A few things before digging in to tonight’s post. First, for those of you who own a copy of Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today, there’s a new version of the Afterword available. You can find it by clicking Dope: The Book, above.
And secondly, the blog that I’ve referred to as Rant 2.0 launched this weekend. It’s called Politics@Rant, and you can read the full description of what it will be in the first post over there. In short, it’s a site that will deal with politics, the economy and current events. And it will, I hope, be a place where people can discuss these topics in a civil manner. The idea behind the site is to take a different approach, that of trying to find bipartisan solutions to the problems and challenges we face. I’ll be posting something new there tomorrow night.
So, now to the bulk of tonight’s writing.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It’s been an interesting journey, this working towards a new model of what the anti-doping system could and should be. We’ve touched on a lot of topics. Larry made an excellent point in a comment to the previous post.
I’m saying that the best that the science has to offer, and ever will have to offer, is never going to be good enough.
Let’s see if I can state this more plainly. The tests do not show that a rider doped. AT BEST, they show that there’s something going on with the rider that would be unusual if the rider was clean, but would NOT be unusual if the rider doped. If any of you can feel comfortable with this kind of reasoning being used to ruin a rider’s life, please come forward and say so. I’m coming forward to say that I’m not comfortable with this, not at all.
Here’s my analogy. Say that you went to Vegas, went to a roulette table and placed $100 on number 22. You hit! That’s $3500 for you. You let it ride, and number 22 hits again. Wow, you’ve just scored a bit north of $100,000. Then you’re arrested and convicted of cheating. Why? Because what just happened to you is highly unusual (I think the odds are like 1 in 1000) if you were not cheating, but not at all unusual if you were cheating.
You say you don’t like that analogy? Neither do I. The chances of a rider being hit with a false positive doping test are a LOT better than hitting the number twice in a row in roulette. The odds of a false positive drug test are MUCH closer to hitting a number ONCE in roulette.
The story that doping testing is reliable or certain is a scam. It will always BE a scam, unless a positive doping test is supported with additional evidence.
That’s the kicker, right there in the last sentence. Unless we require additional evidence, rather than our current doping tests, evidence that makes it more likely that an accused athlete is really guilty of doping, then the current system is, in some ways, a sham. It looks good. It looks effective. But looks can be deceiving.
The current powers that be want us to believe that the anti-doping tests are infallible (they’re not). Whenever they come up with a new approach, of course it will be even more infallible. But there will never come a day when tests are so accurate that mistakes are impossible. Whenever humans are involved, the possibility exists that mistakes can be made. (Computer-driven machines and tests are no better than the people that program them, as a reminder. )
Even an approach such as the biological passports is only as good as the people who design and implement it. At some point, whatever testing that will be done, and whatever data that’s collected, and whatever theory is designed for the interpretation of that data, we need to be confident that a positive doping test (or prosecution) is based no on what is not unusual for a person who is doping, but that it is most unusual for such results to occur for any other reason.
We will never have perfect tests. Nor will any system we design be perfect. Every once in awhile, an innocent athlete will be accused of doping. We need a system that is open-minded enough that the vast majority of such people will not be sanctioned. We need a system that is open-minded enough so that the science can, and will be, evaluated not just by insiders, but also by colleagues who work in related fields outside the small confines of “anti-doping science.”
It’s the “additional evidence” that Larry points to that we need to keep in mind. Many of the tests used to determine whether banned substances are present look for metabolites of the substances. The question is: do those metabolites come only from the drugs we’re looking for? Or could they be formed in other ways? In the case of naturally-occurring hormones, can we definitively say that carbon isotope test results (like those used to sanction Floyd Landis) that are said to indicate doping can only come from artificial hormones? Or does the phrase “you are what you eat” really ring true? Scott MacLeod’s case suggests that the anti-doping agencies know more about the accuracy of their tests than they let on.
How do we gather the additional evidence needed to prove more definitively that an athlete accused of doping really did? I don’t know that there is one single way to do so. What’s needed, at the very least, is transparency. With the ability to actually examine how things are done, it would be possible to determine what is working and what isn’t. More validation of the theories behind testing protocols is needed, too.
Our bodies are incredibly complex in what they can do and what they produce. We need to be certain that the science behind anti-doping tests not only shows that a result isn’t unusual for a doper, but that it’s extraordinarily unusual for a clean athlete, too. And that means more research, and more researchers.
Perhaps what’s needed most of all is leadership that’s not afraid to be challenged and proven wrong. Leaders who understand that ultimately, what comes from an open system will be closer to approximating the truth than any closed system ever could. Because in closed systems, where assumptions are never challenged, new ways of looking at things — some would call it innovation — eventually ceases to exist. Habits form. Centuries ago, people believed that the sun and stars rotated around a fixed earth. When Copernicus said otherwise, some even branded him a heretic when he dared to challenge the conventional wisdom. And yet, he was right.
A search for “truth” ultimately demands a high degree of transparency. Without it, how will be know that we’ve found the real Truth (the Earth orbits the Sun) rather than the perceived Truth (the Sun revolves around the Earth)?
It’s not likely we’ll ever get to the Full Truth about who dopes and who doesn’t. But we can do better. Much better. To do so, we have to demand more accountability, and we have to hold those who enforce the rules to higher standards. Once we do that, we’ll be on our way to a new and improved anti-doping approach.
Rant, to keep things clear, we need to distinguish between (1) the science used to make the measurement (the anti-doping test itself), and (2) the science used to determine that the measurement is an anomaly.
My highly negative view of anti-doping testing is based more on point (2) than on point (1). I assume that the ADAs can get very good at making their measurements. I don’t assume that the ADAs have the resources, the ability or the will to do the studies needed to determine what is and what is not anomalous in human biochemistry.
My review of the studies published to date on the “anomaly” used to convict Floyd Landis revealed (at least to me, at least to my understanding) that the scientists have done a terrible job of identifying what is normal and what is unusual when it comes to their measurement of testosterone metabolites.
It doesn’t matter how well you take the measurements if at the end of the day you don’t know what they mean.
Thanks for amplifying the things I said in my earlier post.
Larry,
Agreed. It’s one thing to be able to measure something, like difference in the amount of carbon-12 and carbon-13 atoms in a compound. It’s another thing to determine what that difference means, and where that difference comes from. I fully believe that the measurement systems can be accurate, when the instruments are properly calibrated and operated. I’m not so sure that “what it means” has been adequately addressed. As you point out, the question of what is normal and what is unusual doesn’t seem to be well answered, at least not from what I’ve seen so far. I suspect that WADA and their affiliates probably don’t have the resources, will or ability to do all the studies needed to determine what is anomalous. Of course, that’s also a good argument for making the system more open and transparent, as researchers at other institutions could be drawn into the effort. And those researchers might find other sources of funding, and other reasons and benefits to come from the results of their work. I’ve got more to say on that subject, but I also have a job to get to right now… 🙂
I sometimes like pointing out that medical doctors are mere technicians, and worse they’re technicians that don’t really understand their field. Differential diagnosis is a very black-box method. Try something based on poorly understood odds, and see what happens.
At some point in the far distant future (on the order of 100 years, I’d guess). Medicine might elevate itself to the level of engineering. That won’t happen until we FULLY understand the typical human physiology, to the point where we can actually simulate the entirety of chemical reactions that keep us going on a day to day basis. That’s a massive job, and inapproachable right now.
But until we can do that, there’s really no way to eliminate me, the guy that says “how do we know alcohol doesn’t have a unique and specific effect?”. The answer today is that we don’t know, and the resources to chase down every random whim simply don’t exist. We don’t even have the resources to chase down every whim that seems likely.
Not to change the subject, but in light of this article: http://www.velonews.com/article/86535
which teams could hire Floyd today, and which couldn’t (or shouldn’t)? And, based on the language of the code of conduct, are ICPT teams blocked from hiring him until 2012?
tom
Tom,
Good points about tracking down every possibility. Regarding Floyd’s status, it sounds to me like a ProTour team could hire Floyd today and basically tell the ICPT organization to go stuff themselves. But to do so, the team would probably wind up withdrawing from the ICPT organization. Sounds like the “Code of Conduct” isn’t a requirement, it’s merely a suggestion. Go figure.
ICPT dont seem too worried about it wrt Leaky Gas and Basso. I say good for them.
Thomas:
I have suffered few health problems and my experience with doctors has generally been good, so YMMV, but as I see it, doctors often tend to operate by trial and error.
They make a preliminary diagnosis, based on reported symptoms, and may either order additional tests and/or give you some medication(s) based on the preliminary diagnosis. If those medications cure you, fine; if not, maybe more tests and/or different medications until you either get well or die. Often they may have the odds in their favor, as a number of diseases will often clear up, even if untreated. But in terms of our discussions here, the important point is that they can be willing to revise their diagnosis if confronted with new evidence or ideas. On the other hand, the anti-doping establishment is not, either in terms of a specific case or in general.
Guys, seriously interesting discussion going on here, NICE!
As to Floyd being picked up by a ProTour team, I think any team that tried that would find itself quickly dis-invited from Le Tour…they proved last year they have the power and the WILL do it.
I personally believe Floyd got a raw deal. I believe he AT LEAST proved ‘reasonable doubt’, and I was astounded when the CAS not only didn’t see it, but added ADDITIONAL penalties. But I don’t think the ASO will have anything to do with Floyd…EVER. Which would be a real shame, as it would be awesome to see him back in the Pro Peleton. He’d surely be a man on a mission with a LOT to prove, and we’ve seen what he is capable of when he’s really motivated. But I just don’t think he’s going to get the chance. At least not in a timeframe when he still would have a reasonable chance of doing it. Which is a real loss for the cycling world IMO.
Matt,
Thanks. I don’t think Floyd will ever get to race Le Tour again, either. I thing too much has happened since July 2006, and from their point of view it’s held the event in disrepute. That being the case, Hell (and no, not Hell, Michigan) would have to freeze over before we see Floyd circling the Champs-ÉlysĂ©es again. That’s a real shame, in my opinion. And given ASO’s willingness to ban teams from their events for whatever reason, I would expect that any ProTour (if it still exists in the future) team would be cautious about hiring him. Liquigas might be able to get away with hiring Basso and suffering no real ill effects, but I think Landis is among those (Vino and some others, too) who would cause certain organizations and promoters to go ballistic.
Jeff,
I love that pronunciation, “leaky gas.” Makes me laugh every time I hear someone say it.
William,
Good point. One thing that can be said about most doctors is that if their initial hypothesis isn’t correct, they’re willing to reconsider. There’s a lesson to be learned there. Of course, those who need to learn it have already made up their minds. (“Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up,” as the congressman from my district said in 1974 when being the sole individual to vote against impeaching Richard Nixon.)
Interesting discussion. It makes me think of the old Star Trek series, where the doctor had a handheld device that could scan a person and get a complete medical readout.
Of course, that’s not the way the medical profession works today, and it will probably never be that easy. Instead, medical diagnosis is a mixture of art and science, where the doctor looks at all of the available evidence and orders additional evidence as need be. It is not a cookbook kind of approach, nor should it be.
In contrast, doping testing is a lot like the method used by the doctor in Star Trek. An athlete pees into a cup, and we reach final conclusions based on the tests run on that sample. We don’t look at anything else, and under the WADA rules, we’re not required to look at anything else (and the athlete is not permitted to argue on the basis of anything else). What makes it worse is that at best, the doping tests can establish only a probability that the athlete has doped.
Whatever it is we can say in favor of the current regime of doping testing, it’s not the equivalent of a medical diagnosis.
I agree that the only sure way to solve cycling’s doping problem and end the doping omerta is fool-proof testing. So developing such tests and staying ahead of the doping docs has to be the first priority for any “anti-doping” movement.
Until such fool-proof testing exists, doping will continue. Athletes should recognize that doping represents a risk, not only to their health but also to their reputations, and that upon a positive doping test they cannot control the power of new media to blacken their reputation before they get a chance to defend themselves. Every year, the power of new media encroaches more and more on the “privacy” of rider preparations. It’s also conceivable that 15 years from now all professional sportsmen will be tested daily.
That said, the history of the sport demonstrates that elite cyclists will continue to undergo extraordinary risks for a shot at glory.
It’s important for fans and athletes to recognize that because of all these factors, doping in cycling will continue. Some dopers will get caught while others get away. It won’t be an entirely fair process—until such fool-proof tests exist. But the doping-related fatalities among pro cyclists also tell us that even imperfect controls are useful if they present a solid deterrent.
ludwig,
Been a while. Glad to see you back. I agree that less-than-perfect measures can have a deterrent effect. I think you’re a bit more optimistic than me in one regard. From my perspective, human nature being what it is, even if someday we have fool-proof anti-doping tests, there will always be a few idiots who persist in doping. That shot at glory is too strong for some to resist. Even knowing that they’ll be caught — or that they’re likely to be caught — they will keep on. But in that future where fool-proof tests exist, they won’t manage to get away with it.
I am not sure that fool-proof testing is indeed the answer. Let’s ignore the quite real possibility that fool-proof testing is not feasible or even possible. Assume that there are indeed fool-proof tests. Further assume that every test administered in any given TdF from the recent past was totally accurate, whether the result was positive or negative. How many riders have been caught? Not very many, and if the most pessimistic opinions on the extent of doping in the TdF since say 1990 or so are true, many riders are getting away with doping. Some, of course, were tested and not caught for one reason or another. But (again, if these pessimistic opinions are correct), far more riders are getting away with doping simply because they are not being tested. If you are not one of the two #1 riders on the podium, there was not a big chance of being selected for testing. Perhaps in the most recent TdF, there were more riders subject to testing, but the financial aspect of it argues against a large percentage of the peleton being tested.
And there is the big rub: any thing resembling fool-proof testing is likely to be rather expensive, and perhaps will require special equipment and highly trained operators. Not a scenario congruent with wide-spread testing.
So perhaps what we need are quick, cheap and easy to administer tests which are perhaps not fool-proof, but are “good-enough” and are coupled with a system of progressive discipline, starting with relatively light sanctions (say, DQ from the event involved and a short suspension) with increasingly stiff penalties for repeated violations. And also an appeal system where a truly innocent athlete with a false positive has a better chance of contesting the result without breaking the bank.
And furthermore, we need a change in the culture of sport, where the only thing that counts is the result, no matter how achieved. I find it interesting, to say the least, that in a sport where a top rider will wait for a competitor who has fallen to catch back up without attacking as a point of honor will foster riders who use PEDs. If we could somehow get the culture of sport to where most everyone thought “I will do my utmost, within the rules, to beat you, but I will not take advantage of either your misfortune (if possible) nor will I seek to gain advantage outside of the rules, and may the best rider win”, then things would be better. How to do that, I do not know, but until then I think we are fighting a rear guard action.
William,
Good points. I do think fool-proof testing is either very difficult to achieve, or very expensive. Most likely, both. No test is 100% perfect, not even the best medical diagnostic tests. We may get closer and closer to that ideal, but I have my doubts that it could ever be achieved at a reasonable cost.
So, that said, I like your approach to how we deal with the problem of doping in sports. It makes a lot of sense, at least to me.