I have had similar thoughts. I don't think everyone needs to be tested but there should be threshold number of folks in each age group that are tested. For example, I don't know why we can't test the top 10 in each AG or at the very least the podium (top 5). Everyone taking a KQ should be tested. If you couple that with a few randomized tests across the genders and the AG's I would think that would create a fairly decent disincentive not to cheat. I would happily pay a few more bucks on an entry fee to implement such a system.

Seems like common sense to me.....

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/773280
http://imroycer81.blogspot.com/
teamemj.com
everymanjack.com

 testing all podium finishers is a bit extreme. Take a random sample of 1/2 to 1/3 of the top 5 in each age group. Cheaters will be caught before too long. The key isn't testing all, it's testing enough. No need to make it more expensive than you have to. Plus that's a lot of samples for officials to keep track of.

Testing is pretty expensive.
Good, targeted, podium and random testing would probably be the best use of the limited budget.

1, 2, and 3.... No.

I suspect the problem is that paying an extra $5 still wont raise enough to cover testing all KQs. And for those people making the cut who are clean, why should they pay to prove they are clean? Sure most people want clean sport, but if you have paid £500 to enter an IM race, much more on travel and accommodation, then have to spend a load again on the Kona trip, wont want to drop a load more proving they got there fairly.

Given how much an IM costs and that they still use a lot of volunteers you would think if they really cared they could find some money to do more testing themselves. I wonder if partly they don't want to open Pandoras box and find how bad it really is.

The bigger question is, why wouldn't somebody who's clean be willing to pay a few extra bucks and pee in a cup if it meant that they were getting a fairer race in Kona? The legit KQ's are the one's who'd benefit disproportionately from a small entry fee increase to cover "KQ gatekeeping" testing.






I'm sure there's more than a kernel of truth to that.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Yeah true, I was thinking more of people who KQ had to pay for their own test rather than everyone pay a bit extra regardless of where they finish. I would pay a few dollars more if this was done. But I wouldn't want to pay a lot more at an IM branded event as they are already very expensive.

I would like to see all KQ athletes tested. You pay $X for the test, in addition to your Kona Registration. If you pass, you get a portion of $X back. If you fail, you loose all of $X and your Kona Reg. In a sense you are putting a deposit down for your test, part of which is returned upon passing. Those who fail do not get their deposit back. Their full deposit + their Kona Reg funds part of the clean athletes' tests.

Ironman would assume some risk in the process above because to accurately price the tests, they would need a decent prediction of the failure rate. That said, if the tests are prohibitively expensive, it really all goes out the window. The result of the scenario I outlined however may simply result in people that know they are dirty not taking kona spots to avoid the test. Does that clean up the field? No, but at least it helps make the qualification fair when it comes to PEDs.

I've mentioned this before, but basically if you (WTC) are targeting certain races then have doping control at awards and kona slot allocation.

Maybe you have only 3-4 tests but you make all 40 KQ submit to a random draw. At least then it is a 1 in 10 chance for testing vs Nil or 1 in 3000 etc.

This would increase the threat while keeping the costs the same. Also legal with WADA/chain of custody etc.

Maurice

Right maybe they don’t want to know how dirty it is (if it is).

2200 athletes x $5 = $11,000
I don’t know how much a test costs but might put a dent in covering the 40 qualifiers? 5 bucks was just an example, IMO if I’m dropping 4-5 Grand +\- on races/travel, another $5-20 isn’t much to have a clean sport. Granted we shouldn’t have to, but clearly not everyone is cool with the honor system.

IMO the point of testing qualifiers wouldn’t be to prove the clean athletes are clean (although it does), it’s to nail the cheaters. If I was #5 and there were 4 slots, I’d just want to know those guys beat me fair and square.

---

-
"It's nice to be great, but far greater to be nice"

I may get blasted here, but here goes. I will never qualify for Kona, I've never been that fast (AG nationals is the best I can do). But ultimately why would you bother to test AG qualifiers? The idea is to fill up your race. I can see testing the Pros and the podium finishers at the race, but do they really care about AG qualifiers? Kona for AG is an experience. Very few of them even have a tiny chance of winning, so it really is not a "true" race for AG. Their race was qualifying.

I do understand the idea that some people who are clean will miss their opportunity to race Kona. That is why I feel the blame/responsibility should be laid on the qualifying race, not on Kona to determine is clean. (All owned by the same company)

It would be great to have a clean sport, but unfortunately there will always be cheaters. The best you can do is stay clean, do your best and hopefully you beat them...

I think that is what most people are suggesting. Test them at the slot allocation ceremony right after their qualifying race.

I agree. The post above that discussed a testing "deposit" for KQ'ers and loss of the Kona entry to help fund the testing is a great idea.

Speaking for myself. I would have liked that process when I KQ'd.

And, while I agree that most participants in Kona won't be racing for the podium (I was back of BOP :-| ) It's still a race and I'd argue it means more to assure a clean event, which also includes draft marshalling, etc.

I wonder how it would change things - a possible deterrent effect??? Perhaps.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

I thought someone once told me that a single test can be as much as $1500? But maybe its cheaper if done 'bulk' at a race location (as opposed to out of competition).

I agree with the 'test the podium/kona folks'. But of course a big issue is that most people capable of getting on the podium are likely smart enough to not show up at a race 'glowing'. So thus you need out of competition surprise testing to catch them......$$$.

The race is going to fill up regardless, so if we lose a couple of hundred dopers in the process then so be it. It will roll down to someone clean.

Yes, I said a couple of hundred. That's probably on the low end. There were about 2,350 AG'ers that started the race in 2017. Given that European study a couple of years back in which nearly 20% of the field admitted some kind of PED use, and my hypothesis that the cheating percentage is likely higher amongst KQ'ers, it could very well be 400-500 people that would get snagged. I wish they would test every KQ'er. I think the findings would be eye opening. T usage within the M35+ groups is likely far worse than anyone thinks. There are an awful lot of KQ'ers that certainly sweat the post race process hoping this isn't the race IM decides to randomly test folks.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I'm guessing they know its pretty bad already. The Pandoras box for them is probably the lost $$$.
- cost to test each person
- lost future race revenue for each person caught
- lost revenue for those who decide not to participate any more when the sport gets to this point, where random soccer mom/dad who does this for fun has to submit to drug testing. I've been drug tested in another sport, and its no big deal, fine with it, but some others won't be.

This. I don't believe there any need to test all Kona qualifiers or podium contenders. There's pretty broad evidence in testing other arenas (employment), etc, that you can play the statistics game and get just enough of a sample size to achieve significant effectiveness.

It's interesting to read all this stuff from the triathlon perspective versus a cycling only perspective.

There's not the concept of mixing "finishers" and "competitors" in bike racing. Except for enduro climbing challenges perhaps where they mix the field. However hard something like Haute Route is, it is not a race.

This is a unique thing for triathlon wrt Kona especially. That's some bad ass folks if you earned your qualification and didn't win a lottery or celebrity spot. Still though, the gap between finisher and competing for top 25 or so is pretty vast. Then you get the concept of competing within age groups beyond that top 25.

I guess you could split the registration two ways: you pay $XX extra for a Kona spot to register as a "competitor" and understand that's a testing fee and you "may" be tested, and then allow for a "finisher" entry fee. Finishers all listed together with a filter by gender and age.

You KNOW if you're competitive in your AG or overall versus cutting your teeth just to finish.

No, that's too easy of goalpost. Then they can start up their nuclear-grade Kona doping regimen immediately after. And only need to be out of the "glow time" for the qualifying race, with a specific time to work off.

I like randomness. The testing window ranges from when they cross the finish line at the qualifying race to when the toe the start line at Kona. You even do a few OOC tests (random or otherwise), showing up at door steps.

Make life hard for the dopers.

Ive never understood the logic behind IM testing so few athletes. In the ultra triathlon races ive done testing can happen before the race, during the race and even after the race. During the Deca Ironman last year on day 7 of 10 as soon as I moved into overall podium position the race director was waiting for me at the finish line with a cup. Testing is actually encouraged by all athletes at these races to ensure fair competition. Not sure how this is all paid for, I assume this is factored into the race fees. As its been said already id love for testing to be mandatory before you can get a Kona slot upon qualifying.

---

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.

Depending on how expensive the tests were, if you put the onus of paying for them on people who KQ the scenario that you outline would also result in people that don't have very much money declining Kona spots. How then would you differentiate those who were broke from those who were cheating?

Basically, it would force people to pay a lot of extra money, even clean athletes to prove they're clean or risk being ostracized and accused of being dirty even if they weren't dirty.

Think about how slow twitch blows up every time there is the slightest sniff of a potential cheater. If somebody declines, people here would automatically accuse them of being a cheater, even if they declined because they couldn't afford it.

We are not all dentists, and some of us race on extremely tight budgets but still do dream of going to Kona

Why should the faster athletes e.g. KQ or AG winners be tested more than the slower athletes? The same rules apply to everyone, so the same likelihood of being tested and being caught should apply to everyone. I would wager that there as many people taking PEDs at the slower end of the field as the fast end, only difference being that slower athletes would be blissfully unaware that the medication they've been prescribed is on the banned list.

No to all 3. I hate dopers, but #2 is especially NOT feasible, and it will take more than $50 additional per entry - minimum - to cover the costs. Have you been reading the posts on the state of triathlon thread? The high cost of IM is already a deterrent for a lot of people. Add these additional expenses to everyone, or load them only onto KQrs and that will simply result in far fewer race entries. Perhaps you haven't heard that WTC is a business, but you are free to send your recommendations to Andrew Messick. I'm sure he is very interested in driving IM revenue into the toilet.

The answer isn't to test everyone but to target outliers, especially with OOC testing of a percentage of the KQ pool - prior to showing up at Kona.

Because with limited testing $$, those are the spots that matter the most. What's more unfair, losing a kona slot to a cheater, or losing 229th spot to a cheater in a AG field of 350....


Clearly I need to develop some sort of instant saliva test for testosterone, then go on 'Shark Tank' to get Mark Cuban to fund me.... ;)