Cycling is the perfect example of what I fear (and what others hope) will occur in triathlon-that the lack of failed tests will be indicative of a clean sport when the reality is that it is more indicative of a faulty testing program. The Bio Passport is the perfect example-blood results that would indicate blood doping to a second year medical student are being ignored because they fall within the margins. In cycling, the Anti-Doping restrictions have always, in principle, been about catching the cheaters but the reality is that they have been just that-restrictions about how far you can bend the rules.

But the train has left the station on the debate whether or not the WTC should institute a testing program, so now the issue is-how do they get it right? Maybe approach deterrents from the penalty side and not the testing side? In Europe, a 2-year ban for doping is not a deterrent to a kid whose alternative to cycling is working in a Belgian factory, and neither is the drug testing itself since it's easy to circumnavigate. But what if the WTC makes the penalties for doping so severe that that is what deters the athlete? That is a very dicey proposition but I fear that Drug Testing is too imperfect to actually deter a sophisticated athlete and while I think (and hope) that Age Groupers aren't using PED's, I'm too cynical to ever think that testing will prove me right.

So, what penalties will make doping "just" for a Kona slot too risky to consider? I'm sure we can think of something.