Interesting statements - and an interesting timeline where we should expect a lot more retro testing.

Rogge not naïve about doping

"But I am not naive, we still have suspicions that currently undetectable methods, such as blood doping, are in use.

"The final judgment on the Olympic Games of Beijing (2008) will be made in 2016, and the final judgment on the Vancouver Games in February 2018."

Dave.

Don't know asking ... what is the risk of contamination or degradation of an 8 year old sample? Will they have enough for proper b-sample testing?

Finally, if this 8 year standard is applied to the passport program, isn''t their going to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of samples? How much is it going to cost to store them properly?

ORG. I don't know either, but it's worth doing. Vancouver 2010's huge, humane, success suggests that sport is worth it. And we're a lot better at it than we've ever been before. On the balance side of the risk of errors, there's the risk of not doing enough.

Basking in the unexpected afterglow of Vancouver, I can't help but think that this sport stuff is worth whatever it takes to get it right, to save it. I haven't been able to watch pro cycling for years now, sickened by the doping and the half-hearted efforts to deal with it. But as a life long cyclist, I can't stop thinking about it, and have been lurking in the news, hoping to hear doping is abated, and that the sport is taking it seriously, but half-expecting the car wreck that we've had. Vancouver reminds me that the answer is not in ignoring the problem, but in remembering what the myth, (important, positive, motivating, but yes, a myth), of ethical, high performance, international sport can do.

Seeing what the Olympics in Vancouver have meant to so many people, having been in the crowds that are there not only for their national favourites, but to celebrate something more, some kind of communal experience that is difficult to find anywhere else on this scale, I am convinced that we really are all on the same side here. We all fundamentally get what the right kind of sport means, and we don't want to see it threatened, if you'll forgive me, by false positivism, or false negativism.

Maybe if we keep that in mind, it will be a fruitful discussion?

PS But more to your point, the bigger threat, I hear, is of samples losing evidence of doping, not gaining it, during storage.

You never know when those Nazi Frogman are going to break in a spike the samples.

ORG, Lister has it right. The real danger is losing the evidence.

While anything is possible, the probabilities are such that suggesting contamination is a troll.

And, I am sure you could do a little research on the cost of storing small ampules to answer this question yourself. This is not a new problem, and there are large industries that address this.

Dave.

What about retesting? Suppose their is tens of thousands of samples properly stored with enough for a b-sample. Now a test of CERA is developed (or HGH). Are all those samples immediately retested? If not, when? Who pays? Or, do you wait the full eight years and test with the latest technology? So, all winners need to mark on their calendar with the 8th anniversary of their championship because they will be retested? Only then is the case really closed?

Offering no opinions, just find the issue at lot more complicated (and costly) then a gut reaction of "good idea" suggests.

We are all on a high about Vancouver because the US set a record in mdeals and Canada set a record for gold medals. Since we are all from North America, we are rightly proud of these achievements.

Two years ago the achievements were coming from China. From Dick Pound on down their was suspicion of doping. Only Phelps and Usain Bolt "saved" those Olympics from the west.

I hear you about doping. But yours cynicism is (unfortunately) shared by only a small minority of sports fans. Poll after poll asks sports fans if they care about doping and vast majority say no. Versus rating for the Tour are driven by Armstrong and not if the sport is perceived to be clean. One of the highest rated tours for Versus was 2007 when Rasmussen was forced to abandon and every other day their was another doping change. No one left because of it.

The problem with doping is the public is very ambivalent toward it. They think its bad but they really do not care about it. If they did, the NFL would be in big trouble (a sport which I think is dirtier than cycling).

Hi ORG,

I honestly give you more credit than the dismissive statement that you just find the issue a lot more complicated. You may think my posts are gut reaction, but I do actually try and think about what I write even if it doesn't come across that way to you.

You almost certainly have some famliarity with statistics and the concept of good experimental design. As with any well-engineered exercise, there are likely a number of studies that can and will be done - like the one that showed lots of EPO in the samples of our dear friend Lance. These studies will be conducted to ascertain the test sensitivity to questions of storage length - and well designed tests can isolate that single variable. If there were no scientific basis to demonstrate test effectivity, then anyone who had EPO in their sample might be able to get off on a technicality. Though, hopefully, these will have solid foundation unlike the opinions put forward within the Vrijman report.

These studies on sample storage will have to be done with appropriate standards and statistical methodology (e.g. using controls, double-blind methodology, etc.).

Good test design has been around for a while (e.g. 1925's Statistical Methods for Research Workers), and is not a new science. Gauss described 'Gaussian' distributions in the 1700s. The labs can likely manage designed statistical test and statistical test design is arguably well embedded into standard experimental practice.

Dave.

I think the hardcore fan base is not ambivalent, they are just so attracted by the good things of performance sport that they choose to ignore the down sides, because they don't want to lose the rest. Because you do; once you decide doping is a problem, the rest of the appeal kind of drains away, at least from my experience.

It's really, really, fun to follow these amazing individuals, to be not sure your champions can win, suffer with them through the setbacks, then exhult in the win. It's just so much easier to see than real life with all the obscured barriers and rewards. Damn, I think Canada is a different place since the Olympics. And I'm a recovering cynic! I think for the most part, those fans have just decided that Armstrong's doping, Bertuzzi's hit, Tiger Wood's adultery, just exist in another universe. It's a self-protective dissociation of some kind. 'Dammit, no one is going to take away my buzz from these exceptional people . At least until the proof comes in, like Ben Johnson or Marion Jones.

The downside of ignoring the poor behaviour is that the dubious ethics of role models creeps out to the rest of us, and violence in the stands, streets and bars at sporting events becomes expected. Unpunished misdeeds from politics, business and sport are corrosive to all participants in those arenas, especially younger people, and it's important to resist the temptation to look away when a hero crosses the line. If we don't, it's not just another cycling doper, it's another Enron, or finance meltdown, or child molesting priest. It'll never go away completely, but constant vigilence is called for.

Edit: Beltatedly googled 'ambivalent', and got this:



which I don't think is what you meant. I assumed you meant 'didn't care', but maybe you were suggesting that fans are conflicted. If so, I agree.

Perhaps some are ambivalent. Others are definitely not.

Time has taken its toll on achievements under another doping regime - that of East Germany.

Among other achievements, when Phelps was just three years old, East German Kristin Otto almost tied Mark Spitz with a total of six gold medals in swimming at the 1988 Seoul Games. Since reunification and the exposure of the Stasi doping programs, however, this has come under increasing scrutiny.

In 2006, The Times reported that:

The German swimming federation (DSV) is to consider erasing the six national records that pre-date unification in 1990 because of overwhelming evidence that the former East Germany operated a systematic doping regime.

Uniquely, perhaps, but the plea to erase the records came from the athletest themselves

“Those records are just records of the past. I would like the current record list to start afresh. My record was influenced by doping. They should reset the list at zero and give the next generation a chance.”

Thus, maybe not in America as you observe, but there is at least some notion of fair play in sport and a precedent to review systematic doping regimes elsewhere.

Dave.

No, ambivalent is exactly what I meant. They know that doping is wrong but they really want their team (or favorite athlete) to "just win" and don't really want to know how they pull it off. They are not going to openly tell a pitcher to take HGH to get over an injury and get back on the mound. But when he comes back in record time stronger than ever, they are not going to ask questions (i.e., Andy Pettite).




Fans literally ran Barry Bonds out of baseball merely on an accusation of doping alone. Are you saying they should do the same with Armstrong?




I wasn't referring to you at all. I was referring to "cycling fan on the street" ... if he was asked about the 8 year rule, I assumed he would give a gut reaction of "good idea".

Do you disagree?

That's a bit different than"...don't care". maybe they don't act (yet) to condemn, or they look the other way, but they do care.



Bonds was indicted for both four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice as it relates to the government investigation of BALCO. That's a bit more than "merely on an accusation". Same charges I believe that sent marion Jones to jail and Tammy Thomas to house arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds

No, but how about an asterisk or two?


Ok, gotcha.

Dave.

Restesting is most likely just a threat and nothing more. Politics, money, ect all play a role in this.

What about the four athletes that lost their medals after beijing from retesting for cera?

Exalting in the win is, I agree, what being a sports fan is all about.

Not singling your comments out, but it did make me think, ranging a bit wider, that we're on a slippery slope when the adulation becomes hero worship and we turn these individuals into role models. I think 'we' often link sporting success with admirable characteristics in athletes and make assumptions about their ethics that are simply wishful thinking.

Hence, when these athletes turn out to be all too human we rush to put the boot in - "how could they let the fans down!"

I think in many ways that the constant vigilance needs to be to prevent ourselves from confusing admiration of sporting success with admiration of character - and I'll be provocative and suggest that we don't often have enough knowledge of most athletes to make an accurate judgment (especially when some, like many dopers, turn out to be pathological liars).

I always liked the idea of looking for heroes and role models closer to home. But that's certainly not as glamorous as idolizing sports stars.

First of all yes, any hero is a risk. Even David the Goliath killer committed adultery with Bathsheba... (Note to Tiger...)

I think we like sport stars because their exceptional talents are visible. There's something about the demonstration of human potential that inspires. Lots of tribal stuff on top of that, hometown, colours, culture of the sport, the dramatic story line, etc. But fundamentally, they're the people you would turn to look at playing in the park because they are extraordinary and you can see it. And it's because they're extraordinary in something that we can relate to. Rocket science is tougher as a spectator activity, even if they used really big blackboards. We can all relate to the simplicity and difficulty of well executed movement and sport.

The leap to all that being significant beyond sport is the issue, as you point out. So what is it about being a fast skier that is important to anything else? I think there's a natural tendency to think, well, this person looks ordinary, but is tenacious and dedicated in skiing, so there is a chance that those characteristics continue beyond that. The stats on fortune 500 CEOs that played high school sport suggest that too. But as you point out, it's far from a direct relationship.

This is the point for me when we talk about public support for sport. If they're really really good, we know that people will tend to ascribe higher esteem or status to them. But if we let them do whatever the hell they want, people start to associate poor behaviour (NFL anyone?) with sport. To maintain the benefits of sport, we have to keep it as tidy as we can. Otherwise it could blow up, whether in declining spectators (like cycling or rowing in the 1930's when endurance sports tanked at a time when doping, betting, and race fixing also flourished, perhaps not so coincidentally), or the current declining relative participation in sport, something that is affecting health.

Long way of saying, they may not all be perfect, but the good ones do inspire. And we should protect that.

On a related note, I noticed during the Olympics that fans and media were quick to notice when an athlete did something honourable, like donated their medal bonus to charity (eg Clara Hughes), or the opposite, pouted and sulked on the podium like Begg-Smith. This stuff matters. See this globe and mail column (not a sports writer) where the character (I know, an overused term in sport) of the athletes was emphaisized:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinio...article1485993/

Contrast this with:



http://www.smh.com.au/sport/winter-olympic...00215-o2zy.html

Maybe a recent retest, but I doubt they would go back years and years. I do not remember who they targeted for CERA? All endurace athletes or targeted suspected athletes?