Even if the PTU wanted to impose a one strike policy, they could run into legal problems trying to enforcce it if you need PTU membership to race Challennge races and earn a living.

but even if they could, I doubt they would. Pro sport player unions tend to defend players regardless of their infractions, save being convicted of murder (NFL) - that seems to be where they draw the line. They're on the fence re spousal and child abuse...

Yes for cases where there's undeniable evidence, e.g. a positive couple with proof-of-purchase, eyewitness corroboration, etc.

Not just for one positive test, though.

Because tests have a non-zero false positive rate. And people performing the testing have a very non-zero rate of mistakes. And sometimes honest mistakes are made. Spanish beef *is* sometimes spiked with clenbuterol. The reason all those same excuses are made is because they're plausible. (Well, most of them). I'm not a pro, but I wouldn't want to stake my long-term livelihood on something so fickle as one blown test happening when I *didn't* knowingly dope.

I consistently argue the opposite. Make it much easier to test positive (so possibly a good % of the IAAF "suspicious" samples are positive), then just void the last result and make the athlete sit out the next event or two. At least for the first offense or two. If someone fails 2-3+ times then I think social media will take care of the rest of that person's career (At least in some sports).

WTC cannot. It's not part of the WADA Code. WTC could request an exemption - like they previously had under their "open investigation" policy. But I don't think that's a good thing. WTC actually removed that policy - you couldn't race if you were being investigated - precisely because it was out of sync with WADA.

Whether or not you agree with everything WADA does, it's important that we have a single system. if you open the door for more stringent policies, you're also opening it for less...

---

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

There is no reason to for anyone to think triathlon is clean. Just off the top of my head I can think of several high level athletes that have tested positive for one reason or another:

Scott Molina - Nice
Nina Kraft - Kona
Michael Weiss - while a MTB'er
Brigette McMahon - Olympics

Tim Don (not a postive but missed required tests in months leading up to World Champs)

I'd be careful listing the missed tests in the same column. I get what you are saying Mike but aren't you a lawyer? that seems circumstantial ;-) now start riding with us again so we can discuss

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

Considering he served a ban for it I think I'm pretty safe calling him out on it.



So much family and work stuff going on the last month or so it's been tough. One more weekend of it this weekend and then I think I'm clear again.

EDIT - not sure of length of his ban.

I hear you on the family stuff and work. me and few others went north and started at montgomery hs and did north IM course to anderson and down 1774. great route.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

"Pro sport player unions tend to defend players regardless of their infractions"

i think this is the point of the thread. our pros talk very laudably about anti-doping. here's an example of how to place that talk into action, and i think it would speak well of our sport.

yes, there ought to be accommodation for judgment calls like clenbutador (portmanteau). that might've been one where the athlete to take a mulligan.

it would be easy and cheap to devise a set of rules that:

1. clearly establish a set of righteous 1-strike rules;
2. figure out some way to hold the organization harmless from athletes who want to sue;
3. make it easy to test athletes in the middle of the night, and for these athletes to waive wherabouts exemptions for oh-dark-thirty testing.

if you can't do the 1-strike part of this, you could at least do the wee hours part of this.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What would it mean, in practical terms, to be banned from PTU membership for life under a 1-strike policy? It could just mean the athlete saves themselves $600 a year in membership dues. If so, it's a low bar for the PTU to set such a policy. You would be banned from a club no-one really cares if they're a member of or not.

However, if you need to be a member of PTU to be eligible to race Challenge events, and let's say you've served a 4-year ban and now, under WADA, you are eligible to race as a pro again, then I think the PTU may have a problem legally saying you can't be a PTU member, and therefore can't race Challenge races, when according to WADA you can legally earn money as a pro. Could the PTU legally block your right to earn a living as a pro triathlete? So I'm not sure your item 2 above is easy and cheap.

Re 3, I whole-heartedly agree with you that PTU members waiving their rights not to be tested in the middle of the night would be a good thing, although again, I'm not sure any USADA officials would actually turn up to do an OOC test at 1am, given it's against their own rules, regardless that the athlete might have signed a waiver saying "it's ok to do so."

What do you put the chances of the PTU becoming a meaningful institution in the sport? The fact that it's looking for a major sponsor and wanting to set up a super series, suggests there could be some conflicts of interest in shining a spotlight on PED use in the sport. Sorta like the UCI...

On top of this, the anti-doping process is a little more than a kangaroo court. Most athletes do not have the resources to mount a defense, even if they are a victim of a false positive, shoddy labwork, poorly validated tests, etc. If they do challenge the ADAs then they quickly find out that the process puts athletes at a supreme disadvantage. It is not a level playing field like a court of law should be. There is also much variation in how different ADAs handle positives. Some countries seem to use an ends justifies the means policy and will do anything do convict athletes while other countries do everything they can to protect theirs. Overall it is an inherently unfair process.

"It could just mean the athlete saves themselves $600 a year in membership dues."

right. except if you have to be a member of the union to race in, say, and IM event (as it appears to be heading for challenge events). it's how the UCI gets around it. pro cyclists have existed under a stricter set of rules because the rules are set by the teams, not by the UCI.

even ironman, which is a WADA signatory, has a set of rules that exceed WADA's - that's why lance was preemptively banned from kona in, what, june? he should've, would've, could've, been able to at least look forward to kona if ironman allowed its athletes to race while under an open investigation, and that's really the in accordance with WADA's rules.

so, even WADA signatories can go further than WADA's Code does, and if a union, which is not a signatory, sets up a stricter set or rules - as do pro cycling teams - is there any reason why the union can't do this?

now, in point of fact, the entire union is itself in a kind of conflict, maybe, with certain NFs, which probably have rules that do not allow its athletes to form any kind of "union" that seeks to do what these organizations do on the national level (like the AAC in the US). i don't know. probably the union is okay if it's not empowered by the bylaws of the NF.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Seriously--you think that's the guy to give a mulligan? Especially given the history of who he rode with & for, I can think of so many more cases that are more worthy. Alex Rasmussen (not a positive test, but still clearly a borderline case). Michael Rogers is a legit clenbuterol case--he'd actually been to somewhere with meat contamination problems. Tom Zirbel pops to my mind as one that was borderline, but googing it to refresh my memory maybe not so much.

i don't know. don't know enough of the details. that's not the point. i'll leave it to more expert people than i to figure out what constitutes a borderline case.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm not sure that it is true to say if you open the standards to more stringent policies you open them to less

There are plenty of fields where there is a minimum safety standard which organisations surpass and are accepted, just because you accept more stringent standards does not mean you have to accept less stringent ones

As to the point of lowering the threshold lowering the penalty, how about lowering the threshold and increasing the penalty?

the problem here is one of consequences and I'm pretty certain that Challenge could set its own standards for those it allows in. Given the kind of cash on offer with their triple challenge, i'd have thought that one place to start is you say to everyone toeing the line, you're in town 5 days before and we have the right to test you within these constraints during that time period

the broader issue here is that the penalties for habitual rule breakers - drafting or doping - need to be comparable, easily enforced, have sufficient consequences for their to be a real penalty associated with it - i.e. you can no longer make a living doing what you do

at present no one seems willing to bite the bullet to take the steps necessary to deliver clean sports - not just tri, but any of them

Doesn't Challenge already do that? I am pretty sure every pro doing Challenge Roth has to have a blood test on the Thurs/Fri before the race.

Or at least they used to.