Weldon's Misguided Doping Effort

What does "sign, here we go again" mean?

Kennedy is a runner not a cyclist. Armstrong first said that he was going to run under 2:30 at NY marathon because he didn't know anything about running. Does that mean we should stop listening to him?

What I learned from the Landis case is that nobody cares about cycling.

rrrrrr wrote:

What does "sign, here we go again" mean?

Kennedy is a runner not a cyclist. Armstrong first said that he was going to run under 2:30 at NY marathon because he didn't know anything about running. Does that mean we should stop listening to him?

What I learned from the Landis case is that nobody cares about cycling.

Sigh, here we go again. This is about the umpteeth time Weldon has agreed that more money is needs for dope testing. Yet he never says where it should come from (probably because he doesn't know) and why we should trust the current system in place (because Caitan told him so three years ago).

Kennedy inaccurate facts goes to his ignorance about dope testing. Just because you run fast around a track does make you more knowledgeable about dope testing than a guy with a slower 5k PR. I don't think Kennedy knows what he talking about when it comes to dope testing and for Weldon to agree hurts his credibility as well.

Kennedy's comments about his career, Teg, shoes, training we all much more worthwhile. For Weldon to highlight his doping comments tell us more about Weldon than Kennedy.

Remember cycling is a more popular sport that Track or XC. So if no one gives a shit about cycling, then they certainly don't care who juices and wins nationals. Hells why doesn't some middle of the pack XC team juice and win the NCAA. Nobody cares, right?

the landis case shows that the testing labs are either incompetant ot lie.

The free testo is above that which the lab is allowed to declare an adverse finding.

Thus we cant believe trust or fund the labs.

the pedagogy of WEJO has nothing to do with your life.

What? I learned my lesson.

You are right, nobody cares about running either. I hate to tell you this, but Kennedy is not the first person to say that more money is needed for dope detection. I don't understand why the fact that he didn't know the number of cyclists busted has any bearing on his opinion on doping issues.

What do you think should be done about the doping issue?

Can you tell me off the top of your head how many people were busted for doping in track last year in Europe?

If you can't answer #2 then I guess your opinion on #1 doesn't matter.

I think the point is this: Saying that more money is needed is about as glib as saying, "We need to improve the state of our inner cities."

Without some specifics it means nothing. It actually adds to the problem as it gives the perception of participation in a solution without any actual mechanism for making the problem better.

Craft Advocate wrote:

I think the point is this: Saying that more money is needed is about as glib as saying, "We need to improve the state of our inner cities."

Without some specifics it means nothing. It actually adds to the problem as it gives the perception of participation in a solution without any actual mechanism for making the problem better.

Well said!

Sayng we need more money on the home page without where it will come from and what it will do is NOT deigned to fix the doping problem. It is meant to make Weldon feel and show he really cares.

The opinion is coming from an athlete. I doubt he knows the inner workings of a lab and knows how much money would be needed. It is hard to come up with a plan without knowing an amount needed. People every day say that we need to get out of Iraq, but how many of them have powerpoint presentations on how this should be done.The conversation seemed pretty light between the reporter and Kennedy. I don't think Kennedy was trying to solve the sports problems.

Craft Advocate wrote:

I think the point is this: Saying that more money is needed is about as glib as saying, "We need to improve the state of our inner cities."

Without some specifics it means nothing. It actually adds to the problem as it gives the perception of participation in a solution without any actual mechanism for making the problem better.

rrrrr-

I think we are saying the same thing (maybe). Those people who are saying we should get out of Iraq are an important voice---up to a point. At a certain point (this point has already been reached with Iraq and performance enhancing drugs), those people need to either put together that Powerpoint and add to the solution, or, for lack of a better phrase, shut up.

Stating the problem about Iraq or drugs is no longer of value without an attached idea for improvement. Complaints give oneself and others the false perception that something is actually being done by talking about it openly----this acts as a substitute for action.

As an athlete Kennedy is given a voice---with it comes power and responsibility (like it or not). That power will either contribute to the problem or the solution. Now, I'd say, his voice is contributing to the problem---unintentionally.

Listen, Wejo and some of the increased testing proponents might not get all of the details right, but they are correct in principle.

The dopers and their cohorts are so far ahead of the testers that only a massive effort requiring money, talent, and other resources will make a dent.

What's your problem with that?

Your absolutely right that it was a light conversation between the reporter and Kennedy. And his doping comments were in the middle of a wide ranging interview. For this reason, I dis not take what Kennedy said very seriously.

But, Weldon did take it seriously. He is leading today's home page with it and saying he completely agrees.

So, this is now becomes a question about Weldon's motivations. Weldon runs a highly visible web site (for the running community). Kennedy does not. Weldon has strong opinions about doping. Kennedy opinions appear to be off the top of hs head. Weldon has written editorials on doping. I believe Kennedy has not.

So, what about Weldon? Why doesn't he tell us why he completly agrees with Kennedy? Where is the money supposed to come from and what is supposed to be done with it. Weldon holds himself out as having some expertise on this subject. So, please tell.

dmb wrote:

The dopers and their cohorts are so far ahead of the testers that only a massive effort requiring money, talent, and other resources will make a dent.

What's your problem with that?

The problem is everyone believes every problem under the sun needs "a massive effort requiring money, talent, and other resources will make a dent."

Their in not a unlimited amount of money in the world. Where is the money suppose to come from? Who gets denied that money as their needs are of less importance?

And what exactly do we do with it? Do we spend it all on research to improve the tests? Do we spend it on improving the procotols in the labs? Do we use it add more labs? Do we pay the administrators more money so we attract the best qualified? Do we use it for better educational programs to explain the dangers of doping? Do we use the money to hire more lawyers and scientists to review all existing regulations to remove the ambiguities? Do we use the money to store old samples and have better record keeping so accused athletes have the best due process possible? Do we use it to re-model Dick Pound's private plane?

Unless you can answer these and other questions like them, saying we need more money is a meaningless gesture.

I have an idea how we can raise money for drug testing. Why not start a system of organized betting on which athletes will test positive for drugs? Use the betting proceeds to pay for the drug testing. Then when people are busted for drugs, they can be fined and that money used to the pay the betting winners.

Old Runner Guy wrote:

Sigh, here we go again. This is about the umpteeth time Weldon has agreed that more money is needs for dope testing. Yet he never says where it should come from (probably because he doesn't know) and why we should trust the current system in place (because Caitan told him so three years ago).

My problem is that when Kennedy says "like 40 ror 50" riders busted, I take that as an exaggeration like if I were to say it has to be 90 below zero outside today. I think he was stating that there were issues at the Tour and that we heard many stories about it.

I can't agree with you though that if you don't have a possible solution that you can't express your opinion, that it what I took from the original poster and you to say, if I am wrong, I am sorry I got that from your posts. I don't think you have to just "shut up" in that case.

From the way it sounds if Kennedy would have said "Lets have a bake sale" or "Lets put on a road race with the money going to drug testing" then his opinion would then have been valid.

old runner guy, you are an intellectual marvel. dropping such revelations as, there is not an unlimited amount of money in the world.

I'm not out here to make myself feel good about myself. But before people will act against a problem they have to be made aware of it. Granted I have not presented a solution with where to get the money, but that does not mean it is not fair for me to highlight the need for more money. I remember bitching about the drug problem with my dad one time and he said, "Well why don't you do something about it instead of just complaining". The first step is education. I don't have a concrete plan yet but that does not mean I have not thought about it and don't want to spend all day typing here (people can feel free to email me privately with their own suggestions or comments if they really want to get involved) but professional sport and Olympics sports are a multibillion dollar business. Others have argued there is a public health component involved (ie the government should have an interest), so without really debating the specifics let's just say there is plenty of money out there to combat the problem if it is seen as a problem. And yes once more money is put into the system there are questions as to where it should be spent. But that does not mean that we don't need more money to seriously combat the drug problem in sports. Do you agree or disagree that a significant infusion of funds spent on developing better anti-doping tests and protocols would make the fight against doping much more effective?

Old Runner you seem to be able to point out the flaws in any thing but you yourself don't seem to be offering solutions. In other threads you have implied that if the government got involved in drug testing that would make us like a communist state. You have compared Andre Agassi's cortisone shots (you can get permission to use cortisone) to doping. You love to try and blur the lines with everything but I don't think that detracts from the need for more resources (ie cash) to be put in the anti-doping system.

Have WADA labs done sloppy work? of course (but just because someone hand writes a lab number instead of typing it does not mean that they are faking tests). Is the WADA system perfect? No. Are WADA and USADA way better than anything before them? Yes.

Are there police investigators who do sloppy work? Yes. Does that mean we should get rid of the police? No.

You say. "And his doping comments were in the middle of a wide ranging interview. For this reason, I did not take what Kennedy said very seriously".

Personally I don't care when his comments were said. You are free to not take them seriously. But are you denying that funding is not a problem in the anti-doping movement? Or are you just trying to say Kennedy does not know what he is talking about? Or are you trying to say Kennedy really does not believe that there needs to be more funding?

I however read what he said and saw it to be fairly specific and not some generic "we need to do more for anti-doping.". I already believed in the need for more funding in the process, but believe Kennedy does have a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the matter, and take his comments seriously. Let me conclude by just quoting him again, and ask you how serious you think he really was "I think the question then becomes when, and at what point are we, as organizing bodies, USA Track and Field, IAAF, the other national governing bodies from all over the world, going to really invest the money that its necessary in testing to keep up and get ahead of, the people who are using the system to cheat. And that will take money. It takes money to develop the tests for the different variants of the drugs that these people are coming up with, and only when you have that kind of investment will you really stop it. Otherwise, they're just faking it."

One more random thing:

1) Kennedy's ignorance on cycling (how many riders were kicked out of the tour) does not mean he doesn't have a great perspective on doping in the elite levels of endurance sport. I don't know how many riders were kicked out of the tour. I just googled it and saw 13. I think I couple of teams pulled out as well so that might be what 20+ riders who didn't start because of some affiliate with doping. Who knows maybe the 13 is included in this. I think this just shows Kennedy does not know a lot about cycling. It does not mean he does not have valuable insight on doping in the elite levels of endurance sports. I think this error you point out is like a lot of the other issues you seem to focus on, just a red herring that tries and blur the lines of the main issue at hand.

One of the best post I’ve read on here in a while...

Good post, Wejo...

Im not kissing up either. Just simple facts more funds better testing with better testing a cleaner sport...

I think because someone doesn’t have an answer to a question but knows one significant step in the process shouldn’t be crucified for pointing out the obvious...

Joe Tramonte

If this country can afford to build a multi-million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people in Alaska, then we can spend some federal dollars on anti-doping provisions.

The question of where the money is going to come from is not particularly relevant. President Bush took time in his STATE OF THE NATION address a few years back to lambast professional athletes who take drugs. The problem of funding could be easily solved, with the flick of Mr. Bush's wrist.