Great blog by Vaughters

iainf72

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonath ... ght-doping

It's what I've been bleating on about, if you could figure out how to make a marketing model around anti-doping you'd be in business.

It's all about the benjamins

frenchfighter

Quite. Show me the money. It permeates everything in this sport whether obvious or not.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/opinion-its-not-all-about-lance-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

It's what I've been bleating on about, if you could figure out how to make a marketing model around anti-doping you'd be in business.

It's all about the benjamins

Good reading, and I agree with it.

There's some procedural stuff to work out - WADA and maybe the IOC would need to change some rules for a start, but given that they're fine with putting in place some sort of T&R, which is utterly non-compliant with their code, then that shouldn't be a problem.

It's definitely the way forward, and would make a good model for a few other sports as well.

A business model of "we'll test you for money" shouldn't be hard to knock up - the labs that actually do the testing are set up like this anyway. The only real problem would seem to be establishing a baseline for mandatory funding and number of tests. It raises possible monopoly questions - a service you are required to purchase and can only purchase from one organisation isn't all that healthy. You could get round this by licensing testing organisations so there was some choice, but that adds a layer of costly bureaucracy and I'm not sure that competition between testing organisations would be a good idea - imagine a patented EPO test, for instance. I don't think any of those potential issues couldn't be solved though.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

- imagine a patented EPO test, for instance..

There's quite a few of them already.

For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US6573055

Here's one a test for gene doping (if that ever becomes a reality): http://www.google.com/patents/EP2013361A2

(Can you guess what I do for a living?)

danlikesbikes

He always does tend to give a good read though IMHO.

I don't think that we are that far from the idea though now. Cycle teams pay the UCI for a license to race, and some of that money goes to pay for drugs testing. So either the UCI increases the cost of a team license or it increases the money it makes from licensing and other actives to make the drugs test pot larger.

I guess one change that could be made is as well as ensuring that teams ring fenced funding in place (to stop them closing shop and not meeting their obligations) that the teams also as part of getting a license they pay directly a set amount into drugs testing. This would hopefully direct the funds straight into drugs testing (bit like road tax for cars not going directly into improving the road conditions) hopefully reducing the cost per test. Possibly make the teams liable financially and UCI points reduction for riders failing tests. Make the bans come with a sizeable financial penalty for the rider.

I think that there is lots that we could do to improve our chances at catching and banning drugs cheats & those who support them.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

- imagine a patented EPO test, for instance..

There's quite a few of them already.

For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US6573055

Here's one a test for gene doping (if that ever becomes a reality): http://www.google.com/patents/EP2013361A2

(Can you guess what I do for a living?)

Are you an underwear model?

Sorry, patented was the wrong word - proprietary was what I meant, which is usually tied up with patent ownership. It doesn't matter if a drug test is commoditised, allowing a range of techniques to get to the same result.

I suppose if the testing organisations bought actual testing services from competing labs then that would solve the issue anyway, if there was a test only one lab could do then the testing organisation would have to purchase that service.

FocusZing

Sounds good. I like the attitude pro cycling cannot be trusted to regulate it's self. Teams/riders not knowing the latest tests available, has to be an incentive not to risk a promising career taking peds.

The person directing it should be someone with a track record of honesty.

'Example is not the main thing in
influencing others, it is the only thing.'

Macaloon

Vroomen's response is prety good too. This seems like a practical and effective measure, which probably means it stands no chance of being implemented.

http://gerard.cc/2013/02/09/vaughters-3/

danlikesbikes

Macaloon wrote:

Vroomen's response is prety good too. This seems like a practical and effective measure, which probably means it stands no chance of being implemented.

http://gerard.cc/2013/02/09/vaughters-3/

Good points as well - looks like a push to get more money into testing & possibly away from the UCI due to trust issues is the way to go.

Like you said it looks on paper a good idea so unlikely to be taken up.

Mad_Malx

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

- imagine a patented EPO test, for instance..

There's quite a few of them already.

For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US6573055

Here's one a test for gene doping (if that ever becomes a reality): http://www.google.com/patents/EP2013361A2

(Can you guess what I do for a living?)

At a multinational healthcare/diagnostics/everything company?

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

- imagine a patented EPO test, for instance..

There's quite a few of them already.
For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US6573055
Here's one a test for gene doping (if that ever becomes a reality): http://www.google.com/patents/EP2013361A2
(Can you guess what I do for a living?)

At a multinational healthcare/diagnostics/everything company?

No. Patent Examiner is the correct answer.

rob churchill

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

- imagine a patented EPO test, for instance..

There's quite a few of them already.

For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US6573055

Here's one a test for gene doping (if that ever becomes a reality): http://www.google.com/patents/EP2013361A2

(Can you guess what I do for a living?)

Are you a patent clerk?

Yellow Peril

I thought he made hockey sticks.

micron

Basically agree on the substance - after all, he's not saying anything new particularly but he Is standing up and saying it, which no other team boss seems prepared to do at the moment and someone needs to take a lead (he takes a nice pop at Riis).

My only real problem is that Vaughters idea of independent testing was strongly bound up with WSC - and I'm really unsure where 'we pay you to test us' leads either within or without a franchise system.

EKIMIKE

Surely with sufficient funding and sufficient accountability you wouldn't need to worry about monopolies (you can't have one without the other, though). It would be nice to avoid the market/competition/regulation conundrum - it's a massive beatch and in my opinion would only 'work' in this case because the regulators (UCI/WADA) would always be able to point the finger at someone else (i.e. one of the testing entities).

Of course it would be foolish to believe funding and accountability are easy to come by. However I definitely think sufficient funding is reasonably attainable - the World Tour/Pro Tour is the same number of teams with the same maximum possible number of riders every year. There would be no growth in that respect so there's not the pressure on the regulators to grow their funding with the market, which is usually why regulation falls out of sync and becomes insufficient. Accountability, well, there's no easy answer for that...

Of course there could be a problem if/when tests become patented AND patent holders abuse that monopoly. That's a big 'if' though. Perfectly feasible though particularly if they know cycling teams would be obligated to fund the costs of testing. You'd also assume there would be a steady demand for new tests as new 'doping' drugs are developed/used - another excuse/opportunity to use and abuse patents. Arguably these pressures exists now anyway.

Jez mon

Is it ever possible to get a truly independant dope testing organisation, any organisation set up purely to test cyclists depends on pro cycling for its existence, pro cyclings existence is dependant on sponsors and sponsors generally run away from sponsoring a sport with drug problems.

So whilst an organisation separate from the UCI and national federations would be great, it still wouldn't be free from possible corruption.

Perhaps the best solution is one massive anti doping organisation responsible for the tests in a number of sports.

EKIMIKE

That's why accountability should be above independence in any hierarchy of desirability for these things.

Independence is too often used as a façade of accountability. Being independence also doesn't preclude corruption. If there was sufficient accountability the UCI could do the whole thing. But why would they? They don't have the expertise. The money would in part be spent on acquiring expertise. So give it to an organisation with expertise.

Having one massive anti-doping org. is entirely unrealistic. Just think how you would even construct such an agreement let alone the actual workings of it all.

rick_chasey

Is the blog that good?

takethehighroad

Jez mon wrote:

Is it ever possible to get a truly independant dope testing organisation, any organisation set up purely to test cyclists depends on pro cycling for its existence, pro cyclings existence is dependant on sponsors and sponsors generally run away from sponsoring a sport with drug problems.

So whilst an organisation separate from the UCI and national federations would be great, it still wouldn't be free from possible corruption.

Perhaps the best solution is one massive anti doping organisation responsible for the tests in a number of sports.

Maybe it could be sponsored by Galpharm or Amgen or Superdrug then?

Yellow Peril

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is the blog that good?

I didn't think it was a panacea and to be honest a little bit patronising at the outset. I wonder if I had faked up my law qualifications and eventually made partner and a fair wedge of money on the back of them in the law firm where work whether I could blog myself out of the sh!t by coming up with a few suggestions on how to stop it happening again.

Then again it's cycling isn't it. If there are no consequences then it can't be a proper job can it?

Richmond Racer

Much as I think more money does need to do into testing and research, I'd vote for:

-stronger and more wide-reaching powers to the AD agencies
-strong arm of the law
-doping being made a crime in every country
-the new amendments to the WADA code of 4 years instead of 2 being rolled out (would prefer 2014 rather than 2015)
-no back-dating of bans
-hitting teams hard with financial penalties and loss of points
- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)
- a change of the recent UCI policy that prevents people with bans since 2011 being allowed to work as DSs etc for teams - I'd like this extended further back than 2011

Squirrelpie

Vaughters is correct but independent testing should be funded by all sports.
Top division football alone could easily provide enough funding without detriment to their own business's.
The anti-doping authority (of the country providing the race in question) should administer the testing.
All the agencies should have members of other countries anti-doping agencies working within them to reduce the the chance of any anti-doping agencies protecting nationals of their own country. .
An anti-doping authority only has one agenda and that's to find the cheats to protect the clean athletes.
If all sports contributed more money then there would be better testing and more agents to carry out the tests, so all sports then get regular quality testing not just cycling.

The WADA and the IOC has to put pressure on the big money sports to get the funding and to get those sports to take on board proper anti-doping testing. Cyclists are not the cause of doping products within sport like the media present. Cycling has very little income and was rather pitiful as a professional sport until more recent times.
The sports with the large wages and large paying fan-bases have been and are funding the research of designer performance enhancers. These performance enhancers are just trickling over to cycling by the so called doctors.

Its time the world woke up and saw what the truth is.

Yes cycling has always had cheats but that's the same in all walks of life including other sports.
The only reason cycling has this reputation is that it has the best anti-doping program and the cycling in general does not have the money to cover it up, just look at operation puerto.

Macaloon

The big advantage of this proposal is that it addresses the future & lances the UCI corruption boil without burning the whole thing down, or relying on magical thinking (TRC). The most serious allegation against the UCI is that they connived with selected riders to evade doping controls. Assuming effective implementation, an independent testing body solves this. Another knock against testers in general is that smart docs and committed 'athletes' will always stay ahead of protocols: much more difficult if the testers have 10X the budget of richest cheats.

More funding would be great, but think Sepp Blatter wants independent oversight over his fiefdom? Maybe better to start small and expand later if successful.

I'm uncomfortably positive about this. (In same way as reading Bill McKibben explains practical measures to avoid cooking our kids. *Grabs satchel of milqetoast and heads for yoghurt weavers sanctuary.)

Squirrelpie

Blood passport is to be implemented in the FIFA world cup 2014.

A great start to some but looks more like posturing to the media. Blood passport takes a long time to introduce as they need to build a profile for each athlete, so introducing it to national teams at the world cup will only (most likely) result in no suspected cases. Introducing it now at club level however....

The good thing today is that the media are finally (but slowly) catching on and asking questions about the opinions on doping to athletes.

edhornby

why not have all individuals agreeing an antidoping contract directly with the world tour? you agree personally to the independant testing and if you are caught then you are booted out of the world tour by the world tour

world tour signs contract to us the independant testers and acts on their findings

neatly sidesteps the team swapping issue because it's at the individual level
means the current shenanigans about the ban handed out by the national authority and going to CAS is avoided - that bit can happen after or alongside (or as a result of) your world tour ban
you can still go and ride with the national setup if they want you to or if a proconti team want you so there are no restraint of trade issues [EDIT:] I don't want doping anywhere but a world tour contract couldn't cover the national etc so it would still be the responsibility of the UCI to resolve this - or replicate the contract for the procontinental ?

rick_chasey

As the Aussie scandal shows doping IS linked to crime so the solution is straightforward.

Force every professional sports team, regardless of sport pay 5% of total expenditure to fighting doping and cheating. Make that a state run thing. 1/3 goes to testing the other goes into criminal policing of sports cheating.

Make it very criminal.

That'll be most effective.

rick_chasey

All the biggest sports busts come from police impetus.

Yellow Peril

The problem with contracts is the lack of strict liability. Criminalisation is probably the best way forward but it generally comes with a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt instead of the balance of probabilities in civil cases. Criminality also raises human rights issues which are a guilty persons best friend.

What would help is a no quibble enforcement of strict liability and acceptance of that by the riders. Remember the fuss and palaver in steakgate? Bertie tested positive and should have been banned straight off. The whole charade undermined the proces and enforcement of sanctions.

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)

You're punishing them twice then, which you can't do. Effectively you're talking about a longer ban.

And punishments aren't going to be part of any meaningful solution.

Garry H

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)

You're punishing them twice then, which you can't do. Effectively you're talking about a longer ban.

And punishments aren't going to be part of any meaningful solution.

Agree with the first sentence, but what about making any doper returning from a ban inelligible for any points during their first season back?

Surely the punishment has to form part of any meaningful solution...

No_Ta_Doctor

Garry H wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)

You're punishing them twice then, which you can't do. Effectively you're talking about a longer ban.

And punishments aren't going to be part of any meaningful solution.

Agree with the first sentence, but what about making any doper returning from a ban inelligible for any points during their first season back?

Surely the punishment has to form part of any meaningful solution...

As fans we might like punishments, but they aren't actually deterrents.

In the 90s young cyclists were dying from EPO abuse, but they didn't stop doping. That's pretty much the biggest punishment I can think of. Fact is, they don't think they'll get caught, like teenagers racing a souped up car don't think they'll ever crash. It's something that happens to other people.

Edit: I do quite like the idea of a points penalty for riders returning from bans though. Say they only earn half points for a couple of seasons, then 75% for the rest of their careers. That's could be an incentive for teams to try and hire clean riders.