http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570 Always select Genuine Rant™ Brand. Everything else is just words. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:38:51 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44514 Rant Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:55:43 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44514 BSMB,<br /> Yes, it is a sad commentary. Seems that in some areas, winning means a suspicion that you're cheating.
Yes, it is a sad commentary. Seems that in some areas, winning means a suspicion that you’re cheating.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44512 BSMB Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:33:00 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44512 This is a sad commentary...... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/sports/othersports/02track.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/sports/othersports/02track.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44511 William Schart Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:12:09 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44511 Whether or not any particular present day team based anti-drug program works, or whether it is a well-intentioned but meaningless effort, or whether it is merely an effort to ensure that team-doped riders are not caught by WADA or ASO; ultimately it will take team based programs to ensure that cycling is clean. The current testing scheme only tests a small sample of riders, largely geared towards those who are good enough to win a stage or race. Lesser riders, even top 10 riders who do not win a stage stand a good chance of not being tested, except for the odd "random" test or OoC testing. Neither WADA and its affiliates, nor UCI, nor ASO has the financial resources to significantly increase the amount of testing. The theory seems to be that "we'll nail the odd poor bastard we catch to the wall and hope we deter others." Unless the small percentage of riders who actually are caught and sanctioned presents a valid picture of the nature of things, such deterrent is not working. Many teams have been accused of actively running drug programs. Undoubtedly some have; others may be guilty of taking a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Some teams may have taken a strong stand with vigorous anti-drug policies which were only backed up by the limited WADA testing program. Such a climate will foster a climate of cheating. If teams take a strong anti-doping stand and back it up with a testing program of their own, the climate will change. More riders will get caught, since more riders will be tested. A team coach will be in a better position to judge if a rider's improvement is due to training and/or maturation, or if some extra chemical help is likely to be involved. Sure, some teams could use a testing program to make sure their doping program is not detected by the official tests, but who's to say teams have not already been doing that? If some of the teams that have been accused of devising programs that give their riders significant boosts while remaining undetected are indeed guilty of that, it would take more than just thinking "if we administer such a dosage and stop so long before the race, our riders will have an advantage but will not get caught", it would take some confirmation that their program was actually undetectable. Slipstream, Highroad and the like may or may not work immediately. but ultimately teams will need to do this, if only for their own protection.
The current testing scheme only tests a small sample of riders, largely geared towards those who are good enough to win a stage or race. Lesser riders, even top 10 riders who do not win a stage stand a good chance of not being tested, except for the odd “random” test or OoC testing. Neither WADA and its affiliates, nor UCI, nor ASO has the financial resources to significantly increase the amount of testing. The theory seems to be that “we’ll nail the odd poor bastard we catch to the wall and hope we deter others.” Unless the small percentage of riders who actually are caught and sanctioned presents a valid picture of the nature of things, such deterrent is not working.

Many teams have been accused of actively running drug programs. Undoubtedly some have; others may be guilty of taking a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. Some teams may have taken a strong stand with vigorous anti-drug policies which were only backed up by the limited WADA testing program. Such a climate will foster a climate of cheating.

If teams take a strong anti-doping stand and back it up with a testing program of their own, the climate will change. More riders will get caught, since more riders will be tested. A team coach will be in a better position to judge if a rider’s improvement is due to training and/or maturation, or if some extra chemical help is likely to be involved. Sure, some teams could use a testing program to make sure their doping program is not detected by the official tests, but who’s to say teams have not already been doing that? If some of the teams that have been accused of devising programs that give their riders significant boosts while remaining undetected are indeed guilty of that, it would take more than just thinking “if we administer such a dosage and stop so long before the race, our riders will have an advantage but will not get caught”, it would take some confirmation that their program was actually undetectable.

Slipstream, Highroad and the like may or may not work immediately. but ultimately teams will need to do this, if only for their own protection.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44510 Morgan Hunter Sat, 31 May 2008 17:29:31 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44510 ANYTHING - can be used for good or bad. It does not mean that something "should not" be used - because someone will apply it to their own ends. After all - isn't this exactly the concept behind "cheating?" Lets face it - the "alphabet soup mix" is not going to get better by itself. Longitudinal testing - while not perfectly developed - does have the "potential" to be actually based in real science - at the very least - it narrows down the field of cheating to where the scientists actually have something concrete to work with. After all - what the have the "alphabet soup mix" used as methods for determining who is cheating or who is not? Their rules and methods have little to do with FAIRNESS or JUSTICE - or SCIENCE - but everything to do with "creating" PUBLIC SPECTACLE to "show" that "they are doing their "work" - never mind that their successes costs a lot more then just money! It would be "naive" to assume that the goal of any effort WILL NOT BE USED by individuals or groups to "cheat" - therefore to "nay say" the longitudinal testing because "it may be applied to cheat" is self defeating and not very logical. Please note - just how the alphabet soup is failing to apply testing - their only real purpose for existing. WADA - "world anti-doping organization" SHOULD BE SOLELY CONCENTRATING ON "TESTING!" Rather then DESTROYING individuals before they have had a chance to defend them selves against any accusation! The general "impression" of the tifossi was at one time that there was an actual systematic procedure of testing in major races and at other "high probability times" when drug use would be in action. WHAT HAVE WE FOUND OUT? - It's a bunch of bull - according to "them" - the COST of testing is prohibitive! - WELL - what the heck is a 30 million dollar budget for? Or am I naive and not realize - that those "lunches" and international conferences cost a lot more and are more important then what the fundamental ground that the alphabet soup supposedly is in existence for? With the inception and application of longitudinal testing - the only thing we need next to really concern ourselves with is the INTERPRETATION of the data - If the alphabet soup is given the power to "interpret" the results - we may certainly find that their "INTERNATIONAL panels" - will be as fair as their other existing panels, judges and scientists, and as "transparent!" As Rant points out - "the urge to WIN" will always be a chance for individuals to cheat. As William points out - "An anti-doping program could be implemented with the best of intentions but fall short in execution." How about steering ourselves towards some "common sense" as far as these issues are concerned? Awaiting a "magic bullet" solution seems a bit dim.
Lets face it – the “alphabet soup mix” is not going to get better by itself.

Longitudinal testing – while not perfectly developed – does have the “potential” to be actually based in real science – at the very least – it narrows down the field of cheating to where the scientists actually have something concrete to work with.

After all – what the have the “alphabet soup mix” used as methods for determining who is cheating or who is not? Their rules and methods have little to do with FAIRNESS or JUSTICE – or SCIENCE – but everything to do with “creating” PUBLIC SPECTACLE to “show” that “they are doing their “work” – never mind that their successes costs a lot more then just money!

It would be “naive” to assume that the goal of any effort WILL NOT BE USED by individuals or groups to “cheat” – therefore to “nay say” the longitudinal testing because “it may be applied to cheat” is self defeating and not very logical. Please note – just how the alphabet soup is failing to apply testing – their only real purpose for existing. WADA – “world anti-doping organization” SHOULD BE SOLELY CONCENTRATING ON “TESTING!” Rather then DESTROYING individuals before they have had a chance to defend them selves against any accusation!

The general “impression” of the tifossi was at one time that there was an actual systematic procedure of testing in major races and at other “high probability times” when drug use would be in action.

WHAT HAVE WE FOUND OUT? – It’s a bunch of bull – according to “them” – the COST of testing is prohibitive! – WELL – what the heck is a 30 million dollar budget for? Or am I naive and not realize – that those “lunches” and international conferences cost a lot more and are more important then what the fundamental ground that the alphabet soup supposedly is in existence for?

With the inception and application of longitudinal testing – the only thing we need next to really concern ourselves with is the INTERPRETATION of the data – If the alphabet soup is given the power to “interpret” the results – we may certainly find that their “INTERNATIONAL panels” – will be as fair as their other existing panels, judges and scientists, and as “transparent!”

As Rant points out – “the urge to WIN” will always be a chance for individuals to cheat.

As William points out – “An anti-doping program could be implemented with the best of intentions but fall short in execution.”

How about steering ourselves towards some “common sense” as far as these issues are concerned? Awaiting a “magic bullet” solution seems a bit dim.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44509 William Schart Sat, 31 May 2008 00:31:01 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44509 The various team-based testing programs are too new to make a valid judgement. I, for one, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding motivation, until one or more is shown to be motivated more by desire to hide doping than to discourage it. Although at this time I am not sure what would constitute proof of ulterior motives. An anti-doping program could be implemented with the best of intentions but fall short in execution. http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44508 Rant Fri, 30 May 2008 19:29:40 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44508 Ludwig,<br /> I'm not sure that the code of silence that may exist is really designed to prevent team management and doctors from being held accountable, so much as a desire to protect one's own self-interest. Someone who rats out those responsible will seriously diminish his/her employment chances down the road. It has the same effect as you've noted, though. <br /> I agree on the need for better tests. That is a major shortcoming of the anti-doping system at the moment. But, as you say, developing better testing programs is an expensive proposition.<br /> As far as Bjarne Riis and Johan Bruyneel go, let me ask you this: If David Millar is capable of learning from his mistakes and changing his ways, isn't it possible that Riis and Bruyneel could, too? I do see the possibility of such programs as being a cover-up, rather than an honest attempt to clean house. It certainly depends on the team's motivations. And it may take a bit of time to figure out whose motivations are to minimize doping, and whose are to continue the status quo and avoid getting caught.<br /> To take you last statement a bit further, I think there will always be a temptation to cheat. That's human nature. There are always those who are willing to break the rules in order to win. Building a culture that actively discourages that, and that imposes harsh consequences on those who do cheat will go a long way towards reducing the problem. But I suspect it will never completely go away.<br /> William,<br /> In a nutshell, that's it, isn't it? We don't know just how pervasive the problem is. Figuring out how to attack it is much more complicated when you don't know the landscape.
I’m not sure that the code of silence that may exist is really designed to prevent team management and doctors from being held accountable, so much as a desire to protect one’s own self-interest. Someone who rats out those responsible will seriously diminish his/her employment chances down the road. It has the same effect as you’ve noted, though.

I agree on the need for better tests. That is a major shortcoming of the anti-doping system at the moment. But, as you say, developing better testing programs is an expensive proposition.

As far as Bjarne Riis and Johan Bruyneel go, let me ask you this: If David Millar is capable of learning from his mistakes and changing his ways, isn’t it possible that Riis and Bruyneel could, too? I do see the possibility of such programs as being a cover-up, rather than an honest attempt to clean house. It certainly depends on the team’s motivations. And it may take a bit of time to figure out whose motivations are to minimize doping, and whose are to continue the status quo and avoid getting caught.

To take you last statement a bit further, I think there will always be a temptation to cheat. That’s human nature. There are always those who are willing to break the rules in order to win. Building a culture that actively discourages that, and that imposes harsh consequences on those who do cheat will go a long way towards reducing the problem. But I suspect it will never completely go away.

William,

In a nutshell, that’s it, isn’t it? We don’t know just how pervasive the problem is. Figuring out how to attack it is much more complicated when you don’t know the landscape.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44507 ludwig Fri, 30 May 2008 19:01:22 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44507 The practice of omerta is designed to prevent team managers and doctors from being held accountable. That's really it in a nutshell--if the sponsors, race organizers, and fans tolerate omerta, then you will have doping. In order to change cycling, sponsors need to feel that the consequences of doping outweigh the benefits of victory. For that, you need better tests, a more vigilant media, teams and managers being held accountable, and far less tolerance for doping and omerta. Right now, the testing is simply not good enough. This is the truth that no one is prepared to admit. Maybe if cycling spent 10 times as much on detection they might get somewhere, but that's a very expensive proposition. And I can't share your optimism that these team-based "anti-doping" programs are the answer, especially of the Damsgaard variety. Seriously, what reason is there to believe that Riis and Bruyneel manage clean teams? I worry that a hypocritical precedent is being set and 5-10 years down the line it will blow up in cycling's face. In any case, as long as some riders and teams in the race are cheating and suffering no consequences, the temptation for every one else will be overwhelming.
Right now, the testing is simply not good enough. This is the truth that no one is prepared to admit. Maybe if cycling spent 10 times as much on detection they might get somewhere, but that’s a very expensive proposition.

And I can’t share your optimism that these team-based “anti-doping” programs are the answer, especially of the Damsgaard variety. Seriously, what reason is there to believe that Riis and Bruyneel manage clean teams? I worry that a hypocritical precedent is being set and 5-10 years down the line it will blow up in cycling’s face.

In any case, as long as some riders and teams in the race are cheating and suffering no consequences, the temptation for every one else will be overwhelming.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44504 William Schart Fri, 30 May 2008 13:15:53 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=570#comment-44504 If we don't know the true nature of the problem, we cannot effectively design a program to solve the problem. WADA is largely following the theory that all athletes are guilty dopers who mostly haven't (yet) been caught while ignoring, by and large, the involvement of others (teams, doctors, etc.) What efforts have been directed against the later have largely come from police/government investigations. Variations in laws causes problems. Remember, the OP affair was dropped by Spain because what was alleged to have gone on was apparently not against Spanish law at the time. Hard facts about the nature and extent of the doping problem are hard to come by. WADA does not release all information they have; we don't know, for example, how many A positives are backed up by B sample testing and how many are not. In addition, the nature and extent of the current testing program is insufficient to draw statistically valid conclusions from. So we don't really know if 90-95% of riders dope (as some hold) or if a lesser percentage dopes. Eddie Merckx has stated he thinks about 25% dope. About 3% to maybe 5% of riders tested are positive, for what its worth. If teams and sponsors are actively involved in doping, that needs to be addressed. This would be any area that UCI could get involved with. If private doctors are providing drugs and expertise, then the authorities need to get involved and if necessary, countries need to pass laws to ban such activities. Perhaps even drug companies themselves need to be investigated to see if they are deliberately and knowing making more drugs than are needed for legitimate medical use and allowing them to be diverted to illicit purposes.
Hard facts about the nature and extent of the doping problem are hard to come by. WADA does not release all information they have; we don’t know, for example, how many A positives are backed up by B sample testing and how many are not. In addition, the nature and extent of the current testing program is insufficient to draw statistically valid conclusions from. So we don’t really know if 90-95% of riders dope (as some hold) or if a lesser percentage dopes. Eddie Merckx has stated he thinks about 25% dope. About 3% to maybe 5% of riders tested are positive, for what its worth.

If teams and sponsors are actively involved in doping, that needs to be addressed. This would be any area that UCI could get involved with. If private doctors are providing drugs and expertise, then the authorities need to get involved and if necessary, countries need to pass laws to ban such activities. Perhaps even drug companies themselves need to be investigated to see if they are deliberately and knowing making more drugs than are needed for legitimate medical use and allowing them to be diverted to illicit purposes.]]>