WADA on internal testing programmes

iainf72

"I don't think the public can have any confidence in a program that is being run privately," David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said in an interview last week. "If the testers are being paid by the team, they are not independent. If it's not open to public scrutiny and if we cannot see it, we must be suspicious.


"How do you show that there is no cover-up unless you are exposed to an independent agency that can monitor the tests?"

...

Howman said the existence of those internal programs shows some teams are trying to stamp out doping, but the programs are far from ideal.

The main objection is that the analyses of the riders' urine and blood samples are not done at a laboratory accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency. That means that any positive tests would not have to be reported to anti-doping authorities. Also, any positive results could not be used to possibly sanction an athlete.

iainf72

It looks like Guimard is in favour of not allowing them at all

http://www.velo-club.net/article?sid=50217

blazing_saddles

I think Howman sums up what a lot of us have felt, since their inception.
He has highlighted both the loopholes and the impracticalities.

Sacked, yes, but how on earth could a rider be sanctioned under such conditions, bearing in mind it is now customary to bring to defence table, questions over lab protocols?

top_bhoy

No news here and nothing of noteworthy interest in the public comments. The onus is on the UCI/WADA to catch the drug cheats....the independant monitoring set-up by some teams is to protect the teams interests. I don't see any conflict between either testing regimes or the need for teams to make public their data. They're simply have different objectives.

leguape

iainf72 wrote:

It looks like Guimard is in favour of not allowing them at all

http://www.velo-club.net/article?sid=50217

In translation there's a lot that could be applied by BC in that manifesto. OK british domestic cycling is a couple of tiers thinner than the french scene but his principles seem pretty solid.

dave_1

what else can the teams do? nothing? maybe that is best...do nothing, admit nothing..., publish no blood profiles

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

No news here and nothing of noteworthy interest in the public comments. The onus is on the UCI/WADA to catch the drug cheats....the independant monitoring set-up by some teams is to protect the teams interests. I don't see any conflict between either testing regimes or the need for teams to make public their data. They're simply have different objectives.

I think what some experts are saying is a spin on what you've typed.

The onus is on the UCI/WADA to catch the drug cheats....the independant monitoring set-up by some teams makes sure they aren't caught.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

No news here and nothing of noteworthy interest in the public comments. The onus is on the UCI/WADA to catch the drug cheats....the independant monitoring set-up by some teams is to protect the teams interests. I don't see any conflict between either testing regimes or the need for teams to make public their data. They're simply have different objectives.

I think what some experts are saying is a spin on what you've typed.

The onus is on the UCI/WADA to catch the drug cheats....the independant monitoring set-up by some teams makes sure they aren't caught.

Iain, what do you suggest the teams do...? internal testing based on profit making and gifts looks lame now...what else can teams do?

jp1985

Why can't teams just pay the UCI to administer additional tests on their team?

dave_1

jp1985 wrote:

Why can't teams just pay the UCI to administer additional tests on their team?

good one...but some teams have more money than others and maybe critics would then say they were buying favours...look at the way Armstrong's gift was viewed...rightly

stagehopper

jp1985 wrote:

Why can't teams just pay the UCI to administer additional tests on their team?

They are this season - which is why Saxo-Bank and Astana have stopped the extra tests.

iainf72

It's always going to be a struggle while the sports governing body are responsible for anti-doping.

We need a body which runs ADA functions for all sports.

Teams make contributions to the UCI for anti-doping already.

leguape

iainf72 wrote:

It's always going to be a struggle while the sports governing body are responsible for anti-doping.

Wouldn't be an issue if they weren't trying to turn a profit from it at the same time.

top_bhoy

leguape wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

It's always going to be a struggle while the sports governing body are responsible for anti-doping.

Wouldn't be an issue if they weren't trying to turn a profit from it at the same time.

It would also help if National Associations weren't responsible for administering disciplinary procedures at elite level. National Associations don't want to bite the hand that feeds them by banning their top people for too long (if at all). There needs to be change to the entire system form start to finish.