The previous post generated a number of interesting comments, and towards the end, a theme emerged. Over the next series of posts, I’m going to take that theme and expand on it, in the hopes of trying to craft a framework for a better anti-doping system than the one we’ve currently got.
From my perspective, the current anti-doping system has failed to live up to what it could and should be. There are many reasons for this, and the responsibility lies on many shoulders. Some responsibility — perhaps even a great deal — lies on the shoulders of those who persist in finding ways of illicit performance enhancement. That would be the athletes, coaches, doctors, suppliers and others who find ways of circumventing the current rules.
But on the other side, there are the rule makers. A certain portion of the responsibility for what we currently have lies on their shoulders, too. We don’t yet have standard practices for tests, to be followed at each and every anti-doping lab. If the goal of creating a list of banned substances and defining standards for how we determine when an athlete tests positive is to bring consistency to the process, then as it’s currently crafted, the anti-doping system is a failure. It’s not at all consistent — except in a very superficial way — in how dopers are caught, prosecuted and punished.
One of the biggest problems is that the people charged with creating the anti-doping system chose to use a “one-size-fits-all” approach. And they chose to impose harsh punishments for even first offenses. Granted, they put in some language about how under certain mitigating circumstances a penalty might be reduced, but it’s turned out to be more window dressing than anything. There have been instances when arbitration panels bemoaned the fact that the World Anti-Doping Code didn’t allow much flexibility in terms of punishment for cases of unintentional use. Right now, a first offense results in a two-year “vacation” from one’s chosen sport. In a few weeks, a first offense may result in a four-year ban (if there are “aggravated circumstances,” a term which is not clearly defined).
You’d think that those bent on cheating would look at the current penalties and choose to give up their doping ways. Two years away from a sport — almost any sport — is enough to end most athletes’ careers, or at least, cause them to work exceptionally hard to come back to the level of competition they were at before sitting out. So why do cyclists and others persist in doping? Perhaps it’s because the actual chances of getting caught are still pretty low, and the benefit of doping is so great. Greater glory, greater winnings, a greater bank acount and so on. Pretty obvious choice, if you’re inclined to cheat.
A four-year ban may scare off some who would cheat, but my guess is that as long as the odds of getting caught are pretty low, most who would dope won’t stop. From what I’ve seen, the threat of harsh sanctions has not done much to curb doping in cycling or anywhere else. There are a number of internal testing programs that various cycling teams have begun over the last couple of years, and there seems to be a movement (at least in public) towards “clean” competition. And that’s all to the good. If these programs “encourage” cheaters to stop cheating, so much the better. If a two-year ban hasn’t scared dopers straight, will a four-year ban be enough to do so? Personally, I doubt it.
So all this leaves me thinking that the current system needs to be up-ended and redesigned, in order to bring greater rationality to how the fight against doping is conducted. The approach I’m going to write about is a hybrid of ideas put forth by Larry, William, myself, and others that can be seen in the comments section of the previous post. It’s what I referred to as “radical reasonableness.” Over the coming posts, I’m going to look at:
- Proportionality in the punishment of doping offenses
- Sport-specific lists of banned substances versus a single, standard list of banned substances
- Who should be conducting drug testing and how much testing should be done
- The science and testing we have versus the science and testing we would like to have
- The role of WADA and the various national anti-doping agencies (“NADAs”), such as USADA
- The role of the various international sports federations, such as the UCI
- The role of the various national sports federations, such as USA Cycling
- The role of law enforcement in anti-doping cases
Each of these topics will be the focus of a single post. And any topics that get added due to reader comments and suggestions may eventually make this list longer.
Now, before digging into the first topic, one more bit of “housekeeping.” This is going to serve as an axiom for the upcoming discussion.
Doping is cheating. It’s a violation of sporting rules and it needs to be dealt with in a sporting manner.
You’ll see what I mean as this whole series of posts unfolds. With that, on to part one.
Proportionality of Punishment and Escalating Consequences
When you’re parked by a parking meter and the meter runs out, you may get a parking ticket. And, if you’re like most people, you will grudgingly pay the fine. When you’re caught speeding, you’ll get a different ticket, with a different, usually larger, fine (and very likely, points against your licence). If you’re caught speeding and driving while intoxicated, you’re facing a even greater consequences — a heftier fine, more points against your license, and perhaps a chance to sleep off your drinking binge in the county klink. Get enough points on your license, and/or enough drunk-driving convictions, and you’ll lose your license for a period of time. And if this cycle continues, you may eventually lose the privilege of being able to drive.
That’s proportionality and escalating consequences. Proportionality, as I’m using it, means that the punishment is proportional to the infraction. If you look at the current anti-doping system, you’ll see that there is no proportionality. If you’ve been caught accidentally ingesting a banned substance, or if you’ve been caught using EPO, you’re going to get the same punishment: two years. Yes, there can be some reduction, if you take your case to arbitration and the panel agrees with you, but that’s not a given. And taking a case to arbitration is more expensive than many athletes can afford.
The escalating consequences come from accumulating more points against your licence, or multiple convictions for a serious offense, like driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Commit enough offenses, and eventually you lose your driver’s license.
So how can we apply this to the anti-doping system? Pretty easily. Some performance-enhancing substances are effective for only a short period of time and others, like EPO, have a longer effect. Since doping is about gaining an unfair advantage, the punishment should be in line with the unfair advantage gained.
So, if an athlete ingests a stimulant that has a short lifespan, and that stimulant can only affect a single event, the athlete’s punishment should be relatively shorter. If an athlete is using a drug like EPO, where the effect lasts for a longer period of time, the initial punishment should be longer, in keeping with the unfair advantage gained.
How would this work? Say a rider comes up positive for an asthma medication and doesn’t have a therapeutic exemption for the medication. The effect of that medication is relatively short, like the course of that day’s race. So, in the proportional system, the rider would be disqualified for that day’s results.
[updated after Morgan’s comment] Or, maybe, the rider would be given a time penalty, which would effectively neutralize any advantage he gained from using the medication. [end update]
Now, if in the same race, another rider comes up positive for a variant of EPO, how long should that initial punishment be? EPO has a much longer-lasting effect, by helping the body build extra oxygen-carrying blood cells — exactly the thing an endurance athlete needs to perform at a higher level for longer. And, those cells aren’t around just for a single day, they live on for a while. In a proportional system, that means that the first offense for EPO might require a cyclist to sit out for a month or more, while those extra blood cells slowly leave the cyclist’s body.
[updated after Morgan’s comment] Perhaps, in a stage race, the penalty would be a greater time penalty — and given the enduring effect of EPO, perhaps penalties would be added to each race he competes in for a certain period of time, rather than an out-and-out suspension. The rider gets to race, but his efforts will be neutralized and there would be no chance of winning.[end update]
Now, if either of these cyclists came up positive again, the next offense would result in greater punishment. And at a certain point, where the cyclist is clearly not learning his or her lesson, the if we’re handing out bans, the bans could get to be pretty substantial, like a season or more. The EPO rider would get there first, as the offense is greater, at least in my estimation.
There’s an interesting bit of fallout from a system like this, by the way. Remember, no drug testing is perfect. Not even the best tests are 100% accurate all the time. Eventually, someone is going to turn up as a false positive. Under this kind of system, the false positives won’t occur any less frequently than under the current system. But what will happen is that the damage to the athlete’s career is minimized if a mistake is made. Rather than have to sit out a year or more for a relatively minor offense, the athlete might lose his or her placing in a specific race, and then be free to continue racing — if not immediately afterwards, then in short order.
Think in terms of a case I’ve covered a great deal, the Floyd Landis case. This was his first offense, and it was for testosterone, which some believe is a way to speed recovery. (Although, there is little in the way of actual scientific evidence that proves this to be true.)
Under a proportional system of punishment, Landis may still have had to sit out of competition for a while. But if the time to sit out was relatively short, he could have been back in competition for the 2007 Tour, if not before. In fact, if the time out was short enough, it may not have made much sense to engage in a lengthy appeals process at all. A lot of time and money was spent prosecuting the case, and a lot of time and money was spent on Landis’ appeals. Under this alternative system, the costs in terms of time and money, would not have been so great. And Landis could have been back on the bike and back into racing sooner.
[Updated after Morgan’s comment] Or, if time penalties were assessed, Landis might still have finished the Tour, but he might not have finished as the winner. And he would have been free to continue racing afterwards. [end update]
It’s sort of like a football game (either kind). Sometimes the referees make bad calls, and sometimes athletes or teams suffer because of those bad calls. Life is never completely fair. Still, the next week (or whenever) they’re out playing football again.
Under any anti-doping system, there will be people unfairly punished. Under the current system, that punishment is very harsh. Under the alternative, it may still be unfair to be suspended for a certain amount of time or given a time penalty that relegates one’s placing in an event, but it’s not the threat to one’s livelihood that an automatic multi-year ban is. Especially when one’s livelihood is in a field where your time at the top is pretty limited.
Another bit of fallout from this approach is this: By the time a rider gets a ban of one season or more, he or she is much more likely to be a real doper. (That, or someone who is incredibly unlucky.) When the cyclist gets such a ban, we’re all going to be much more confident that the system has nabbed the right person. That means less controversy, and perhaps less bad PR for cycling. Maybe.
Looking ahead: In the next post, we’ll take up the question of which drugs should be banned and why.
Rant writes: —-“Under any anti-doping system, there will be people unfairly punished. Under the current system, that punishment is very harsh. Under the alternative, it may still be unfair to be suspended for a certain amount of time, but it’s not the threat to one’s livelihood that an automatic multi-year ban is, especially when one’s livelihood is in a field where your time at the top is pretty limited.”
Consider this for one moment – What If – these “punishments” were “negative time bonuses?”
Consider: We seem to always come up against this “fair/unfair” problem with the present system dealing with “dopers/cheaters.” A large part of the problem seems to me is that the “fairness” of the whole system of “testing” is being called into question and with good reason, I think. In my opinion — one cannot “take for granted” that a “test” whether positive or whatever — is a test proving “cheating.”
Consider: We seem to be trying to get a “positive way” to reach out to these so-called dopers and get it across to them that their behavior is not acceptable. Banning them from “racing” does little more than putting them into a “public situation” where their livelihood is destroyed. Leaving open and unanswered the question of guilt or innosence of the accused.
Consider: Racer X is doing the TdeF — it is stage 9 — Racer X is dominating the race and after the test result from stage 5 — he is accused of “doping.”
With present day “rules and regulations” he is ejected, publicly “outed” as a “cheater” and the rest is a circus of pseudo litigation that prevents him from defending himself or proving his innocence. The “question” of whether the “accusation” is true or not is – always left in doubt.
We the “viewers” have an “either- or” choice — we can ACCEPT the accusation or we can take Racer X’s side and “complain” about the injustice of the situation.
Racer X in the meantime is deprived of making a living. Publically “branded” and the powers that be, want nothing to do with him except to fade away or to lose every penny he has earned trying to “prove his innocence” in a “fixed” governance system.”
Now WHAT IF — Racer X is penalized with time added to his GC? The worry of him “winning” because he has an “unfair advantage” is neutralized. A sane punishment that does not try to destroy the cheater but rather “frustrate” his cheating would seem to make much more sense. This would seem to “deal” more directly with the problem of stopping cheating then the present “brand them and throw them out” policy in place.
What would a “doper” do if every time he is “busted” he is made to finish the race but cannot hope to win because his “advantage” has been neutralized?
The problem of “doping” as a means of gaining advantage would soon stop — because if found out — the racer is immediately “punished” — but NOT deprived of racing=earning a living, because his team or sponsor cannot just “dump” him and consider the matter closed.
In the meantime, — if the racer continues with his antisocial behavior — he is constantly frustrated.
Sure – dope all you want — but if you are caught — you go to the back of the pack, and “we all know why you’re there fella!” So what does the “doping” get them? Nothing.
In my opinion — banishing a rider who has been accused of doping is counterproductive in the effort to stop cheating and doping. It is comparable to a response from a family when one of the kids is “acting out” and the family’s response is to “throw the kid out of the house!”
Yeah — that’ll teach “˜em! Like hell, it will!
IF WE ACCEPT the “throw the baby out with the bathwater”
– we can never hope to stop cheating/doping – we will never be able to actually “understand” why that racer is behaving in the manner he is
– we will never actually see who are the “enablers” of this behavior
– we cannot come to understand and provide constructive solutions to what appears to be a “disfunctional” situation.
And if you doubt this – just read the history of the Tour de France – and you will see for yourself – “things are the same as they ever was!”
Morgan,
I knew I’d left something out that I’d intended to address. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I’ve updated the post in various spots.
Your write:
So, if an athlete ingests a stimulant that has a short lifespan, and that stimulant can only affect a single event, the athlete’s punishment should be relatively shorter. If an athlete is using a drug like EPO, where the effect lasts for a longer period of time, the initial punishment should be longer, in keeping with the unfair advantage gained.
This is a terribly uninformed way of assessing proportionality of doping offenses!
Practically every single performance-enhancing drug has a short-acting version. In fact, most athletes aleady use the shorting-acting compounds already. They simply use the short-acting compound on a regular basis. Voila – it’s just as good as the drugs with long half lives.
The bottom line is that stimulants don’t ONLY affect a single event. This denies the reality that long-term training utilizing stimulants can have performance-enhancing effects above and beyond the acute use of stimulants before an event.
I think that any new doping approach should also involve a re-evaluation of banned substance list. In some ways it is arbitrary – it includes some non-performance enhancing drugs and excludes drugs that are clearly performance-enhancing. Take the morality-based discussion out of the code and introduce evidence-based criteria.
BTW, I found it ironic that you used “speeding” as an analogy to doping but applauded the former as a good example of proportionality and escalating consequences.
As most readers will probably agree, 98% of all drivers probably speed in spite of proportionality and escalating consequences of the penalties.
So, why would it be any more effective in sports?
Rant,
My lengthier reply seems to have once again disappeared into the ether, unless it somehow magically reappears.
Short and sweet version –
Don’t forget the role of the teams themsleves.
No problem Rant – I’m just really glad that some people are starting to “think” rather than merely react.
I agree also with both William and Larry – “as it is viewed” – the “doping/cheating” problem seems unstoppable. But in my opinion – this is only because we are using ONLY what “established” authoritarian interpretations are out there.
It appears that the system is so screwed up, it is neigh impossible to untangle the mess. Well – this is only true if you “see” the situation from only the “hang’em high” point of view. But is this the ONLY WAY TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM? In my opinion -no!
Let’s be realistic – we will not “change” anything over night! – It will not come to pass that there will be a time when “doping and cheating” are not a part of competitive sport where money is involved. Trying to pass rules that attempt to “control” the morals of individuals is to put it bluntly idiotic. A certain Illinois governor knows that it is ILLEGAL to “sell” a senate seat – in fact it is against the laws – may I point out – having these law/s in place did not make him behave himself, did it?
In a way – if we approach racing with the idea of “neutralizing the BENEFIT of cheating” – we in the simplest and “least destructive way” – remove the “reasons” for cheating. AND in the meantime – we give ourselves some time, to CORRECT the mistakes made when the governing bodies were put into position to “deal” with the situation.
It will not be easy – but it can be done a hell of lot LESS destructively and dysfunctionaly, in my opinion. Just think – “someone gets busted” – he gets sent to the back of the pack – he continues his work – but he cannot hope to “win” through his doping – yes I know – there is that small problem of not being able to have “bullet proof” testing – yeah well – we need to see this as a “motivation” to change that.
If the PELOTON and the different “teams” are doping and cheating – there must be “movement of the substances” in the public sector – this leaves their activity EXACTLY under the auspicious of the police – And let’s face it – all it will take is for the cops to “know” to look out for it – they don’t have to invest more money – or do we believe the bull about the providers of doping cheating being so much smarter.
They may very well be a lot smarter than the “alphabet soup” – so let them be – but if a “doper is caught” – tests positive – then take away his advantage – send him to the back of the line.
Or choose to try and build “better mouse traps.” In my opinion – all we’ll wind up with is better mice.
DR,
Not sure what happened to that longer version. I haven’t found it in amongst the comments flagged for moderation. If I do find it, I’ll post it for you. Meantime, my apologies for the inconvenience.
Millard,
(first comment) I’ll grant you, that may not have been the best example. Probably should have used what I’d originally intended to use: An asthma inhaler, instead. There is a distinction to be drawn between drugs with different “half-lives” and different effects. Your point about use in training is a very good one, one that I didn’t address. I’ll have to work that one out.
The effects of EPO, in terms of extra blood cell volume, last much longer than some other supposed PEDs (and for some of those “supposed” PEDs, I suspect that the enhancement effect is more mythical than factual). So, I think the consequence of using EPO might need to be proportionally longer that the consequences for those other drugs, but only in sports where EPO use really matters (a point I’ll be covering in a future post).
(second coment) Point taken. I guess my point of view is that the punishment should fit the crime. Someone who accidentally ingests a banned substance that has a limited window of usefulness shouldn’t automatically get the same punishment as someone who willingly uses drugs that have a much greater effect. Will such an approach have any different impact in sports than it might in other areas of our lives? I don’t know. But I do know that the current system, with its draconian punishments, doesn’t appeared to have solved the problem. And for some sports, the attendant publicity as athletes try to defend themselves in a rigged system makes the sports look even worse.
Rant:
WADA needs to abolish the strict liability rule. An athlete should not be held responsible for a prohibited substance that was ingested by accident, tainted supplements, for example, that were contaminated by accident or design by the firm that produced them. Athletes should not be punished simply because they were detected in an athletes body. If an athlete has no intent to dope then this should be considered in the “punishment.” Currently under the current draconian WADA code mere presence of a prohibited substance is considered a violation, intent to cheat does not factor into the equation. All athletes who have prohibited substances in their bodies are assumed to have used them to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. The anti-doping crusade needs more flexibility in this area.
Jon,
I haven’t worked out exactly what I’m going to say about strict liability yet, but I definitely agree that the current system needs much greater flexibility. There is much more that needs to be considered than merely detecting a minuscule amount of a substance. I do think intent has to be factored in. Anyone who’s using EPO, it seems to me, has a certain intent. Someone who goes out and buys an inhaler that he doesn’t realize has an isomer of a banned substance probably has no intent to cheat (and may not derive any actual benefit, either, but that’s another story).
Rant:
East German athletes used to use a testosterone inhaler before events to avoid the testosterone “spike” because the inhalers had a quick elimination “half-life.” (No GC/C/IRMS in those days.) If your event was a 100 meter sprint you could complete a race in nine seconds and pass the doping control. The performance benefit of a testosterone inhaler in this situation is questionable; TBV argued that a testosterone gel, patch, or topical solution does increase performance and recovery; a notion that I disagree with. But you see the problem, certainly.
Jon,
I’m not sure how much of a difference that would have made. Although, if it was enough to make the runner a bit more aggressive, perhaps. I think TBV’s argument over the topical gel/patch, etc. goes something like this: There’s no clear evidence, from a scientific view, that testosterone in low does speeds recovery. At the time he made those comments, I’d also done some research into the topic. The few scientific articles that exist on the subject (two, that I found) either concluded they didn’t have enough evidence of an effect (one), or that there was no effect (the other). As many scientific articles would note, more research needs to be done to determine whether there really is an effect. (Anecdotally, there are a number of athletes who claim that used the way Joe Papp and others have described that low-dose testosterone helps, but it’s not clear whether that’s related to other effects — like a feeling of well-being, which would be the famous placebo effect — or whether it’s a real improvement in recovery.)
Now, all that said, I think you’ve raised a bigger question than whether testosterone is performance-enhancing in either case. The bigger question is that there are some who will find ways to avoid testing positive, so how should we deal with those types of cases? And I’ll be looking at that issue in a future post.
Rant,
The half-life versus effective life issue is a good observation when considering proportionality but I believe it will be practically impossible for anti-doping tests to parse out whether the drug was used in a manner that only provided a short-term benefit (short effective life). Basically, it fails to determine intentions
Let’s take the PED testosterone as an example. A “proportionality penalty” would not have been practical in a Floyd Landis type testosteorne positive…
Andriol (testosterone undecanoate) has a very short half-life and a very short effective life. The acute use of Andriol would presumably be what cyclists would take to help them with recovery in competition.
But what happens when Andriol is used multiple time daily for an entire month. The use of this PED then has a long effective life that will persist for a long time after discontinuation (on various performance variables not to mention the increased hematocrit that occurs with steroid use).
So, this short half-life drug with a short effective life can have long-term effects depending on the manner of use.
Further complicating the manner is the fact that if testosterone undecanoate (the active ingredient in Andriol) is injected, then voila it’s half-life is 36 days automatically turning the same drug as Andriol into one with long-half life and long effective life.
Furthermore, I don’t think the technology exists to determine whether the testosterone drug has a short half life. The half-life of testosterone and other steroids is determined by the ester attached to the testosterone molecule.
There are some testosterone drugs with esters that have as long as a 60 day half-life!
With T/E ratio and CIR testing how can you tell the difference in which testosterone drug was used.
The same problems apply, at least, to all steroids and perhaps other PEDs.
Millard