Liaman wrote:
Iain Gillam wrote:
Liaman wrote:
... With the cost refunded to the accusor if the accusation proves to be true?
I could totally get on board with that.
I'm not sure how it works in AM motorsport but the theme I was going with was testing costs money, easiest way to get mass testing is incentivise people to pay for testing. Ergo in this format it wouldn't be refunded as it's a sunk cost to pay for the test. I think in AM motorsport it does get refunded but the rebuild of the engine is on the owner of the car/bike hence there is no cost involved to the organiser and the money is just a deterrent to stop people stripping engines with no good reason.
I think as long as costs were low it would work well as a deterrent alone. On a professional level if it could be extended to out of competition testing it would work very well.
Iain
I'm not sure that I would endorse a system where the accusor is out of pocket even if they were right all along.
I think that it would lead to fewer people calling out fellow racers just because they don't care enough and don't want to be out of pocket.
Sure, if you hate some guy and think he's doping then you might not mind spending the cash.
But it will somewhat put people off outing people that they are pretty neutral towards.
Also, does the accusor have to name themselves publicly, or would they have the option to remain anonymous?
I think it could work either way, I can't honestly say I've given the practicalities a great deal of thought. Fundamentally it would require a vendor to undertake the service and then it would require that the vendor got the fee for providing the service. This part of it works best if the accuser doesn't get a refund from the vendor if proven correct. Why? Because this leaves the vendor guarantied of getting the money and not having to chase the guilty accused. It can be difficult and costly extracting money from people who wouldn't be willing to pay.
In a professional scenario, depending on the cost of the test and the athlete's perception of the probability of competitors doping it could work fine. Say for example it costs 50USD per test. Racer A thinks there is a 20% probability anyone is doping and finishes 11th at a race with a good prize purse. Logic would dictate that Racer A tests everyone in the top 10 if a jump from 11th to 9th is greater than 500USD. Further to this the pool of athletes likley to be racing Athlete A in future races is likley to stay rougly the same and removing 2 athletes from that pool will improve chances of getting more prize money in future races. The figures are made up but if it is your job and you stand to make more money than you loose by investing in testing - you'd go for it.
Essentially it would boil down to - if an athlete believes doping is prevalent they can pay money to increase their chances of winning by removing people doping from the field. If the belief is unfounded they will quickly and quite cheaply establish that and won't need to spend extra cash.
In an age-group scenario then the accuser paying for the test is a lot less likley to work. Partly because there is no financial incentive to move up a few positions in a race to offset the cost of testing. But age groupers have more spare funds hanging around that they may be willing to plow into tests.
Iain
Training Full Time in 2015:
http://www.triopensource.com http://www.facebook.com/iaingillamracing http://www.twitter.com/iaingillam https://www.youtube.com/...9JYCrOLP34Qtgp5w1WsA