Podium Cafe: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows



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.

Star-divide

  • 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.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

lab proposal
I'll speak a bit based on my experience running a DNA testing lab.  It's not exactly the same thing as the anti-doping labs, but many of the same procedures would apply.

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!
It's nice to bounce my fan-ideas off real professionals. I guess it's a bit like term limits: there's efficiency in re-electing someone who knows what they're doing, but at the same time they can't receive the full public trust without some sort of checks and balances. Appreciate very much your feedback.
Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Jul 26, 2007 12:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

All excellent points
but especially agree that A and B samples need separate analysis.  I bet Korea and the EU could set up a pretty even exchange of services . . .

by Sui Juris on Jul 26, 2007 1:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Excellent point
I do not manage a lab, or work in this field currently, but many years ago I worked in a few hospital labs so I have some tangential experience and I know that running tests is very manual and the results are ultimately based on a technicians interpretation. The reality is nothing like what you see on the CSI-like crime dramas on TV where they have these magical computers that simultaneously test for everything under the sun and spit out results in seconds all in full color and with slick graphics and sound.
Team Bobke's Spleen - Who wants to be stranded with a flat tire?

by Jimbo... on Jul 26, 2007 1:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The CSI effect
No, the reality is very un-CSI like.  The reality is also that new tests are slow to be adopted, which is both good and bad.  It's good in that most labs are conservative and don't rush into unproven tech, but bad in that a) there are things that can go long undetected while labs play catchup at glacial pace and b) the early adopters aren't necessarily competent (or necessarily incompetent) but there's no real way of knowing.

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 to parent up   0 recs

This is a good proposal
and the sport would be better off for adopting it, but for the sake of speculation and argument, I'm going to raise the issue of a grassroots movement.

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.

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on Jul 26, 2007 12:40 PM EDT   0 recs

How would you handle a ban?
Do you trust the testing enough to feel comfortable with  2 year / 4 year/ lifetime bans?
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
it's all pointless.  Transparency transparency transparency.

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 to parent up   0 recs

One of the bigger challenges
I Think testing in which people have full confidence is the foundation of the entire enterprise. I agree it sucks to be unfairly tested and tossed. People need legal recourse. But I'd rather when a positive rider puts the system on trial, there isn't much to attack.
Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Jul 26, 2007 3:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Integrated dope process
It's baffling that the national federations have anything to do with the dope testing process, since pro-cycling is an international sport. It guarantees the uneven application of the rules. One country might be puritanical, and another might tacitly encourage doping.

If some pro-cycling league is formed, continued use of the IOC/WADA system should be seriously pondered.

-K-

by KevinK on Jul 26, 2007 2:14 PM EDT   0 recs

Better control of leaks
These represent a great set of improvements and I'm glad jae chimed in with expert comments about labs.

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
If a rider is suspended from the Tour following a positive A sample while awaiting the B sample, that's an effective DQ.   False positives happen, perhaps rarely, but they do happen.  Suspending someone while testing proceeds means that false positives result in a disqualification.  Unless there were a way to put someone back in the tour after exoneration, it seems that it's more fair to remove results afterward than to go for an immediate, irreversible DQ.  I realize that this could result in strategic changes in the race, but such is the price.  

(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 to parent up   0 recs

WADA doping summit
http://www.velonews.com/tour2007/news/articles/12955.0.html
"Without commenting on the specifics of pending cases, WADA is deeply concerned by the multiplication of doping cases and affairs in cycling," said Pound.
-K-

by KevinK on Jul 26, 2007 2:22 PM EDT   0 recs

Evidence of change?
Pound not commenting on the specifics of pending cases might be viewed by some as a positive step. I would prefer that he just shut his mouth entirely but babysteps, babysteps, babysteps...
Team Bobke's Spleen - Who wants to be stranded with a flat tire?

by Jimbo... on Jul 26, 2007 2:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes Pound's non-specificity
IS an improvement, but in the last year or so, I've switched my opinion of Pound and McQuaid.

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 to parent up   0 recs

Pound has zero credibility (in my eyes)
Pound's behavior, specifically his statements at the beginning regarding Floyd having so much Testosterone in his system that "all the virgins in France were not safe" (paraphrased) were so prejudicial, biased, and, most importantly, so totally wrong on the facts, that his credibility is less than zero. He is a clown and should simply shut his pie hole... and in the spirit of being civility that the cafe is built upon, I will now apologize to Mr. Pound for my rough language.
Team Bobke's Spleen - Who wants to be stranded with a flat tire?

by Jimbo... on Jul 26, 2007 4:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My take
We already have a single governing body with one leader democratically elected by all the national cycling federations in the world. Or do you propose some Florida-style fiddling to the result?

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?
I'm not sure they're really empowered to do all that needs to be done. They issue certain regulations, and they help coordinate the exercise of power by the national federations, but do they really have adequate control over the riders? I've read their regs and there's not much there. I suppose the pro tour licenses can include adherence to a code, but does it? I think they rely on the national federations for discipline too much.

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.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Jul 26, 2007 11:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

p.s.
Sorry, you mentioned Florida and got me all riled up.
Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Jul 26, 2007 11:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For Florida
read Chicago

by Monty. on Jul 27, 2007 2:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Every sprint, every cobble, every mountain pass from the world of Pro Cycling

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Amorison_small
Ranking the Strongest Team
Demoncats008_small
The Inaugural Alleycat- January 20th, 2009- Free Alleycat and Free Beer‏
Folsomcx_small
Cancellara aims for Ardennes
Csc_-_cvv_and_dz_small
Rotterdam Six Day: Day 4 Live Thread #2
Small
Podium Café Trivia Gang:
Copy_of_pineapple_face_small
Techs Mechs Q2: Old Wheels
Copy_of_pineapple_face_small
Techs-Mechs: Campy Q?
Small
Rotterdam Day 3 **now over**
Tdf_07_natural_break_small
Rotterdam Six Day Thread: Day 2, Part 2
Hincapie_silhouette_small_small
25 Sexiest Men in Sports - Did Benna Make the List?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

Our Sponsors!

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Cycling.tv 2009 calender
2008 NRC In Review - Remix!
Rabo's training camp
Cervelo Test Team Kit.
If a picture is worth 1000 words......
Six Days of Rotterdam Live Here
Baden Cooke signs with Vacansoleil
Fun cycling quizzes
Pro Women's MTB Downhill Film - SHOOTING STARS
Canuck update - Interview with Svein Tuft

Post_icon New FanShot All FanShots Carrot-mini


Site Meter