There is no loop hole, someone can phone USADA or WTC and if they actually have proof or a reasonable tip then USADA can show up at your door, regardless of NGB status etc.

Having said that if this is a first timer and may have used XYZ to drop weight to go from BOP to MOP….not sure if they are going to waste resources OOC.

Maurice

it's not a loophole. Though it's fine for her to think that. Probably will make it easier to catch her. I'd bet this is at least part of why WTC has a much easier time catching AGers than pros - the typical AG probably believes they will never be tested (or, in this case, can't even be tested); the pros at least know it's possible.

If you want to email me (my email is in my profile), I will connect you with Kate Mittelstadt if you'd like to give this person's name.

There's also always the anonymous tipline at USADA (or any other NADO); they all share information, so Kate will get the info if you give it to your NADO.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Good idea.

Maybe I'm missing something here. If she's doing a WTC event, doesn't she have to be a USAT member?

Both times I've registered for an IM, I've had to renew my (then-current) membership for more than a year in advance in order to be compliant and complete the registration.

One-day wasn't an option, as far as I can recall.

(Side note: I don't have a problem with keeping my USAT membership, but it adds another chunk of change to registration that I wasn't budgeting for at the time. $650 + $50 USAT + $40 processing = F that.)

But what is she taking? If it's drugs that are banned in competition but not out of, testing positive right now wouldn't do squat.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

If the drugs she is taking are only banned in competition, not out of competition, then she is breaking no rules and there is no loophole being exploited. The OP was talking about there being a perceived loophole that is being exploited as she believed she couldn't be tested out of competition, so was using that opportunity to dope, the implication being that the drugs are banned out of competition. However, I believe no such loophole exists, because you have to formally notify your retirement from the sport if you want to not be tested out of competition. Having notified the governing body of your retirement, if you want to compete again, you have to make yourself available for testing for 12 months prior to competing again. So the only loophole is that you could dope while retired, stop doping long enough before your 12 month period starts that you wouldn't fail a test on day 1, then train clean for 12 months before the event, and you would still have whatever benefit remains from the drugs after that time.

In this case I think the loophole she is trying to exploit is that she is not an annual member of USAT, and plans to only buy a one-day license. Therefore USAT can't come around looking for a test from her because she is not a member of the NGB. I am guessing this isn't actually a real loophole since it wouldn't be USAT doing the testing, but USADA and their jurisdiction very well could extend to "anyone signed up for an event". I have been looking for anything that talks about amateurs who are not a member of the NGB of the sport they are participating in on the USADA website but I can't find it.

I guess this woman is very assured that whatever she is taking will actually be clear of all markers by race day?

I would still at this point like to know what race this person is in, and what age group.

Don't know if it's a loophole or not, but if so, it would be one pretty easy to clos

For example, if I remember correctly, USAC only allows one-day licenses for Cat 5 (men) and Cat 4 (women). So if you want to play that game to win Cat 4/5 races, the joke's on you.

USAT could accomplish something similar by limiting the number of one-day licenses someone could purchase over a period of time -- 1 one-day per year or something similar to that. They could also state that, by purchasing a one-day license, you certify that you have abided by the WADA Code for the prior 12 months and agree to be bound by it for the next 12 months. It won't discourage recreational participates, as they've never been discouraged by it, nor targeted, in the past. But it could reign in someone who thinks he or she can take advantage of a perceived loophole.

Read the pdf I linked to of the case where someone got an 8 year ban, even though he thought he was no longer subject to testing. The only loophole would be if she has never competed in her life in a sport that falls under the WADA code. Once she has competed and signed up to complying with the WADA code, she can be tested from then on unless she formally notifies retirement, at least that is my understanding based on the case I linked to.

So, for example, in the UK, someone can turn up and ride at a "come and try it" club 10 mile TT without being a member of any organisation. But they will need to sign the signing on sheet to take part, and in doing so they are signing up to complying with the WADA code. As I understand it, from that point on, they can be tested in or out of competition, for the rest of their life, until they formally notify retirement.

That would pretty much solve it right there. When you sign up for the race, and purchase a one-day instead of an annual, it would be pretty simple to add that language to the registration agreement.

OK I see it. It looks like you are indeed correct since the OP states she used to be a member of USA Cycling.

I think the OP's course of action here is to notify USADA...

I think the OP knows nothing......but "here say"

and that makes this whole thread worthless.

Do you really think the OP was 'asking about a friend'?? Or just asking for themselves.... :)
Don't think you'll see any further info posted...

Ha. Someone needs to proofread.
Marco Pantani was surely a fascist.

Technically that's incorrect. The OP claims to be a direct eyewitness to an admission of doping.

What the rest of us in this thread are hearing is "hearsay," since we're hearing it all through the OP.
We cannot substantiate the claim. Hence the references to the existing tip lines, since there are authorities capable of substantiating such claims should they feel the witness provides enough credible information.

The other issue with this whole discussion is does the woman even know what she's talking about regarding what she's taking? Has she actually researched what she was taking, and knows that it's a legitimate PED that's banned? I've encountered people concerned about taking things that are perfectly legal. A few weeks ago, there was a guy over on BT who claimed to be taking steroids that really boost performance, but wasn't worried, because he figured he wouldn't be tested...after some prodding, it came out that he was taking vitamin D3. lol!

---

____________________________________________
Don Larkin
Reach For More
http://www.reachformore.fit/
USAT Lvl1 Coach, NSCA-CPT, NASM-CPT, BS Exercise Science

She's a former roadie. Of course she has. :)

So this is a person who has never raced, probably using banned substances to increase performance and people are willing to out her or get her banned? I think that is going too far. I'm all for punishing cheaters, but PED makes a winners among elite more than a BOP to an MOP racer. This lady might not even finish her first race and people are talking about WADA police showing up at her house. If these guys showed up for a first time racer, I could see the fallout. First, what would be the basis to support a visit? An anonymous call? A friend reporting it in? Seriously, I would think they would need something more substantive, like a huge variance in race time history. Second, does it really matter. Is she going to screw anybody out of a prize? Or is this all about making the anti-cheating crowd feel better they caught another.

What race is this even?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I will point this out to her.

This is sort of what I was after.

Thanks

---

Speaking for myself:

Out her? No. Just give her name to the appropriate tip lines.

Get her banned? Again, no. USADA/WTC won't ban just on one person's testimony. They'd decide whether the information is credible enough to spend the resources to do a drug test on her. Either in competition, or out-of. She wouldn't get banned unless a positive test resulted, or other definitive evidence of doping.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. I'd like to see the actual WADA code section that is applicable than a reference to a section in a particular national ADA's rules, which may or may not be co-extensive with the WADA code.

I also think the pdf you posted may be an example of a bad set of facts being used to extend the jurisdiction of the governing body. Reading between the lines, or even not, it seems like the athlete in question was trying to game the system, just like the person referenced in the OP. And if this kind of rule is designed to only cover those situations, where someone is trying to find a doping loophole, I have no problem with it. And for practical purposes, I can't imagine a governing body or ADA having the resources to go after former members.

But if we're going to have rules, we have to be able to interpret them across the board, and they have to also make sense across the board. It's one thing to crack down on cheats gaming the system, but it's another to expect that someone who has left the sport without formally resigning can possibly be subject to testing and a ban.

My guess would be testosterone, maybe thyroxin (hence the lost weight), and some kind of stimulant. I doubt she'd find EPO without a really "good doctor". And marijuana of course.

I am just curious why she would come out and tell you this...? This would seem to make very little sense. Close friend of yours?

The impression I got from the OP was that these were weight loss medications, which if banned, are most likely banned both in and out of competition.

Whether to report probably depends on the circumstances.

For example, if I knew a former USAC licensed cyclist who had been out of the sport for a few years, and who had long since let her license lapse, and who had taken weight loss substances for health or vanity, but without any intent to gain an edge, and then at some point decided to compete in a triathlon, I wouldn't care and wouldn't report.

I mean, really? I last had a USAT license in 2007 and a USAC license in 2011. I don't take substances that I know are banned. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't taken a substance that is banned out of competition. (In completion? Definitely.) But I also don't monitor and don't care. If I decided to get back into either sport competitively, I wouldn't have a problem, but it also would be rather stupid if my having taking a banned weight loss drug along the way somehow was a violation.

On the other hand, if it was someone who was deliberately trying to game the system and get an advantage, as opposed to just a conversation or joke that she might have taken something prohibited during her time off, then I'd think about reporting to USADA. But even then, I'd only think about it. Most likely, I wouldn't, because that's likely not something meaningful enough for me to rat someone out over.

I think you're arriving at both conclusions prematurely. Around November someone sent a tip to USADA over a masters cyclist. They tested him. A few weeks ago he was banned. That's ~4 months from tip to ban. Pretty efficient. And they cared enough to fly to his house and knock on his door.

If you don't use the tip line (and your belief in her use is as straightforward as it appears in the OP), then I'd argue you have exactly zero grounds to be accusing anyone else of "not caring."