commission.

On another note, Steve, I don't know if you meant this in your original post, but RTT's post reminds us the 'system' is more than rules and sanctions. For example, bike racing is really nothing more than a bunch of guys riding across the coutryside. It means nothing by itself. But when we fans relate to the competition, the suffering, the courage, the wits, and the sacrifice, it means something. Something very human and important.

An anti-doping system with rules and sanctions is just words on paper. It has to mean something more. A worthy ideal, one worth committing to, and defending. Soccer has the "Beautiful Game" to offset it's problems. I think UCI went badly wrong with it's education program "100% antidoping". It's negative and suggests that we should be nothing other than focussed on anti-doping. Hardly the stuff teenagers will be inspired by.

Every social movement knows this. The church doesn't say it's "100% anti-corruption and anti-poverty"; it says "salvation", or "everlasting life" and "love thy neighbour". Obama says "Yes we can". Environmentallists say 'save the planet', not 'stop throwing stuff away'. You turn a tide against a negative with a positive. (Along with good rules..)

I hear the UCI is doing a new education program. 'Hope they get it right, and we can all embrace it as an alternative, including riders who would rather stand for something, than against everything.

This post has been edited by Lister Farrar: 30 April 2009 - 03:50 PM

[fab]

Doping athletes are a product of the system that creates them, when you finally get that, then we'll talk..

Agree with you and a lot of fans are a part of that system by not fighting it, or worse by covering it up.

[frenchfry]

Do not presume to understand anything about me while talking out of both corners of your mouth... thanks..

Excuse me for trying to understand. I do try to make an effort, doesn't mean that I have to agree.

Doping athletes are a product of the system that creates them, when you finally get that, then we'll talk..

I fully agree with that statement. The system, the culture, omerta. The riders are caught up in a system where doping is normal, required, part of the job. Ordinary even. The facilitators are no farther away than...the DS's, "doctors", managers, coaches and other hangers on.

It is also true though that the riders have the unique power to be the ones to make the change to a different world totally on their own simply by rejecting this system. So far they have refused to collectively take up the challenge - and those who have dared have been ridiculed and drummed out of the sport by their peers.

You have stated your refusal to discuss the topic, but I don't understand how you can put all or most of the blame on the "system" when at the same time supporting riders that work with known and convicted doping "doctors". The same doctors that no one in cycling should have any relations with, yet some can't seem to do without.

[Velo]

I fully agree with that statement. The system, the culture, omerta. The riders are caught up in a system where doping is normal, required, part of the job. Ordinary even. The facilitators are no farther away than...the DS's, "doctors", managers, coaches and other hangers on.

The riders are as complicit in creating that "system" as anyone else, that's the problem I have with blaming the "system" for the pickle that the sport is in - it was Tyler and Marty and Swart and Lance et al approaching their doctors for "assistance" after all, not the other way around. It was Vandenbroucke who was constantly looking to be a "pioneer", not his ds, doctor, manager, etc. Ferrari didn't force any Gewiss riders to try EPO, they willingly took it of their own accord. Fuentes didn't force anyone to store their blood with him. To ignore that component is, to coopt RTT's analogy, to ignore the real foundation of the doping culture - the UCI, WADA, etc etc are still only the second or third stories of RTT's proverbial building. So to say that riders are simply "caught up in a system" is a bit misleading when they are primarily responsible for the creation of that system in the first place.

I agree that the culture has to change, there's no question about that, but that has to begin first and foremost with the riders themselves, not the ds', not the doctors, not the UCI, etc. I also agree that it's not quite that simple, as all of those things are intertwined to some extent, but when push comes to shove, it is still ultimately the individual riders choice and ultimately their own responsibility. There are plenty of riders, ds', doctors, managers, coaches, etc who refused to participate and still have managed to forge decent careers, so at the very least, clearly the "system" is only partially to blame.

To put it much more simply, the "system" only exists because there are far too many riders who quite willingly want to be part of it.

This post has been edited by Velo: 30 April 2009 - 07:07 PM

[vanishingPoint]

Some of us are pretty satisfied with the way things are. The "system" could be improved, of course, but then, what couldn't be? But the process is also nowhere near as corrupt, unethical, or incompetent as some dearly like to believe it is.

To put it much more simply, the "system" only exists because there are far too many riders who quite willingly want to be part of it.

Apparently even the most naive Lance lovers aren't as happy with the system as you are. Speaking of apoligist!.

Doping institutions are not one these "modern" riders thought up..

even if they did make it up it wouldn't go anywhere unless it was hugely profitable.

[Velo]

Apparently even the most naive Lance lovers aren't as happy with the system as you are. Speaking of apoligist!.

Since you bring him up, he's the perfect example - Lance lovers need to believe that "the system" is fundamentally flawed - the labs, the regulatory agencies, technicians, testers, etc etc are corrupt, incompetent, what have you - as it's the only way they can explain why Lance keeps getting linked to doping. Or, alternatively, that Lance only succumbed to doping because of external pressures, to keep up with the Joneses, everyone else was doping so it wasn't really cheating, etc etc. Truth is, ultimately, Lance - like every other doper - was a doper because Lance chose to be a doper - that is, he had a choice and he made it. That has little to nothing to do with the system.

This post has been edited by Velo: 01 May 2009 - 07:00 PM

[zekeydekey]

Since you bring him up, he's the perfect example - Lance lovers need to believe that "the system" is fundamentally flawed - the labs, the regulatory agencies, technicians, testers, etc etc are corrupt, incompetent, what have you - as it's the only way they can explain why Lance keeps getting linked to doping. Or, alternatively, that Lance only succumbed to doping because of external pressures, to keep up with the Joneses, everyone else was doping so it wasn't really cheating, etc etc. Truth is, ultimately, Lance - like every other doper - was a doper because Lance chose to be a doper - that is, he had a choice and he made it. That has little to nothing to do with the system.

It has everything to do with the system. It's an arms race, and if the other guy isn't down with detente, the options are lose, quit, or dope. Blood doping is the hydrogen bomb of doping. If you're not in the nuclear club, you're not at the table.

Still a choice? Yes, but the system ensures that more make the choice than want to.