CunnySewer wrote:
I've noticed all the criticisms of ORG are directed towards him personally and never address the issues he's raised, which of course validates those issues...
CunnySewer, I disagree that "validation of the issues" raised by ORG follows as a matter of course from posters' choosing to criticize ORG personally rather than criticize his views. It could just be that ORG is more obnoxious than he is misguided.
That being said, ORG does raise some valid points. Generally, the doping system is not functioning as it should because, unfortunately, a negative test does not mean an athlete is clean. The system does need to be changed so that the most tested athlets can secure their reputation by pointing to their negative test results.
I disagree with you and with ORG to the extent that you suggest that random drug testing should be eliminated; that drug testing on short notice should be eliminated; or that athletes should be tested with the same frequency. Without random tests on short notice, athletes would be able to time their doping to beat the tests. If athlets can do this, then a negative test becomes less credible. As long as their is random testing, some athletes inevitably, will be tested more often than others. I am not bothered by this result because, so long as the testing really is random, no one is being discriminated against and the price paid by the frequently tested athletes is low. Like others have said, all you need to do is pee in a cup from time to time.