Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The only idea I have is to collect more samples but not necessarily test right away, considering high cost. That in itself should be a deterrent though I'm guessing the actual collection is a considerable expense along with how to properly store.

The other side of the coin are legal fees around a positive. Meeker, for example, fought it to the end, which of course means a greater expense to prosecute one individual taking away from collective effort. I've long thought that's one of the reasons--along with rampant usage that would be uncovered in amateur ranks--that has deterred USAC/USADA's interest in a robust program. In other words, it's not only the $750 cost to test but also legal fees to enforce.
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Carl Spackler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl Spackler wrote:
The only idea I have is to collect more samples but not necessarily test right away, considering high cost. That in itself should be a deterrent though I'm guessing the actual collection is a considerable expense along with how to properly store.

The other side of the coin are legal fees around a positive. Meeker, for example, fought it to the end, which of course means a greater expense to prosecute one individual taking away from collective effort. I've long thought that's one of the reasons--along with rampant usage that would be uncovered in amateur ranks--that has deterred USAC/USADA's interest in a robust program. In other words, it's not only the $750 cost to test but also legal fees to enforce.

I thought I read somewhere that if they collect samples they actually have to test them, but perhaps I am wrong. You are likely correct about the legal side. Unlike lots of poor pro triathletes, masters age groupers have plenty of $$$ to fight USADA at least enough that with a high enough volume of rich age groupers fighting legally, its an overall drain on the $$$ the org has available to fight pro doping, which is the real problem in the sense that pro doping means money and pro doping also encourages up and coming young athletes to have to make the decision to "dope to be pro" or just forget about the dream, and go to school and get an education and get a regular joe job. That's really the only reason why pro sport can't turn into a free for all because it would just encourage high school age doping. This matters in the big picture....if masters age groupers dope for titles and local hero status, it only affects guys like us and that really is un important in the overall anti doping picture when you look at the forest from 50,000 ft high. That does not mean I don't want age group testing, its just that with limited resources, I prefer to get beaten by dopers than the high school age kids who have I have coached rising to national team level and being greeted by a very unlevel playing field and being told by the system that the only way to get ahead is to get on the "program".
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think if you look at AlexS previous post he alludes to the "chain of custody" etc when you collect samples...you sample, you have to test and follow pretty strict protocol. In Canada when they look at hiring DCO's they are looking for ex RCMP or law enforcement to be the handlers so to speak.

Not sure about Bio passport etc, he alludes to a lower standard. Not sure what that means but but I am guessing for Bio Passport they are not testing for substances…just looking for trends in blood values. So if its just blood values then perhaps a lower standard for the Lab.

So, my understanding is you can't collect without testing and following the 5-6 step process from notifying the athlete all the way to possible B sample and arbitration etc.

You can however increase the "threat" of collection, IE before KQ spots are allocated you could say everyone must report after for random sampling, IE only one test but your chances go from nil to 1 in 40 of getting caught…you could perhaps use something like this with USAC etc, before anyone gets on a podium they are corralled and picked at random.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mauricemaher wrote:
I think if you look at AlexS previous post he alludes to the "chain of custody" etc when you collect samples...you sample, you have to test and follow pretty strict protocol. In Canada when they look at hiring DCO's they are looking for ex RCMP or law enforcement to be the handlers so to speak.

Not sure about Bio passport etc, he alludes to a lower standard. Not sure what that means but but I am guessing for Bio Passport they are not testing for substances…just looking for trends in blood values. So if its just blood values then perhaps a lower standard for the Lab.

So, my understanding is you can't collect without testing and following the 5-6 step process from notifying the athlete all the way to possible B sample and arbitration etc.

You can however increase the "threat" of collection, IE before KQ spots are allocated you could say everyone must report after for random sampling, IE only one test but your chances go from nil to 1 in 40 of getting caught…you could perhaps use something like this with USAC etc, before anyone gets on a podium they are corralled and picked at random.

Maurice

More race day testing is pretty useless as an anti doping measure. It'll catch the odd unlucky idiot, but not someone with sufficient IQ to make sure they are not glowing come race day.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlexS wrote:
mauricemaher wrote:
I think if you look at AlexS previous post he alludes to the "chain of custody" etc when you collect samples...you sample, you have to test and follow pretty strict protocol. In Canada when they look at hiring DCO's they are looking for ex RCMP or law enforcement to be the handlers so to speak.

Not sure about Bio passport etc, he alludes to a lower standard. Not sure what that means but but I am guessing for Bio Passport they are not testing for substances…just looking for trends in blood values. So if its just blood values then perhaps a lower standard for the Lab.

So, my understanding is you can't collect without testing and following the 5-6 step process from notifying the athlete all the way to possible B sample and arbitration etc.

You can however increase the "threat" of collection, IE before KQ spots are allocated you could say everyone must report after for random sampling, IE only one test but your chances go from nil to 1 in 40 of getting caught…you could perhaps use something like this with USAC etc, before anyone gets on a podium they are corralled and picked at random.

Maurice

More race day testing is pretty useless as an anti doping measure. It'll catch the odd unlucky idiot, but not someone with sufficient IQ to make sure they are not glowing come race day.

Well...we ARE talking about people so dumb as to think that doping for masters/amateur racing is a good idea :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlexS wrote:

Can you propose something that will actually work to significantly make a dent in the rate of doping given the current level of resources?

Can you demonstrate that what's proposed won't? Or is it just your gut feeling?

Of course I can't prove that it will. That's one of the tough characteristics of anti-doping - it's effectively impossible to quantify the deterrent effect.

However rather than basing a position on evidence, you seem to be one of those entrenched in a dogma without any particular basis....
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlexS wrote:
Again, don't shoot the messenger.

Weak!. Have the courage to take ownership of your own position!
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
AlexS wrote:
mauricemaher wrote:
I think if you look at AlexS previous post he alludes to the "chain of custody" etc when you collect samples...you sample, you have to test and follow pretty strict protocol. In Canada when they look at hiring DCO's they are looking for ex RCMP or law enforcement to be the handlers so to speak.

Not sure about Bio passport etc, he alludes to a lower standard. Not sure what that means but but I am guessing for Bio Passport they are not testing for substances…just looking for trends in blood values. So if its just blood values then perhaps a lower standard for the Lab.

So, my understanding is you can't collect without testing and following the 5-6 step process from notifying the athlete all the way to possible B sample and arbitration etc.

You can however increase the "threat" of collection, IE before KQ spots are allocated you could say everyone must report after for random sampling, IE only one test but your chances go from nil to 1 in 40 of getting caught…you could perhaps use something like this with USAC etc, before anyone gets on a podium they are corralled and picked at random.

Maurice


More race day testing is pretty useless as an anti doping measure. It'll catch the odd unlucky idiot, but not someone with sufficient IQ to make sure they are not glowing come race day.


Well...we ARE talking about people so dumb as to think that doping for masters/amateur racing is a good idea :-/


I was talking about the basic technical elements around testing, as I understand them to the best of my knowledge.

If you read some of the decisions then it is apparent that basically AG dopers are (generally) getting caught because they are either getting tipped off or perhaps because they are idiots or inherently reckless. They are rolling the dice on not getting tested. I don't think this generally happens with the same precision, resources and success as say US Postal or the Russian system.

The effectiveness of the USAC strategy has yet to unfold, we don't know how much money is being collected and we have no idea as to how (IC or targeted investigation) or when/where it will be implemented.

(EDIT: meant to respond to AlexS)

This is a first step,

Maurice
Last edited by: mauricemaher: Nov 27, 15 9:47
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mauricemaher wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
AlexS wrote:
mauricemaher wrote:
I think if you look at AlexS previous post he alludes to the "chain of custody" etc when you collect samples...you sample, you have to test and follow pretty strict protocol. In Canada when they look at hiring DCO's they are looking for ex RCMP or law enforcement to be the handlers so to speak.

Not sure about Bio passport etc, he alludes to a lower standard. Not sure what that means but but I am guessing for Bio Passport they are not testing for substances…just looking for trends in blood values. So if its just blood values then perhaps a lower standard for the Lab.

So, my understanding is you can't collect without testing and following the 5-6 step process from notifying the athlete all the way to possible B sample and arbitration etc.

You can however increase the "threat" of collection, IE before KQ spots are allocated you could say everyone must report after for random sampling, IE only one test but your chances go from nil to 1 in 40 of getting caught…you could perhaps use something like this with USAC etc, before anyone gets on a podium they are corralled and picked at random.

Maurice


More race day testing is pretty useless as an anti doping measure. It'll catch the odd unlucky idiot, but not someone with sufficient IQ to make sure they are not glowing come race day.


Well...we ARE talking about people so dumb as to think that doping for masters/amateur racing is a good idea :-/


I was talking about the basic technical elements around testing, as I understand them to the best of my knowledge.

If you read some of the decisions then it is apparent that basically AG dopers are (generally) getting caught because they are either getting tipped off or perhaps because they are idiots or inherently reckless. They are rolling the dice on not getting tested. I don't think this generally happens with the same precision, resources and success as say US Postal or the Russian system.

The effectiveness of the USAC strategy has yet to unfold, we don't know how much money is being collected and we have no idea as to how (IC or targeted investigation) or when/where it will be implemented.

(EDIT: meant to respond to AlexS)

This is a first step,

Maurice

Even the threat of a 1/40 test of KQ recipients is better than zero. You don't even have to threaten with 1/40. At LP they might do 0/40, Louisville 0/40, Florida 0/40, but Tremblant 2/40. And you don't know in advance which race will have real testing or just the threat. And yes, only the "idiots" would get caught, but Nina Kraft was idiot enough to get nailed in competition at Kona, and I think there would be enough age group dopers who would either roll the dice Nina style, or get scared and not even bother doping. Or if they think they know they are glowing, not take the KQ slot.
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dev, so easy, Take all the KQ folks and have them give samples. Take all the podium finishes at all the IM events and do the same. Then they can test as many, or as few as they want. They do not have to tell anyone how many they have tested.

If they do this, even if they never test any, I bet you will see a huge change in who races.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dave,

Please read the threads once in a while, you can't do that.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [agreif] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
agreif wrote:
rubik wrote:
Besides, ever tried to pee after a race? Keen on waiting around for every podium finisher to do that before you can actually get on a podium?

yes and yes

After having to wait around an additional hour for one guy to be pee-tested (at a race with like...25 people), I was over and done with it.
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Bob Loblaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bob Loblaw wrote:
If I admit that I dope, can I skip the surcharge?

ha
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
AlexS wrote:
More race day testing is pretty useless as an anti doping measure. It'll catch the odd unlucky idiot, but not someone with sufficient IQ to make sure they are not glowing come race day.


Well...we ARE talking about people so dumb as to think that doping for masters/amateur racing is a good idea :-/

That's true :), but not all dopers are unintelligent. You'd be surprised. I sure have been.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
AlexS wrote:

Again, don't shoot the messenger.


Weak!. Have the courage to take ownership of your own position!
I'm just explaining the reality of anti-doping inadequacy, I don't need a position, it speaks for itself. It's sad that sport has been corrupted so deeply, just a reflection on wider society I suppose. Sport is not unique in this regard.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
AlexS wrote:


Can you propose something that will actually work to significantly make a dent in the rate of doping given the current level of resources?


Can you demonstrate that what's proposed won't? Or is it just your gut feeling?

Fair point.

I suppose until we know exactly what USAC intend to do with an undetermined but relatively small amount of money (in context of antidoping needs), who can really say?

But if the strategy is just doing 0.1% more of the current strategy, I can't see how that can make a difference.

trail wrote:
Of course I can't prove that it will. That's one of the tough characteristics of anti-doping - it's effectively impossible to quantify the deterrent effect.

I'm sure there are ways to quantify such things but it would require resources.

trail wrote:
However rather than basing a position on evidence, you seem to be one of those entrenched in a dogma without any particular basis....

I have no dogma in this fight.

Just dealing with reality of cultures that value winning more than they value integrity.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Last edited by: AlexS: Nov 27, 15 12:57
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
All those guys I listed were caught at masters nationals. Stupid as they might be, they're examples of guys who would have stolen championships from others without testing.
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Carl Spackler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl Spackler wrote:
All those guys I listed were caught at masters nationals. Stupid as they might be, they're examples of guys who would have stolen championships from others without testing.

This, before you re-do your floor grab a simple tool like a broom and sweep up the mess first.

Like I say first step and nobody knows how it will un fold yet, of course we are all entitled to our opinions on how it should unfold.

The idea behind evaluating efficacy is interesting, if they test say 200 people and get zero results positive…is that a success? How many on "the fringe of doping" did they discourage? How many would decide to skip the race once they knew the AD tent was there (that in itself could add to "intelligence" for future "targeting") would 10 positives out of 200 tests indicate a "success" or something along the lines of a shit storm of a problem which gains broader media attention etc.

More questions than answers, I do commend their efforts for going beyond... basically zero.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trail said it well: program success will come when no positives are returned. But how will you know if that's because it's a deterrent or the chesters got smarter to avoid detection?

Not a simple answer and there will always be those driven by ego to cheat. But I'd rather have something to combat as opposed to nothing.
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Carl Spackler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I found it interesting that USAC…or basically "members" or USAC athletes etc are the "customer" in this case IE paying USADA for testing, but have limited input into how/when/where the resources will be spent. I see this as a bit of a problem, but am uncertain as to the extent that USAC can influence testing or targeted outcomes.

Basically what is the budget or projected budget on this? Is it 200k? or 500k? No idea as I am not from the US…But say if it is 200k what is the targeted outcome? If USAC had someone in control of that then as AlexS said perhaps you could use your money better… IE IMO the value of 200k is more in the "threat" as opposed to the execution.

Keep and collect the money in house and use some for IC testing, some for intelligence and targeting. You could "say" we are blanket testing SoCal or whatever region, then do only one test and see who doesn't show up…then dictate targeting etc.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [Carl Spackler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl Spackler wrote:
Trail said it well: program success will come when no positives are returned. But how will you know if that's because it's a deterrent or the chesters got smarter to avoid detection?

Not a simple answer and there will always be those driven by ego to cheat. But I'd rather have something to combat as opposed to nothing.
You hardly have to be smart to avoid detection. At present most just need to not turn up to a race glowing.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlexS wrote:
Carl Spackler wrote:
Trail said it well: program success will come when no positives are returned. But how will you know if that's because it's a deterrent or the chesters got smarter to avoid detection?

Not a simple answer and there will always be those driven by ego to cheat. But I'd rather have something to combat as opposed to nothing.

You hardly have to be smart to avoid detection. At present most just need to not turn up to a race glowing.

Smart and reckless are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of smart guys will roll the dice and be reckless and take a chance in favour of glory. That's why they are doping in the first place.
Quote Reply
Re: USA Cycling's new "anti-doping surcharge" [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I heard you the first time. Nobody is disputing that testing is imperfect but rather the notion of all-or-nothing.
Quote Reply

Prev Next