One of the very few real protections for athletes in the current anti-doping system is the requirement that a B sample confirm the results of an initial adverse finding in the A sample before a doping case can be prosecuted. If certain forces within the World Anti-Doping Agency milieu get their way, the requirement that the B sample confirm the initial results could effectively be eliminated through changes to the World Anti-Doping Code up for approval at the Madrid conference over the coming days.
According to an article by Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times:
The new draft [of the World Anti-Doping Code], which is to go into effect in 2009, is almost certain to be approved. It will stiffen the penalties for several categories of drug use and water down a key procedural protection for athletes — the requirement that positive findings from an athlete’s primary, or A, sample be confirmed by tests on a backup, or B, sample taken at the same time. Several cases against prominent athletes, including Jones and Kenyan distance runner Bernard Lagat, had to be dropped after their B test results were negative or inconclusive. Under the new rules, a B test would not be needed to confirm a doping finding if the prosecuting agency “provides a satisfactory explanation” for the lack of confirmation. (emphasis added) “That’s a huge change that the anti-doping agencies have always wanted,” said Howard Jacobs, a Los Angeles-based athletes’ lawyer. “The B test is one of the very few safeguards the athlete has, and now they want to do away with it.” Another proposed change would lengthen the possible suspensions imposed on athletes accused of doping. For a first offense, athletes found with even a trace of a banned substance in their sample are currently subject to a two-year ban from competition. (A subsequent violation carries a lifetime ban.)
The new code would lengthen the initial suspension to four years if any of a string of “aggravating circumstances” was present (emphasis added), including the use of drugs “as part of a doping plan or scheme.” Jacobs argues that such language could cover almost any accusation of doping, rather than exceptional cases.
The problem I have with these changes is the relative vagueness of what constitutes a “satisfactory explanation” or what constitutes “aggravating circumstances.” With regard to the B samples, who defines what a satisfactory explanation is? The reason for the B sample requirement is, among other things, that not all tests are perfect. And since human beings are involved in performing or interpreting these tests, even with their best efforts, no one performing the tests is perfect, either. If the B sample confirms the A sample results, and the tests have been performed properly (a big if, in some cases), then the likelihood that the results are correct is much greater.
Just as there are false negatives (people who are doping but aren’t caught), there are false positives (people who aren’t doping, but whose test results make it seem they are). The B sample test requirement helps to eliminate the problem of false positives that could exist if you depend solely on the A sample tests. If that requirement is relaxed, the possibility that an athlete will be wrongly accused will increase. My concern over the “satisfactory explanation” exception is this: The labs or anti-doping agencies may be able to make a doping case stick not because the B sample confirms an A sample’s results, but because they are able to creatively explain away why the B sample didn’t work out as expected.
Perhaps that works in a high school science class, but it’s not something we should accept as proof if someone’s job and reputation are on the line. Creative writing shouldn’t be at the root of a doping sanction. Solid science should be. If the B sample can’t confirm an A sample, the athlete should be exonerated, pure and simple. Does that mean it’s possible a guilty person might go free? Yes, it probably does. But from where I view things, it’s better to let a few guilty athletes go free than to wrongly convict an innocent athlete.
If the guilty athletes learn a lesson from their brush with fate, they might quit doping and compete clean as a result. And that is a victory for the anti-doping cops and all of those who oppose doping, nonetheless. Those guilty athletes who don’t learn are likely to get caught again. And the next time, they may not be so lucky.
But once an innocent athlete has been wrongly convicted, how can we ever restore what’s been taken away from him or her? That’s a kind of injustice we also need to be concerned about. The B sample requirement is one of the few real checks and balances in our anti-doping system geared towards preventing such an injustice. Taking it away would be a mistake of monumental proportions.
Lastly (for tonight, anyway), I don’t see any benefit to increasing the suspensions for a first offense. Two years is a long time for an athlete to sit out of competition, whether he or she is an amateur or a professional. Two years of missed competition, and only the most disciplined will be able to come back at their previous level of form. Four years is basically a life sentence. Even the richest pros aren’t going to be able to maintain peak conditioning for four years of forced layoff from their sport.
But more to the point, with the threat of a potentially career-ending penalty (the two year sanction), doping hasn’t stopped. If the doping problem is as wide-spread as some would have us believe, then WADA and their certified labs are pretty poor at catching the cheats. So for those who do cheat, they may balance off the potential sanction by gambling on the income that they will earn before (or if) they get caught. Doubling-up on the sanction won’t convince those who are hell-bent on doping to stop. If the odds are still low that they will get caught, and either way it could be a career-killer to be sanctioned, why quit?
What WADA needs to focus on, rather than making it look like they’re doing something, is to actually do something. Like fund more research into better testing techniques. They should build an anti-doping system not by fiat, but through real participation and inclusion of all who are affected by the program. Athletes, team managers, and others must be an active part of the policy-making. If WADA could get their buy-in, and if WADA could develop a system with better checks and balances, then the credibility of the anti-doping system would be improved.
It’s important to eliminate doping in sports — not just to level the playing field, but for the long-term health of the athletes. Having harsh punishments, and making it easier to convict athletes is not the right long-term answer to fixing the current problem. Finding newer, more accurate and more effective means of catching the cheaters will do more, and will be more effective, than adopting policies that merely make WADA look tough on doping.
The delegates in Madrid who will be considering the changes to the WADA code should take a few moments to consider what measures are best for the long term, rather than what are expedient given the public relations demands of the present. If all they do is window-dressing, like increasing the penalty without increasing the effectiveness of the anti-doping tests, then those rumored doping programs in place on various sports teams won’t change. The odds on getting caught won’t change. And that won’t change the ultimate calculus for those who are willing to gamble their careers, or the longevity of their teams, through doping.
———-
I’ll be back tomorrow with more on the Rasmussen case, Rabobank’s report and Rasmussen’s response to Rabobank’s version of what went down last summer.
Rant, I’m not clear on a central point. Are the ADAs proposing to do away with B testing altogether? Or are they saying they want to be able to bring a doping case even if the B test fails to confirm the A test? There’s a big difference between the two.
Hey Rant – make sure you give a “satisfactory explanation” -remember – Larry is a lawyer…ahem – and don’t forget to define the parameters of your answer, please…which seem to me more then WADA will have to do…
Larry,
By allowing a “satisfactory explanation” (whatever that is, because it’s extremely vague) we could get to the point where all B samples that fail to confirm A samples will be explained away. The net result would be that the B sample requirement vanishes. As it is, the protection of having to replicate the original results would be gone, assuming that the lab can find a creative way to explain away why the B sample tests failed.
…
In science, there are the concepts of validity and reliability. To be valid, a test needs to be able to measure what it claims to measure. To be reliable, it has to do so on repeated occasions. By allowing the labs to explain away a differing B sample result, we lose the reliability portion of the testing program. All you really would need anymore is a single “non-negative” result in order to prosecute and sanction an athlete.
…
Take it one step further. Look at the additional B sample testing done in the Landis case. Under the current rules, none of those test results could be used to prosecute a new case against Landis, due to the fact that the initial tests were contrary. Or, taking the A and B results as a whole, those tests are inconclusive (assuming that LNDD’s results are correct). When test results don’t match, even if we strongly suspect that someone is cheating, the just thing to do is drop the matter.
…
But under the new rules, those types of results could be used to prosecute Landis (or any athlete in a similar situation). Years later, the ADAs could come back and test old B samples and sanction athletes for things they may (or may not) have been using. Without the requirement that the B sample match the A sample’s results, we lose a great deal of certainty about the results. And since it’s very hard to prove a lab’s results wrong, could any accused athlete who is innocent ever overcome charges brought because of a single test result? It may be expedient to allow labs to explain away a contrary B sample result, but I think it’s wrong.
…
While the B sample test has not been eliminated directly by this proposal, the net effect is to do so. It’s a pretty swift political trick. It looks like the requirement is there, but in reality, the requirement has been taken away. That is, if that change passes. Sorry if that’s long-winded. I hope my explanation is (ahem) satisfactory.
Rant,
Science reliability don’t need the 2 samples A and B, one sample is enough is you can do two or more measures with it. It could be done by splitting the sample and repeating the testing procedures on the different “new samples”. If you get the same results, so your measures are reliable. One sample A with multi-tests on splitting part could be scientifically enough.
So sample B is more a recourse for athlete which can be necessary for some tests like EPO tests difficult to execute by some lab.
If I am right, the Floyd’s retesting B samples were done like this : splitting and multi measurements before to conclude that T was present inside.
(:-)))) Ahem…
_
As Mozart said to Ludwig – “Hey – your Emperorship – I swear I only used as many notes as were necessary.” Not a direct quote – but a reasonable facsimile – – – just like – well – you know – it may not all be kosher – but it is rye… Errr – sorry Rant – according to my base numbers – I may have been doping – no other explanation.
–
Is it zealotry or is it something else that allows this kind of rationale from WADA? As Jack Nicholson asked in the Witches of Eastwick – “Did god make WADA on purpose or did he do it just to mess with us?” – OKAY – not a direct quote – but I’m hoping you all realize that I am just letting off steam in my own way.
–
But seriously for a moment – there just might be a thread of sanity here – maybe – If the ENTIRE WORLD is doping, according to WADA and some others – then we all are too stoned to notice anything that they try to get by us.
–
You done a good job of defining your parameters Rant.
–
I really do hope nobody thinks I am not taking this seriously.
Jean,
You’re right. What we commonly refer to as an A sample and B sample are really just two portions of the same sample. One is set aside for testing at a later date, if necessary. That’s the one often referred to as the B sample. It’s an imprecision of the language that’s grown up around these stories, but it is exactly as you describe. In theory, the two portions should give the same result for the same test. If not, there’s either something wrong with the sample, or something wrong in the testing methods employed. Either way, if the two results conflict, the net effect is an inconclusive test. If they agree, then we’re more capable of drawing conclusions from the findings.
Rant, LOL! I didn’t mean to cross-examine you!
…
So if I understand correctly, the ADAs would continue the existing procedure of splitting athlete samples into an A sample and a B sample, and doing testing on both. The proposal is to allow an adverse finding in certain cases where the A sample is positive for doping and the B sample is not. In these cases, the prosecuting ADA would have the burden of proving why the B sample did not confirm the A sample.
…
This may be a bad proposal, but it’s not as bad as if the ADAs were proposing to drop B testing altogether. If there’s B testing, then we’ve retained some of the additional QC inherent in dual testing.
…
The next question would be, why do the ADAs want to make this change? We can be cynical and say, they want the change to make their lives easier, they want the change so that they can falsely accuse more riders, etc. And TBH, these are my first thoughts ANY TIME the ADAs propose a change in the rules. But remember, we Rantheads are supposed to be on the side of fairness and truth. Fairness and truth requires us to inquire if there are legitimate reasons why the ADAs want to make this change.
…
When I heard about this proposed change, I thought of two things: the Mayo testing for EPO and the report that an athlete could frustrate an EPO test by somehow adding a soap flake to his urine sample. See for example http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/10/epo-anti-doping.html. Let’s spin out a scenario. Cyclist John Doe has been doping with EPO. He wins a race stage and has to pee into a cup for doping control. He cleverly flicks a soap flake into his sample without being detected. The sample is divided into A and B samples before the soap flake has had a chance to dissolve. The soap flake ends up in the B sample. The lab is able to perform the EPO test on the uncontaminated A sample, and it shows that John Doe is doping. They can’t get a reading on the B sample, because of the action of the soap flake. The lab then does everything a good lab should do to make certain that the A sample test was performed correctly. They bring a case against John Doe before a fair and balanced panel, and make the best arguments they can about what happened to the B sample.
…
(Note the irony: if the sample is not promptly divided into a A portion and a B portion, then the soap flake will contaminate the entire portion. This is one reason why using two samples actually benefits the ADAs!)
…
Now, admittedly, I’ve spun the above facts very carefully. But the scenario I’ve spun above is not inherently unfair to the athlete. It’s perfectly good science.
…
The rest of this post assumes that the reader shares my very low opinion of the ADA system.
…
The scenario I spun above for fictional cyclist John Doe is problematic not because it represents a more relaxed approach to B testing, but because (1) we don’t trust the labs and the ADA arbitration panels, and (2) we know that the ADA system is unwilling to consider other kinds of improvements in the rules if those improvements might benefit the accused athlete.
…
On my reason (1) for opposing changes in B testing, I’m cynical enough to believe that B testing provides the athlete with very little protection, that once the lab makes an adverse finding on an A test, they’ll find a way to make the B test confirm the A result. The exceptions will be at a “good” lab like UCLA (Marion Jones), or in a case like Mayo where they can’t get the B test to produce any kind of result at all.
…
On point (2), we’re put in a position where we end up opposing any changes to the rules, no matter what they might be, because we know that no change would be proposed unless it was designed to make things more unfair for the athlete. That’s a “reactionary” position, which is personally uncomfortable for me. I’d rather think of this as a negotiation, where (as hypothetical ADA member and friend of the athlete), I’d try to make a deal. How about, in exchange for relaxing the B testing standards, the ADAs increase the documents available to the athlete in discovery? Of course, it’s silly to think that there’s any possibility for this kind of negotiation. So maybe at the end of the day, I’m going to react to any ADA change in a manner like the Marx Brothers’ song in “Horse Feathers”:
…
“Whatever it is, I’m against it!”
Larry,
Glad I gave you a chuckle. I’m opposed to the change as I’m coming at this aspect of the system as a scientist might (it’s in my background, and not just by virtue of parentage). I see your point about negotiating, and I guess that if I were going to negotiate on such an issue, I’d want to see that the testing methods, themselves, are beyond reproach. And in addition, the certification of labs and their procedures and protocols are beyond reproach. As Jean pointed out (above), in reality, multiple test runs are performed even during the A sample analysis. So it’s not as if there’s only one number that’s the A result and one that’s the B.
…
I do see the possibility for someone to manipulate a sample. It comes with the territory. I can cite some pretty wild examples from the past about how various athletes tried to beat the system. The soap flakes in your urine trick is a pretty swift way to beat the EPO test, as you point out. I guess they’re going to have to ensure that there’s no “Tide” or “Cheer” in the rooms where samples are given, eh? 😉
…
If I were negotiating, I’d want the athletes to have access to any and all lab documentation and data during the discovery phase. A system beyond reproach should be unafraid of showing the raw data. That data would back up their conclusions, and be further proof of the accuracy of the results. Kind of a “read it and weep” scenario. But there could, of course, be incorrect interpretations of the data. It’s a huge scientific no-no to destroy your original data, as LNDD did with Landis’ results. Without that data, any reputable scientific publication would throw out any articles submitted that would be based on their purported results. There’s simply no way to prove that their raw data really does say what they say it does. And without that kind of certainty, I’d be very hesitant to impose a sanction on anyone.
…
I agree that we need to inquire as to why they wish to make this change. And critically examine their reasoning to see whether it stands up to the smell test. I’m afraid, however, that the idea of that WADA might negotiate with anyone about how they’ve set up their system is pretty unlikely. Call it the cynic in me, but I see the way WADA currently runs, and I’m reminded of the phrase, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Rant,
WADA could get rid of the B sample if they followed a different testing protocol that included 1)lab methodology standardization, 2) testing in triplicate and 3) Gage R&R (replication and reproducability) tests for all WADA labs.
I don’t see how WADA cannot have standard testing methods and equipment in all labs? It is as if each lab has decided that their test method is better than everyone elses and/or they cannot afford the right equipment to standardize.
Research labs always run duplicate or triplicate test samples (A, B, C samples?). That helps identify the standard deviation of the test material and eliminates/identifies lab errors on single samples.
Finally, if the Gage R&R was implemented at all labs for their standard equipment/methods, poor test methods and lab procedures could be identified and eliminated over time. Poor lab technique could be identified and appropriate lab training could be implemented. A codified instruction manual could be written for all doping test methods.
IF WADA did all of this, they might eliminate false poaitives and they probably wouldn’t need the current “B” sample and they would have more reliability in their testing protocols and ruin less innocent athletes careers.
RSD,
Excellent points.
This scenario is absurd and I’m asking myself who could be responsible for that? For sure not somebody with a scientific background. In the Landis case only one analysis was made (the IRMS test). What is normal if your doctor gives a blood (or whatever) sample to a lab and it would come back with an abnormal result? Right, if you don’t have symtoms – but even than- he would repeat the analysis to be sure it wasn’t a failue of the lab. By the way, each lab I know, would also recheck before they release an “abnormal” result, because every normal lab is afraid of erleasin false positives. Which to me is not a concern of WADA labs. That scares the hell out of me and if I would be an athlete there are only two possibilities I can think of: stay away of the sport or do something against this conditions, where an accusation is enough to destroy your life. The fight against doping has to be supported, but the standards to proof guilt have to be very high and safe.
I am speculating here, but it is widely held that many, if not most, riders (and other athelets) are doping, yet only a small percentage are actually caught in testing. Data on how many positive A samples are discarded because the B test does not back them up, but we know that there are some. If we relax the B test standard, then we gather more athletes in the catch. Maybe some are guilty and some maybe not.
–
The problem here is what constitutes a “satisfactory explanation”? We have seen that the current WADA rules, regulation and standards are open to interpretation and the Landis panel, at least, did a lot of interpreting. Is it possible that, even if the A test is properly conducted, a false positive might result? This probably depends on the test. But shouldn’t the labs be required to well document things anyway, as SOP? In a situation such as Larry’s hypothetical above, it might be possible that the lab could run further tests and detect the presence of the soap, or other contaminating agent. But again this will vary with what particular test is being run, I imagine that only a few can be beat be such simple means. Or will “satisfactory explanation” just be some spin the lab puts on things?
Most people tend to use language — not to communicate, but rather to hide behind. People establish their “status” by the manner in which they use language — the majority of the western world is inundated with “ad speak” — what is most frightening is that it is mostly done on an unconscious level, and only rarely unintentionally. May I present an example of the unintentional use of language:
-l
“The attorney for Kashechkin, who allegedly tested positive for homologous blood doping during a random blood screen in August, says he is prepared to carry his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.”
–
People who are familiar with the current events transpiring — know that it is Kashechkin whom the writer is discussing — but in reality — if one reads the sentence as it is presented — The lawyer for K got busted for blood doping in a screening done in August and is willing to go to the ECHR for an appeal”¦No I am not being a fuss pot here — I am trying to point out that we are “playing with words and phrases.”
–
H. French states — “This scenario is absurd and I’m asking myself who could be responsible for that? For sure not somebody with a scientific background.” Jellotrip puts forth a very interesting point on “News From the Landis Front” piece — where he breaks down how the government of Canada and more then likely the US government is involved with the development of the WADA rules — NO — I am not talking “conspiracy” here — I am trying to get a handle on the politics behind the present situation.
–
Many who write here are bothered, including myself, by the fact that such large loopholes are left in the rules that seem to favor “getting the dopers at any cost,” the major cost being ignoring the rights of the athlete to be considered “innocent till proven guilty”
–
The only party that I know that makes a practice of this is the “politics of fighting doping” in government. So H. French — you are right to be stating that no “scientific” person would approach this matter of “dope control” with such obviously lousy science — but a politician certainly would — or a political system that believes that “doping is the scourge of mankind and must be stopped at all cost.”
–
I would strongly recommend reading Jellotrip’s piece about how the governments helped create the institution of WADA. It is not long or difficult to follow. If half of what Jellotrip points out is true — then we have been aiming at the wrong windmills. If we allow ourselves to be caught up in discussing semantics rather then “cause and effect” of the present state of the doping problem — we shall always be blind sided because we don’t really know the source of the problem.
–
If what Jellotrip points out is true — then the real problem lies with the politicians who at this moment are altogether making up rules to suit their particular” philosophical outlook about “drugs” — “cheating” and the “IOC” — not necessarily merely WADA, the UCI or in a smaller way the ASO.
–
In a fight it is imperative to know who your opponent is — if you are truly interested in winning the battle. If politicians, instead of scientist were writing the “rules and regulations” — it would explain a heck of a lot of things.
–
Rant and others come back to the question of “funding” for proper scientific testing — but what if that is not the point?
–
Rant — Larry — William — Everybody — I am not trying to be slick here — but I am always left with the feeling that I “can’t see” who is behind all this mess — Jellotrip’s comment on the “News From the Landis Front” seems to direct one’s attention towards clarity in this matter. I would like to hear what you all think on this supposition.
Morgan:
Certainly USADA receives a significant amount of funding from the federal government – this fact is well known. Posters here and elsewhere have suggested writing to congressmen in hopes of effecting reform via the route of funding. The fact that the government funds USADA is at least tacit approval of the program. However, to what extent the government is actively making the rules is another story. My gut feeling is that the relationship is more one of the government taking the attitude of “you guys are against drugs, that’s good, here’s some money” rather than taking an active role in formulating regulations. But that is just my opinion; I can’t offer any evidence to support my position.
–
USADA is only part of the whole WADA system. Remember, WADA is HQed in Switzerland, not the US. WADA is international in scope, and USADA is under obligation to play by WADA rules. If Congress, or the White House attempted to make rules for USADA that were in conflict with WADA rules, the WADA would squawk, and maybe more. Suppose we actually got Congress to say to USADA “Implement the chances to improve athletes’ rights, such as suggest at Rant, TbV, etc., or we cut off funding!” and USADA actually does that. Now WADA is not happy with USADA. They might say that a US rider would have to answer to a French court for a violation alleged from the TdF, or wherever the race was run, instead of answering to the ADA of his licensing country. Or even take a more extreme position that US athletes are barred from international competition until the USADA comes back into compliance with WADA rules. Extreme? Possibly, but remember that South Africa was barred from the Olympics for its racial policies for a number of years, so this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If the WADA system is going to change, or if as an alternative, cycling is going to divorce itself from WADA a la MLB, NFL, etc., then this will have to come from within.
For every cyclist on a pro team there are probably 10 that would like to replace them. By having the A sample be the only one of record, then more cyclists will be given 2 to 4 year suspensions (thus ending their career) allowing the younger riders to take their place. Kind of like trickle down economics from a job opportunity perspective. Sounds win win to me. Brilliant idea!
I understand you William and I appreciate your response – isn’t it true that WADA came into existence by “government(s)” mandate? I know that WADA is not merely a US mandated body.
–
I know vaguely that WADA was formed as a response to certain events concerning corruption within the IOC and the then drug enforcement group. I am ashamed to say I do not know this part of the “history.”
–
What concerns me is that right at this moment there are 1500 international delagates meeting to form new rules and 800 of them are supposed to be government representatives.
–
From my understanding of how “government representatives” function – the controlling interest seems to always come from which governments supply the greatest amount of funding. Does anyone know the numbers for which governments are “donating” the most money?
–
My delima is that I do think cycling does need a “WADA” to oversee the doping/cheating situation – one that is mandated by all governments in the participating cycling world – What it does not need is the political “back room” political solutions that seems to be the deriguer for politicians.
–
I guess William, I am trying to “follow the money.” Forgive me for my ignorance, if I am completely not understanding you. But as Doping Musician points out – it sure “smacks” of “trickle down” political philosophy, and I still know that to fight a “faceless” enemy is very difficult indeed.
Yes Morgan follow the money…
how many EPO doses are product? How are sold to medical environnement? How much money is the left?
Jean C – that would be the beginning of following the money if I was referring to the production of EPO. But in this case Jean – I am talking about who has the strongest hand in the monetary support of WADA.
–
Understand – I am trying to find out “who” has the biggest sayso in how the rules are developed….I know – we see this differently – but I think this is only because somethings in our language differences are not communicating what we are saying.
–
As I said – we need a “WADA” “police” organization – BUT WE ALSO NEED rules that are fair! I am all for fighting “cheating/doping” – but I am also a very firm believer in “fair laws and rules” – I do not agree with your perception that the “rules are in favor of the athlete.”
–
I want to know – who is responsible for having such vague and loopholed filled semilegal processes come into being. I want to know “who” – meaning individual and groups – who are not scientists or professionals in jusrisprudence who are “being creative” with peoples liberties. This is also known as “following the money.”
–
Don’t think that I am ignoring or discounting your statement – it directs excellent questions towards finding out how the drug companies are producing “controlled substances that “magically make their way into the world market.” THIS IS ALSO A VERY PERTINEENT QUESTION TO GET ANSWERS TO – but for the moment – one thing at a time.
–
I want “faces” to put to who are the creators of the present WADA, UCI rules athletes have to follow. If you say to me that they are all different countries – I would point out to you that this answer is too vague – since all countries are run by people with faces and histories.
Jean C:
Your 2:01 post brings an interesting idea to mind. Many PEDs are legitimate medical products used for other than their intended purposes. For example, EPO is used as part of chemotherapy for cancer patients, as the chemo attacks the blood as well as the target cancer. Riders who use EPO are using EPO that somehow has been diverted from legitimate channels. The authorities should track back to determine how and where these products are being siphoned off, and work to close down those channels. This would be one area of sports-related anti-doping efforts that governments could and should be involved with. If we can dry up the supply, then doping will also dry up.
–
Of course, blood-doping could not be stopped in this fashion, but if we could stop, or at least greatly reduce other forms of doping, then it would be possible to concentrate efforts on blood doping.
The idea of labeling medicaments which could be used as doping products chemically is not new. It would be easy to do and than easy to detect, but the industry doesn’t want to do so. Why? Because it is business and a huge amount of money is earned that way.
As crazy as I originally thought the whole Kasheshkin human rights trial is, I am beginning to come around to his point of view.
_
The way I see it: The ADAs are government organizations that are given the ability to search and seize evidence from private citizens through their agents the sporting bodies. They have been given the ability to exercise punitive measures against private citizens by fiat. They are not bound by the basic rules of justice that the government itself is bound by. This whole system is designed to punish private citizens using the power, financial resources, and authority of the government, without any real accountability to the citizenry at large. On the surface the Kash case seemed ridiculous to me; I couldn’t see why a private organization such as the UCI couldn’t take samples and punish dopers, but then I realized that this whole system is not run by a private organization. I do believe that cycling does have the ability to test the athletes and punish those whom it deems to be cheats; but the ADA’s are governmental agencies that are not abiding by the requirements for due-process. If the government wants a sample of my blood, they must get a court order – they cannot obtain it through an intermediary (ASO, UCI, etc.), especially when that third party uses the coercion of lost income for refusal of submitting to the testing. Therefore, I must admit that Kash may have a valid argument that his basic human rights are being violated (I admit that this isn’t really what he argues in his press releases. In fact, I believe he may be arguing the opposite.)
_
Hey Larry, Rant, and the rest, is my limited understanding of law and justice off base? Can anybody think of another quasi-governmental organization that is given such powers without the requirements of due-process?
_
If people want the government involved, then make them responsible for enforcing the laws regarding controlled substances and prescription drugs. As so obviously pointed out by JeanC, the fact the there are more doses of a prescription drug manufactured than are prescribed seems like an obvious problem that the drug enforcement agencies could legitimately follow (or medical and pharmaceutical licensing boards). But, what do they do about products manufactured in Asia where there is little oversight or even tacit government complicity in the black market? Oh well. It seems that doping has existed since humans started chucking stones and looks like it will continue.
Michael,
Like you, I can’t think of another quasi-governmental agency with the same kinds of powers as USADA, without the requirement of due process. But there could be one or two out there, working quietly behind the scenes while avoiding the kind of attention that the USADA/WADA/anti-doping system has been receiving of late.
…
Jean is absolutely on the mark when it comes to diverted prescription medications. The manufacturers are making a certain amount. A certain amount is legally prescribed. The rest just seems to vanish into the ether? I don’t think so. Somehow, it can and should be accounted for.
…
There are laws, as you point out, that govern how prescription medications can be distributed. To whom, under what circumstances, etc. Someone is either importing bogus (or bootlegged) medication and selling it, or some doctors are prescribing it not for the purposes intended, or more likely, a combination of the two. Those are avenues that law enforcement can pursue right now (and they have been, think of Operation Raw Deal, for instance or the mail-order pharmacy busts earlier this year).
…
The temptation to take short-cuts to achievement, whether through doping or other means, has existed for a long, long time. And it will continue on into the future. The fight against doping isn’t just about cheating, however. As Dick Pound pointed out recently, it’s also a public health issue. When used wrongly, these drugs can have some serious consequences, including death. No athletic achievement is worth killing yourself for. At least, not in my book.