I agree with your notion that increasing the cost to go to Kona is a bad thing. I do not necessarily agree that turning down a spot would all of a sudden be a signal that someone is doping, but perhaps.

Ironman is cost prohibitive for a lot of people. Doing one Ironman is expensive, period. Doing Kona is even more expensive for most people. Not only is registration already higher, the registration is a drop in the bucket. Flying yourself and your bike to the island, lodging, and then once you are there, EVERYTHING in Hawaii is more expensive. Is the cost of testing going to dissuade many people? I am not sure. If you can afford to go to Kona without testing, then is a few hundred extra going to be the limiting factor for you? For some people yes, but for how many people is the margin that thin?

With that in mind, the cost issue is why I added the caveat "That said, if the tests are prohibitively expensive, it really all goes out the window" in my original comment.

I sweat a lot of things (mostly the $$$), but actually HOPE the race I'm in IS the one that will be tested - if I'm included, so be it.

---

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 heard Jeff Novitzky on the Joe Rogan podcast talking about new technology that could significantly decrease the cost of testing because it wouldn't require a phlebotomist. From what I recall it was something about a finger prick of blood you put on a card, then sealed and mailed in. I think something like this would have to be adopted to see significant AG (and deeper pro) testing. But this only addresses in competition testing.

Not sure what it costs for one of those panels, but for our company to get a DOT panel done on someone, it costs in the $45-$85 range. Low end is if we are using on in-house collector, higher end is if we have to go to a separate center. That's just the testing cost. It doesn't include in costs associated with the transport.

Since they are testing for a ton more stuff, I imagine it would be more.

As far as I know, all professional athletes and top amateur qualifiers (likely just the top qualifier) were tested at Kona this past year in one of the following randomly:

A. blood only
B. urine only
C. both blood and urine

---

http://www.natemillertri.com/

I think that all races, not just WTC should have a "PED Testing" surcharge added to each entry fee to pay for random drug-testing at the event as a matter of policy, perhaps by USAT. Granted, it is not feasible for events with 300 or less participants but where it makes sense, it could be excepted from the rule. But until USAT does something useful like that, the RDs really should be making the effort here.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

The real costs are not testing and transport, but in maintaining the chain of custody in order to absolutely prove that it was the specific athlete's blood that tested positive and not someone else's.

Wasn’t there a recent thread (maybe the moats thread) or post that said it was ~$500 per test?

People need to remember that these drug tests aren’t your normal drug screening. They are testing for a lot more than the typical employment drug screening. Which only just adds to the cost.

---

blog

Right. Just wanted to add in some numbers so there isn't a thought that the cost for testing is trivially low. For DOT testing, there must be a chain of custody also.

As someone who is doing triathlons for the fitness, the experience, and the accomplishment, I really couldn't care if the higher up people are doping, at least not enough to pay for testing them.

Yes. This thread is proceeding based on ignorance of the true costs of testing. Even if testing were free, the chain of custody and due process requirements make this an expensive proposition. The fact that a for-profit business like WTC is testing at all is a win. Profiling is going to be the best bet for targeting - and catching - a very small sample of athletes to send a signal to other dopers that the free for all is over.

Huff, please enlighten us, what is the true cost?
Just curious because $500 would be cheap based on your previous $50+ suggestion.

How would the “profiling” protocol work?

---

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

My quick search for the cost of drug testing for a race was decently fruitless. This article (https://www.nytimes.com/...rs-doping-tests.html) talks about the company that puts on the NYC marathon spends $100k per year on testing professionals and planned to expand to test elite amateurs spending an additional $100K. No mention of cost per test.

This article (https://www.runnersworld.com/...-can-races-afford-it) from runners world, talks a bit about the variability of the cost per test. It does mention that race directors often use the $500 per test rule, although that is problematic. That said, it seems others quoting that number are at least inline with race director's budgeting practices.

If we take the $500 per test as accurate, that is surprisingly high to me and does indeed curtail my hope...

---
Will that cost come down with better testing techniques and new technologies? Who knows, but there is a cat and mouse game there as testing becomes more advanced, so does doping.

In terms of anti-doping in general, the outlook seems bleak when you consider USADA's research budget (https://www.usada.org/...h/directed-research/):

"The broad range of anti-doping research activities previously undertaken by USADA have been assumed by the Partnership for Clean Competition (“PCC”). USADA is likely to exercise significant influence over the research decisions of PCC, both through USADA’s participation on PCC’s Governing Board and on PCC’s Scientific Advisory Board. We expect that the anti-doping research objectives of PCC and USADA will end up being significantly aligned. PCC’s annual research budget will exceed $2.3 million."

Their $2.3 million per year is less than 10% of Team Sky's TDF budget... What about sports that are well funded like baseball? A single baseball player, Alex Rodriguez, who admitted to using PEDs, signed a contract valued at $275 million dollars. You do the math.

Lots, but it depends on what you are testing for, how you are testing (in or an out of competition), etc. Here's a well researched article from Australian sports that pegs the cost at $30,000 to $40,000 Australian dollars. http://theconversation.com/...worth-the-cost-16464

In a high profile boxing match, USADA charges "six figures" per this article from the LA times. http://www.latimes.com/...-20150917-story.html

But the $500 figure you see most likely comes from this article that pegs the event cost (i.e, in competition) at $2000-$2500 for just 4 or 5 tests. Flying staff to an athlete's house for an OOC test is going to really drive up the cost for a single test.

https://www.runnersworld.com/...-can-races-afford-it

The point of all these articles is that it is EXPENSIVE, and these proposals to add $5 or $10 to everyone's entry fee to cover the entire podium at a single IM are just stupid.

I would happily pay a $10 incremental fee at every event to fund testing. Why not make it an optional add-on fee at every IM, HIM and USAT National event entry form? Align the number of actual AG tests with the amount of donations. Some testing of AG athletes is better than none.

Looks like we used the same search terms to find articles :)

While I agree that it is more expensive than I imagined, not everyone is suggesting testing all podium spots (there can be a LOT of podium spots at an ironman). Much more realistic would be to test Kona qualifiers. At a race with 2,500 athletes registered and paid, at $10 per registrant that is $25k. Divide that by an average of $500 per test and you get 50 tests. That is enough to test your 40 qualifying spots. As I suggested early on in the thread, you could charge the qualifiers for the testing as well. Perhaps not all, but some of it and refund a deposit to those that pass. This can help offset the cost of testing that all registrants pay.

The cost to testing is high. Is it prohibitively high? Does in competition testing provide enough enforcement and deterrent to pass a cost benefit test? I don't know but it is fun to speculate solutions here on a Friday afternoon.

Edit: fixed issue with the quote commands

Having all KQs piss in a cup before they pay/accept their slot is a genius idea. They piss in a cup, then pay, if they test positive they don't get their money back.

Don't have to test all the samples. Though for any given race it's only 30, so maybe they could. But if they said they were testing 50% it might deter someone from paying/accepting, or even pissing in a cup so they can bow out of the slot gracefully by saying they weren't going to take the slot anyway,

$10 each entry would add about $22,000. In addition, Every IM is priced different anyway, now with tiers, charity spots, CEO challenge, combined with some of the above ideas, sponsors, etc. funds could come from a variety of places.

$2200 For 40 slots- that’s $550 per slot. And yes, Who cares about the whole podium, testing the 5th place F65-69 clearly doesn’t make sense. just KQ.

---

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

^ THIS

---

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

Don't have to test all the samples.

——-

Current wada regulations stipulate that all samples must be sampled. They don’t do any half procedures, because of protection of the athletes and the fairness of sampling.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

The ST community has been advising Ironman on how to run their business ever since Dan started the forums. For the most part, everyone is pissing into the wind instead of a cup. But Slowtwitch did publish this article two years ago. http://www.slowtwitch.com/...ng_testing_5575.html

Since then, more age groupers have been popped, and now the ST community wants even more testing. I would be interested to here Andrew Messick's take on your proposal, but I suspect they are willing to only go so far.

Here's a proposal that would cost WTC and USADA nothing: Increase the ban to 8 years for a first offense and lifetime for the second.

BTW; if lighting strikes and I KQ this summer, I will have to gracefully decline the slot due to family commitments. I wanted to put that out there before Messick adopts your proposal and everyone concludes that declining a slot can only mean the individual is doping.

N=1, the cost would probably prohibit me if it was equal to or greater than that of an airplane ticket. You can get tickets well in advance for dirt cheap if you're willing to work the system. I know people in Hawaii whose couches I can crash on.

People who assume that Ironman training and competing is expensive aren't people who really have to worry about money it seems like sometimes. On the other hand, people who do worry a lot about money or live on a tight budget, if they want to compete, find a way to do it, and can do it very inexpensively. You don't have to stay in a boutique hotel a week in advance. You don't need to buy a bunch of Iron Man swag. You don't need to even buy Clif bars and Goos. You can make your own nutrition and reduce the cost of training dramatically as well.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I do think that anybody who turned down a slot because taking the slot would require they pay for a test would get blown up and accused of being a cheater using money as excuse by at least a few people, and the problem with social media these days is usually that even if it gets proven untrue, at that point the damage is already done.

I know my opinion is anecdotal, but I feel I do represent the point of view of people who are racing on a tight budget.

That said, if they could test an extra 10 or 15 athletes at any given Race by simply tacking five more dollars on to the entry fee, I would be down for that. The problem is I think it would cost a lot more than that

Thanks for weighing in with me Dave... Don't get me wrong, I am not a dentist either. That said, Ironman is expensive. I am not assuming it, I am asserting it. An $800 race is expensive anyway you look at it in my opinion. There are certainly things you can do to minimize the costs. Some people will spend $20K to race an Ironman (after buying all the gear and Gu their hearts desire) and some people can get by spending less than a tenth of that. Regardless I believe an $800 registration fee is expensive and not a purchasing decision I take lightly.

I am not a huge fan of raising those costs for myself or for other people. That said, this thread is discussing increasing the service offering Ironman provides (i.e. better anti-doping controls). Many people want that, but it needs to be funded by someone.

My N=1, for me personally qualifying and racing in Kona is a big goal of mine. Kona Qualifiers put a LOT into pursuing that goal, not financially, but making sacrifices in other areas of their lives. Forgoing extra late nights out, limiting pizza and beer, running in -10 degree weather before dawn in the heart of winter, going to bed early, etc. I am willing to pay a little more to go to Kona to ensure those that I am competing against are not cheating. I don't like the idea of pricing more people out of Kona, but I do like the idea of stopping dopers from qualifying.

WRT to people speculating someone that turned down a spot is a doper, you may be right, somewhere along the lines that could happen. That said, that already happens to clean athletes. When an aging male puts up a great time people assume they were doping. They go to Kona, have their race, but people still have doubts. Right now, you have a good race, someone speculates you are doping. I would prefer to know the people that accepted the KQ spots were clean in competition and have some speculation about those that turned down spots than have what we have today where everyone can be suspected of doping.

Agreed. Profile. Watch for the performance spikes. Go after these spikers in the off season when they are likely using the serious nuclear stuff--increase the off season tests. Use everything they can to determine that. Be it USAT ranking one year to another, or just going through the pointy end Athlinks results (if they were caught up to date that is). If you see a big jump, pick a few suspicious ones & test them in the winter when it is more than likely they will glow. Then leave the rest up to the races to test at the finish line. Even if you're not getting all the results made, collect samples & randomize test the results with a for sure podium test of each AG. If you're winning your KQ and the age group in an Ironman by say, an 45 min to an hour...well, that to me is going to quite easily be someone to keep an eye on for future OOC testing.

For the 2000ish athletes that don't qualify or have any intention of going to Kona, keep in mind that in the cost/benefit equation, there is zero benefit to this testing.

Also, refunding the money to those who pass wouldn't work. The cost to be tested must still be paid, it's not like IM gets it for free.

I'd rather the took that money and tested 5 of them out of competition. Testing all of them at the race would probably catch almost nobody who is intentionally doping. You don't need to test the entire race, just randomly select. Over time enough people will get caught that people will stop.