The Podium Cafe Anti-Doping Manifesto
This is a rerun of an old post from last November. Slightly edited since it first came up in the middle of another conversation, and with one addition. I'm curious how this is holding up. All criticism welcomed.

- A single, fully-authorized governing body headed by a person of unimpeachable integrity and acceptable to various factions.
- A unified testing process, also with verifiable integrity and strict procedures.
- A single appeals process before the body in bullet #1.
- Strict codes of punishment.
- An audit of the sport to gather recommendations.
- A medical staff within the governing body that can keep up with the dopers.
- Some sort of peace with the grand tours.
One World Government
This is the most important step the sport can take, IMHO. Cycling's power structure is too diffused for any real changes to happen in a meaningful time, and yet the sport has reached a crisis which requires real change. As a condition of Pro Tour licenses, require all teams to adhere to all actions of the PCT governing body (let's call this the PCT for now). To ensure teams and riders buy into the concept, make sure all decisions are made by a sort of legislative committee with reps from the riders, the race organizations, maybe the medical field, etc. Most pro sports have a single governing body (AFAIK), time for Cycling to get one too.
Create a Commissioner of Cycling. Someone chosen from a list of people acceptable to the factions. Someone of unimpeachable integrity, if you can find one. (Hinault?)
Testing, one... two... [that's it]
Create a single doping control body for enforcement and testing. Make it answerable to the Commissioner, so people have some faith in it. Develop a list of laboratories that can carry out the tests, and use a single lab at a time on a rotating basis (i.e. exclusive one- or two-year terms). Subject the labs to adequate peer review and performance evaluations, including adherence to procedures; bad evaluations can result in being kicked off the list.
The point here is to create a unified system that functions decisively and inspires the utmost confidence. And integrate it into the PCT.
Court of Last Resort
Create a single appeals process within the PCT. Once you get a positive test, it gets retested and a finding is issued. You can challenge the finding in an appeal before the PCT appellate board/court. If you win, god love ya, and if you lose, the Commissioner issues your punishment. Punishments would NOT be appealable... but to make sure the Commissioner isn't drunk with power, there would be some sentencing guidelines.
No more waiting for a rider's national licensing authority to sort out the mess. Let's have this all in one place. Why do the national licensing bodies have to have a role? Sure, for the continental tours, the PCT system I'm proposing would not apply; they can either have their own version of it, or something looser (since the continental riders will mostly be aspiring to the PCT, the PCT's rules will have a trickle-down effect). This way, the PCT doesn't need to get buy-in from every country's federation; they can just say: Spain, you can do what you want, but if your riders want to join PCT teams, here are the rules they'll be living by. Maybe cheaters would drift off to the continental tours to avoid detection, but once the PCT roots out cheating, the other pro systems will follow suit.
Off With Your Head
Strict punishment codes. Kind of speaks for itself. I'm thinking of, 4 years first major offense, 2 years or less for more minor stuff (e.g., failed to get a doctor's note for asthma meds), lifetime ban from PCT for second major. Doesn't mean a guy can't get a license elsewhere, but he's out of the pro tour.
Update [2007-7-26 11:59:50 by chris]: Lately we've talked about excluding teams for riders' violations. I say now: first vio (a & b positives), team stops for a month. Second, a year. Third, buh bye.
Audit Me
I seem to recall this is underway. The problem is, w/o the PCT to implement it, I'm not entirely sure what will ever be done w/ the results. With a PCT as I propose, the audit could go to the legislative committee and recommendations could be put into place.
Dr. No
Instead of always trying to keep up with the Ferraris and Cecchinis, here's a radical idea: hire one of them!! Why should the UCI always be the last to hear about new doping techniques? Let bygones be, and get a real expert on staff. I'm sure one of these guys will take the job, since the entire PCT would be geared toward putting them out of business. And I for one am not convinced they're completely evil, at least from what I read in LA's War. [There's only so much I can know about such people, I admit.] Anyway, in addition to staying on top of the doping R&D, presumably this guy could oversee a lot of the testing too, or at least be a consultant. And I'm not merely advocating hiring one doc; a panel of them may be needed.
Update [2007-7-26 11:59:50 by chris]: Apparently the doctors are forming an association. his is actually a better idea than a single one.
All for One
Peace with the grand tours is pretty important. If it were just the tours themselves, maybe the PCT could shove it down their throats by setting up THE ultimate clean-cycling apparatus and challenging the tours to get on board. But since the GTs own several classics too, they really do wield some power. If they held out, they could possibly scuttle the buy-in of the top teams by creating a parallel structure made up of their races, and riders/teams might bolt. So I'd advocate holding our noses and giving in to some of their demands.
On a related subject, this kind of uber-structure would need to create an inclusive system. Sure, you might only give out 20 PCT licenses a year, but you could have relegation and promotion with the continental teams, like they do in soccer.
Some lingering topics...
- I'm officially for DNA testing. Does it make riders feel bad? Yep. But they had their chance, and blew it. If you give them a real appeals system, they should feel confident of their innocent-til-proven status. The objection to DNA testing is too symbolic to respect.
- The T-Mob principles... I already reviewed them and think they alone could revolutionize the sport.
0 recs |
20
comments
Comments
lab proposal
I'd be more than a tad concerned with using a single lab on a rotating basis. For starters, to really have a "B" sample result mean anything, the same lab shouldn't handle it. If something in their analytical procedure or handling is influencing results, and while perhaps unlikely it is possible. The same tech doing the same thing twice is not independent confirmation. Having a number of labs working simultaneously and checking each others work is a reasonable anti-fraud measure.
Having a lab work regularly for two years and then rotate out is likely economically unfeasible for the labs if they want to maintain quality as well. It takes a while to train a good laboratory technician. A less than well trained analyst is more likely to make mistakes in handling and interpreting results meaning false positives and false negatives and scandals, scandals, scandals. In forensics laboratories in the US, it's not uncommon for a new analyst to spend half a year or more in paid training on a few techniques and procedures. To gear up for a couple of years of work, knowing that the workload will drop when it's someone else's turn means either using analysts who likely are ported in from another task and aren't fully versed in the procedures. Because of the training and because of the cost of equipment necessary (which will change as other tests come on line) the laboratory market for testing isn't terribly elastic unless you're willing to sacrifice quality. Investing in several labs who will do less work more often and who exist to double check each the work done elsewhere will result in a better, more accurate testing system.
by jae on Jul 26, 2007 12:31 PM EDT 0 recs
Thanks for this!
by Chris... on
Jul 26, 2007 12:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
All excellent points
by Sui Juris on
Jul 26, 2007 1:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Excellent point
by Jimbo... on
Jul 26, 2007 1:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The CSI effect
Forensics lab procedures often wouldn't hold up to standards necessary for medical diagnostics. Sad, but largely (but not universally) I do know from what I've seen of the Landis case we're never going to know what really happened. The mishandling may not have influenced things, but things were mishandled to such a measure that we cannot ever know at this point.
by jae on
Jul 26, 2007 1:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This is a good proposal
I don't get the feeling that T-Mobile, Rabobank, and Cofidis are part of the doping problem, at least not this year. Certainly there are questions about Dekker using Dr. Checchini and Cofidis' annual throwing big cheques toward big name free agents, but by and large I think they are doing better than the Astanas, Caisse d'Epargnes, and Discoverys as far as team cultures go.
So counter to the big gummint approach I'll raise the possibility of cycling going small. The French riders have their longitudinal testing (I'm not sure if foreign riders on French teams are subject to the testing), and CSC, T-Mobile and Slipstream all have taken bigger steps than the teams who are satisfied w/ the UCI/WADA bare minimum standards. Let the market reward these teams/nations with invites to the top races.
In the battle for sponsors, let the market decide if Boyer or Legeay are better investments than Bruyneel, Saiz, or Belda.
It seems the ASO, despite their Astana mistake has taken this lesson to heart. Since they own the most valuable marketing property in the sport, let them invite the teams that play by the right rules. Sure, the level of competition will go down if the CdE's and Discoveries are left home in July, but if the Gerolsteiners, CSCs, Credit Agricoles, and Francais des Jeux are rewarded at the expense of "win at all costs" teams, then the path to a clean sport is more clear.
Focusing on punitive enforcement just raises the stakes for cheaters. Rumors say that Lefevere has contacts inside the UCI that warn him of "random" tests. So if the stakes are set so that it still pays to cheat and it really, really, really, sucks to get caught, I'm sure the gangsta managers will just work harder not to get caught.
So my counter-argument is to reward positive action instead of punishing rule-breaking. Sure we still need strong enforcement, but if we use the power of sponsor dollars to promote clean cycling we run fewer risks of corrupting the system by those who cheat to win. Use longitudinal testing to simply remove riders w/ questionable markers from competition until their biomarkers return to the normal profile. This ruins fewer careers and ensures that more riders are encouraged to play fair.
Anyway, that's my non-punitive, soft-on-crime, encourage positive behavior approach. I don't see a need to give riders a lifetime ban, just don't let them compete if their values are off. I'd rather find ways to reward the teams that make an effort by giving them valuable invites than to punish sponsors for investing in the sport.
by Koppenberg on Jul 26, 2007 12:40 PM EDT 0 recs
How would you handle a ban?
How about if they tested you at work and you tested positive, were fired, and were not allowed to work in your profession for 2 or 4 years, or forever?
Believe it or not, innocent people get convicted and put to death, and I guess that the drug testing has a lower threshold of proof than a capital murder case.
Bottom line, I'm not comfortable with the harshness of the penalties. I think 1 year for a major and a matter of months or races for minors. Escalate the penalty rapidly for repeat offenses though - 1 drunk driving offense could be pretty minor depending on circumstances - but a 2nd drunk driving offense means this guy should be off the road.
by 12string on Jul 26, 2007 1:43 PM EDT 0 recs
if we can't trust the testing
I'd also want to start moving to distinguish amongst the offenses. One too many hits of the inhaler doesn't even begin to approach blood doping.
by Sui Juris on
Jul 26, 2007 1:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
One of the bigger challenges
by Chris... on
Jul 26, 2007 3:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Integrated dope process
If some pro-cycling league is formed, continued use of the IOC/WADA system should be seriously pondered.
by KevinK on Jul 26, 2007 2:14 PM EDT 0 recs
Better control of leaks
For the improvements to be effective, there needs to be a higher level of professionalism that what I've witnessed from some of the organizations. (Self-deprecation: I'm just an everyday fan so my cycling observations are very limited. But I do deal with business organization issues in my profession.)
Recognizing that lab mistakes are possible, one of the things that greatly irks me about the current process is that there is an immediately and widespread public charge of guilt.
A presumption of guilt may be valid but still it irks me, especially because it seems that the first notice of a violation often occurs from a leak, not from an official announcement. I'd feel more confidence in the system if it were not L'Equipe that first makes the announcement.
That said, I do believe that a rider should be suspended until a second test can be performed. It's akin to a person being temporarily relieved of job duties if suspected of misbehavior.
But once leaks are better suppressed, then I expect the integrity of the overall system will be better respected. Or perhaps I'm being unrealistic and there will always be leaks.
by sawgrass on Jul 26, 2007 2:20 PM EDT 0 recs
tests and leaks
(For what it's worth, the test of homologous blood doping is the kind of test where a single untrained analyst can 'see' a positive result when one doesn't exist. It requires secondary and probably tertiary review to make sure things are legit in the single test. I'm also less than impressed with the current test for EPO. Given a well trained analyst, it probably works most of the time. But the initial paper describing the technique showed false positives, though in the conclusion, they simply ignored them and said there weren't any. Perhaps more has been done since [but gone unpublished if so] but it still looks somewhat problematic to me, and I certainly don't know if it's at all accurate either to avoid false positives or false negatives on older, stored samples.)
As the the media leaks, that really bothers me and I refuse to accept that leaks will always happen. Leaks from a lab should not be tolerated any more than doping, with substantial penalties (e.g., leaker fired or, if leaker is perhaps a coach/manager/doctor/official, said individual receives a ban from that capacity; Labs leaking never sent business again; official who leaks prematurely is kicked from the organization; rider leaking information gets DQ'd and receives some penalty) for divulging what should be entirely confidential information. Accusations have become condemnations.
by jae on
Jul 26, 2007 3:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
WADA doping summit
"Without commenting on the specifics of pending cases, WADA is deeply concerned by the multiplication of doping cases and affairs in cycling," said Pound.
by KevinK on Jul 26, 2007 2:22 PM EDT 0 recs
Evidence of change?
by Jimbo... on
Jul 26, 2007 2:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes Pound's non-specificity
McQuaid got a lot of guff for his "mafia-culture" comments--but now that it's out in the open, wouldn't most people agree that that is a pretty fair description of the cycling cultures that exist(ed) in Spain, Italy, Belgium and a few more countries?
Ditto for Pound--he might be obnoxious, but he might well be on the right track.
Sort of a tangent--it will be a great day for cycling when Hein Verbruggen and his ilk disappear from all of its governing institutions
by R Mc on
Jul 26, 2007 3:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Pound has zero credibility (in my eyes)
by Jimbo... on
Jul 26, 2007 4:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My take
I'm with you on hitting the teams. Rabobank should have at the very minimum supervised Rasmussen a bit more. Did they even see him from one July to the next? And if your roommate sticks a funny package in the mini-fridge, or sets his bike up on rollers next to the bed and goes to sleep wearing a heart monitor then maybe you need an incentive to push him into a ditch the next morning.
by Monty. on Jul 26, 2007 8:13 PM EDT 0 recs
The UCI?
Also, testing is done by numerous entities, including the races themselves. The races have a great deal of power, including as we saw this year the power to make teams think about telling the UCI to fuck off. Perhaps if they start over and create another body, one that gets bought into by the races so there can be across-the-board coordination on all issues that affect the sport as a whole.
The UCI may be salvageable, but right now Cycling is very balkanized.
by Chris... on
Jul 26, 2007 11:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
p.s.
by Chris... on
Jul 26, 2007 11:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs











