In professional sport there will always be doping, just as there will be dishonest businessmen. However, the question is whether doping can be reduced from an all-pervasive practice to an occasional aberration. That would require much more resources in antidoping than are provided. Testing would need to be more comprehensive, and mostly out of competition, and with the full support of national organisations and sports governance bodies worldwide. Currently, that does not occur. The penalties for breaches would also need to increase - such as lifetime bans.
The technological difficulty is that doping remains ahead of antidoping. In that situation there remains an incentive for some athletes to take the risk. Keeping samples has been effective at retroactive enforcement, and if the samples used could be relied on for even longer than 8 years then there would be an argument for extending that. The successful doper could never be sure that at some time in the distant future they may be held to account.
Professional sport would also have to change at its core. One of the factors that drives doping is the physical demands professional sport makes of athletes. These would have to be wound back. If the elimination of doping were to be a realistic goal it would effectively mean a war between antidoping and professional sport. Antidoping would need to counter virtually everything that drives professional sport, which includes the extraordinary physical demands it places on athletes quite apart from the often enormous financial rewards and fame it offers them. There is an entire black market pharmaceutical industry that would need to be eliminated from involvement in professional sport.
In a world in which doping becomes the aberration and not the norm it would be like a trip back into the past. Athletes would be much slower than today and indeed would look much different. Somehow smaller, less bulked and less 'cut' - especially in distance athletes. Rather like '60's news reels - but in colour. It may not be every fan's version of utopia - but it least it would be an honest utopia, although, as we see, most utopias remain in the realm of the imagination.
Remember how the problem of false starts was addressed? By giving the athlete an auto DQ if they false started?
Do that with PED violations, except your professional running career is automatically over.
The big difference is that DQ is immediate, measurable, and verifiable. PED violations are nuanced, testing is complex, results must be interpreted by experts, and they are ultimately decided following drawn-out deliberative procedures.
Ultimately, I do think harsher penalties (i.e. lifetime bans) would be the most effective deterrent. But with so much ambiguity surrounding a positive test, a lifetime ban on the first offense is not fair or practical. That's why I like the idea of small penalty for the first positive, but then lifetime ban after that.
Cost of testing and adjudication grows as severity of the outcome increases. People are going to fight a lifetime ban until every avenue has been exhausted. So immediate lifetime bans would make testing costs and appeals time grow exponentially. A smaller first-offense penalty facilitates quick resolution, while greatly reducing any ambiguity for a second offense.
Summary of my proposal from an earlier reply: first offense 6-month ban, second offense lifetime ban.
I think nearly everyone is onboard for the lifetime bans, holding agents/coaches responsible.
A few other things.
1) Keep all Olympic drug samples for 20 years. IN the past, they've kept some for 10 years but then it made me suspicious as hell when they threw about a bunch of hte 2004 samples without testing them.
2) I know a lot of people who think some past greats were dirty as hell. I once asked a pro, "How confident are you that ***Olympic 1500 champ*** was dirty." Reply: "110%,"
What if we offer a prize purse at letsrun? $5,000 if you come forward with evidence that a past great was dirty and are willing to stand behind it publicy and prove it. Now, I don't want to pay out $5,000 for a random pro. And I dont want to be sued for falesely accusing people. So maybe we come up with a list of 50 greats - think Geb, Bekele, El G, Paula, Centro, Rupp, Simpson, etc.- and offer anyone $5,000 if they give us info that we publish.
Yes, that's a great suggestion about keeping the samples for longer. Especially given the advances in technology to analyze them.
I think the AIU should make use of advances in facial recognition software and AI. Some peds are known to change the facial structure, such as hgh. People here often speculate about El G and his apparent changing jaw line during his career. I'm sure an AI could definitively say, by comparing all the photos and vidoes of him over the course of his career (and since), whether or not he took hgh. Some steroids are supposed to give hardcore users yellowish eyes. Perhaps the effect caused by micro-dosing or such might not be visible to a human observer, but an AI analysing photographs may be able to pick it up.
Also a great idea about the 'prize fund' to encourage people to spill the beans on athletes. However, I guess if somebody had info on a legend cheating, and were prepared to speak up for a cash reward, they would already know that there would be many journalists probably prepared to pay sizeable sums.
Totally agreed on the money part. If AIU has more money then we should expect more testing coverage. The question is where to get the money.
Based on my uneducated guess, I think the money currently mainly comes from the governing body (WA, member federation, ...) and sponsors to some extent. Surely we can push the sponsors to engage more but there are also two main parties that have not contributed much to anti-doping at all: the athletes and the fans.
The fans are a bit tricky. Maybe only the hardcore fans woud ever want to have any money contribution to anti-doping. For casual fans, they probably don't care.
Now, I do think the athletes themselves should contribute moneywise somehow. How much prize money, appearance fees, and performance bonus is given out to all T&F athletes every year? Imagine we give 3-5% of that to AIU, how many more athletes can be added to the testing pool and how many more tests can be conducted per athlete per year with that money?
The money an athlete contributes this way will be directly used to improve his own sports, compared to be taxed and used for who knows what. If your money helps bust a few more cheaters, doesn't it in turn help you, and all the clean athletes, to have more fair competitions and thus possibly make more money long term?
I can see that as a deterrent/punishment with serious teeth. But we don't know what we don't know, so it's not obviously the correct measure.
Yes to the first part. But why do you see it not as a "correct measure"?
I realize we can't go back in time, so something like that needs to be announced now, and then become the rule in 2023: if you get banned for an ARDV, you lose all your titles, records, and times.
Which athlete could protest against such a measure with a straight face before getting caught?
It's really embarrassing that Kiprop and Sumgong can still rightfully claim to be Olympic champions.
Athletes like Simon Getzmann if they had thrown away or consumed all of their medicine unknowlingly but measurably contaminated, before being notified of an ATF.
The problem with such retroactive measures is that the WADA adjudication process itself is prone to abuse by aggressive prosecution, catching innocent athletes unable to prove it.
Here are my ideas, not all of which are under the control of anti-doping:
1) A strong athlete's union able to influence WADA's rules and guidelines and lists for the benefit of those who WADA purports to serve -- the clean athletes.
2) Educating athletes, and their doctors/pharmacists so accidental or routine medical treatments that would be violations are avoided, or at least managed properly with the correct paperwork. An ounce of prevention ...
3) Encouraging and incentivizing athletes to reveal their sources. In cases like Matthew Kisorio, where he openly talked to anti-doping authorities and to Seppelt/ARD, we never found out who told him all these things, and provided the drugs.
4) Translate the language of the WADA Code and other educational material in all the languages of all the Olympic countries.
5) Better anti-doping research according to minimum best practices (e.g. a control group), with honest discussion, conclusions and limitations section.
6) Less input from fans who have no real investment in the sport other than a desire to find a free feed with VPN software, and complain about the annual payment for providers like Flo-Track. Do football and baseball fans expect to clean up their sports?
7) Educating fans who are easily influenced by sensational journalism and rumors.
1) Keep all Olympic drug samples for 20 years. IN the past, they've kept some for 10 years but then it made me suspicious as hell when they threw about a bunch of hte 2004 samples without testing them.
Good point. I'd also suggest to test all samples before disposing of them, instead of having the leaders of WA (AIU) and IOC decide which one to test. Otherwise their buddies (and themselves) continue to be safe.
I just put this thread on homepage but like what we have so far.
1) I am totally for stripping all results for something that results in a 4 year ban.
2) I LOVE the idea of agents being fined $10,000 if they have an athlete get a 4 year ban. The agents need to have skin in the game. $10,000 may not be enough.
But perhaps we should just start compiling a list of the agents and which of their athletes have tested positive.
On testing:
- Another poster recommended random drawings of country ‘pairs’ to avoid self-policing. So thru a lottery, US tests Kenya, Ethiopia tests UK, Germany tests Japan…etc. with the pairings changing every year.
- Allow only one missed test a year.
- Fine agents who have 3+ clients test positive. Lifetime ban for agents with 5+ positive.
On investigations: - Doping needs to be criminalized in your country for you to participate in Worlds, Olympics, and diamond league.
- For WADA, create a financial pool to fund investigations. Hire a team of retired FBI/ law enforcement and intelligence agents to investigate EVERY positive test. Go after the coaches, agents, pharmacists and doctors who are prescribing and supplying the drugs with criminal penalties.
- Extend the ban to 6 years for any positive test. Only reduce bans to 3 years for athletes who cooperate with an investigation. Athletes can basically ‘plead the fifth’ and take the longer ban, but 6 years will cover > one Olympic cycle and 2 Worlds.
I think nearly everyone is onboard for the lifetime bans
No way. You think the girls at Huntington should be banned for life? It is also trivial to get an athlete to test positive for a PED by getting them to unknowingly ingest or come in contact with the substance.
1. No second chances. I am so SICK of second chances, and "redemption" for people who knowingly and willingly cheat. I am all for lifetime bans for professional athletes. I am not a fan for the Shelby apologist "moultonk" above, but there is a fair point that kids and NCAA athletes may be more coerced than acting of their free will. But professional athletes should face drastic consequences if they choose to cheat or take short cuts.
Second chances for cheaters also includes opportunities in the sport post cheating. Maybe don't get a high powered position with a governing body if you cheated in your career for example.
2. The media plays an enormous role in making sure all cheaters get treated equally. White American women who cheat are held to the same standards as Russians or Kenyans. Especially when they offer up sorry excuses that no one believes. Anyone in media who expressed sympathy to Shelby Houlihan is a part of the problem, and many many of those individuals were in the media. BTC has gotten all sorts of passes despite defending Shelby at every turn. Elise Cranny happily babbles on podcasts about her own running pursuits even though she has been one of Shelby's most staunch defenders. She stuck her neck out for a cheater and she does it over and over and over. Thats on her. Where is the accountability from the media to ask her questions about why she thinks Shelby is innocent?
3. Don't make doping a criminal offense. Shunning from the sport is enough punishment. Let's not throw more people in jail than we were already doing.
4. Pro runners--no one is coming to save your sport. If you are clean and you know someone is dirty, time to open your mouth and say something about it.
I think nearly everyone is onboard for the lifetime bans, holding agents/coaches responsible.
A few other things.
1) Keep all Olympic drug samples for 20 years. IN the past, they've kept some for 10 years but then it made me suspicious as hell when they threw about a bunch of hte 2004 samples without testing them.
...
Some feedback on a few of the suggestions here:
Before we start talking seriously about lifetime bans, the quality of the drug busts needs to be infallible. This is not just my opinion. Here is what Ross Tucker wrote in 2008:
"The problem with lifetime bans is that you would have to prove beyond any doubt ... the testing processes are absolutely airtight and completely infallible."
Sticking with the "sportsscientists", Ross Tucker invited guest writer Professor Erik Boye on this topic, discussing potential issues with the quality of data and conclusions coming out of the WADA Labs (see the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus, not to mention Bernard Lagat), which are by WADA design, difficult, if not impossible, to challenge. They are discussing the same EPO urine test which busted Kiprop.
With the occurence of many WADA banned substances in our everyday meals as a result of standard agricultural practices, and potential unlabeled contamination in otherwise WADA legal medication, there is a non-negligible risk of conviction despite taking the most diligent precautions. USADA Chief Travis Tygart has highlighted the risk to athletes with the current drug-busting process, with each finding of a "no-fault" violation, as many as 27 times in the USA since 2015, unless the athlete is lucky enough to convince a tribunal, like Jarrion Lawson or Simon Getzmann, that their violation was no-fault.
The suggestion that we should test all samples sounds good at first, but in reality this will cost a great deal more money, and is questionable when you argue to test the last place finishers of events. Will this money come from the fans who are demanding improved doping control? It's easy to ask to spend other peoples' money. The current approach of testing podium finishers, and random checks, combined with intelligent target testing seems already like the most effective compromise, bringing the most value for money. Increasing the amount of tests will bring very little additional value, when positive test results are on the order of 1-2%. It will not suddenly become 10% to 50% to 80%.
Maybe an improvement in this area is to collect many more samples that are not tested at first, but just stored, and then when suspicion does arise, more samples are available to look for a pattern or history. But this will also greatly increase storage costs, particularly for blood which needs to be stored quickly according to strict guidelines.
The best area for improvement is to complement testing with intelligent investigations.
Finally, the idea of making doping a crime for the athlete sounds initially like a good idea. But I do not have any confidence that this would work the way people think. It is similar to the American "War on Drugs", which has done little to curb drug use, and put many (disproportionally minority) recreational drug users in jail (causing other social issues as it creates many 1-parent families). While making it a crime would give authorities more power to search for drugs, it will also necessarily need to raise the standard of conviction, will clog up the court systems (which will not be uniform in their standard of adjudication and subject to corruption or bias outside of WADA's influence), and most generally cost more money and time.
One only need to look at how long it is taking to prosecute Jama Aden in the Spanish criminal courts, six years after his photo in handcuffs was splashed in newspapers and sites worldwide. Technically, he was never charged by the IAAF/AIU or any other anti-doping body, lacking any evidence of any rule violation, and is still free to coach. The 10-year statute of limitations may expire before a criminal court reaches verdict.
And suppose, after a lengthy trial, the court reaches a verdict of not guilty due to lack of evidence? At what point should this process be made public so that the accused, and his athletes does not not suffer any reputational harm?
But getting back to the question, I think WADA has the right opinion that dealing drugs should be a crime, but not individual athlete use, as that would greatly interfere with WADA's ability to timely and uniformly process rule violations.
As far as this forum is concerned, I suggest you create a category for doping threads, and only allow registered users to post in them. Also, many or most doping discussion threads here get sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not EPO and other peds work. Perhaps create an official thread reserved for that discussion? I tried to do so myself this morning, but it was promptly deleted.
Yes, you bring up another point that I should have included in my post. We are rushing to "lifetime" bans without really understanding the quality of the tests themselves. This goes hand-in-hand with my continued emphasis on the dearth of evidenced-based practices as it relates to which substances are banned i.e. is the drug actually performance enhancing? If so, how much does it boost performance and for how long? I should have given a specific example aside from offhandedly mentioning THC. Clenbuterol is a good one. I've linked to the wikipedia page for clenbuterol which includes the only meta-analysis of the drug as a performance-enhancer...which clearly indicates that it is NOT. So...why a lifetime ban for someone who has this in their system? Because WADA arbitrarily added it to their list? Why? What review process put clenbuterol on the WADA banned list?
I think cleaning up the WADA list should be a serious priority. We are using expensive lab tests to look for an insanely long list of substances when we ought to prioritize heavy-hitting drugs like EPO or anabolic steroids (amongst a few others, potentially).
Clenbuterol is a sympathomimetic amine used by sufferers of breathing disorders as a decongestant and bronchodilator. People with chronic breathing disorders such as asthma use this as a bronchodilator to make breathing easie...
Clenbuterol is a good one. I've linked to the wikipedia page for clenbuterol which includes the only meta-analysis of the drug as a performance-enhancer...which clearly indicates that it is NOT. So...why a lifetime ban for someone who has this in their system? Because WADA arbitrarily added it to their list? Why? What review process put clenbuterol on the WADA banned list?
I only see that it states there is no evidence that is anabolic, but that it has properties in common with amphetamimes. It's also popularly used as a weight loss drug. It states there isn't sufficient clinical testing to determine whether it does or does not work as a weight loss drug.
For a drug that doesn't enhance performances, it sure has been used a lot by the usual dirty dopers, from GDR's Katrin Krabbe to Alberto Contedor.
In any case, if a dangerous drug is widely believed to be performance enancing and used as such, there is good reason to include it on the prohibited list. You and Rekrunner might say X drug doesn't work, but if WADA were to make it legal, some wouldn't be happy with coaches around the world feeding their 14 year old athletes with it.
We are rushing to "lifetime" bans without really understanding the quality of the tests themselves. This goes hand-in-hand with my continued emphasis on the dearth of evidenced-based practices as it relates to which substances are banned i.e. is the drug actually performance enhancing? If so, how much does it boost performance and for how long?
+1
For everyone saying lifetime bans on first offense, it won't take long for an ambitious lawyer to attack this weakness in the doping policy. With careers on the line for every first-time positive, every test is going to turn into years and years of appeals and injunctions and all kinds of other lawyer-paying fun.
Drug test a week before the race. Drug test after the race. Pay only 20% of the prize money after passing the after race test. Pay out additional 10% increments every 6 months after that. ANY drug test failure in the future will forfeit the remaining prize money. Don't let the cheaters cash out all at once.
Yes, you bring up another point that I should have included in my post. We are rushing to "lifetime" bans without really understanding the quality of the tests themselves. This goes hand-in-hand with my continued emphasis on the dearth of evidenced-based practices as it relates to which substances are banned i.e. is the drug actually performance enhancing? If so, how much does it boost performance and for how long? I should have given a specific example aside from offhandedly mentioning THC. Clenbuterol is a good one. I've linked to the wikipedia page for clenbuterol which includes the only meta-analysis of the drug as a performance-enhancer...which clearly indicates that it is NOT. So...why a lifetime ban for someone who has this in their system? Because WADA arbitrarily added it to their list? Why? What review process put clenbuterol on the WADA banned list?
I think cleaning up the WADA list should be a serious priority. We are using expensive lab tests to look for an insanely long list of substances when we ought to prioritize heavy-hitting drugs like EPO or anabolic steroids (amongst a few others, potentially).
I didn't put this on my list, but the WADA banned substance list does seem to be much longer than is necessary, effectively reducing the bang for buck ratio. Maybe there is some room for improvement here with better rationalization and simplification (reducing testing costs).
The long list complicates compliance. Even the most diligent athlete will have trouble reading all the labels of all of the products they buy, looking for matches to the latest banned list. This is more problematic when ingredient labels may use alternate names for substances. And it is most problematic when substances include catch-all descriptions like "any drug that fits in this category".
Such a diligent exercise is not feasible with food ordered in restaurants, where the meals may contain banned substances given to animals, or with unintentional contamination in otherwise WADA legal medication. Here the rule violators may be unaware for weeks that they have ingested something banned, only to be charged and burdened with the full responsibility of investigating what was in what they ate, a month or more after the fact, asking restaurant owners with no obligation, to trace the animals back to the farm, or having to obtain and test medicine from the same batch, if they no longer have any medicine they took to test. (This goes for supplements too but WADA puts all athletes on notice that supplements are at their own risk.)
The annual WADA banned substance list is something that is arbitrarily decided behind closed doors with very little public explanation as to the reasons for including or excluding substances.
For example, when you hear the same reasons argued for banning thyroid as for banning meldonium, it's curious why one is banned and the other is not. When you see that meldonium is mainly used in Russia and Ethiopia, the cynic might think their are non-medical and non-performance motivations for banning meldonium.
But to go to your example of clenbuterol, inclusion on the list is not limited to guaranteed performance enhancing substances. The loose criteria that is stated for inclusion, includes some combination of "potential for" performance enhancement, with other factors like potential to harm health, and against the spirit of the sport. None of these factors alone are sufficient. Performance enhancing drugs are permitted, if they are considered safe and within the spirit of the sport. Including the words "potential" lowers the barrier for inclusion, and any burden to show performance enhancement, or harmful to health, while eliminating any grounds to challenge the criteria for inclusion. Clenbuterol is known for its weight loss properties, which can potentially enhance performance as less energy is required to move less weight. Other substances included are those that would interfere with effective anti-doping, such as diuretics and other masking agents.
This loose criteria requires a degree of subjectivity, as sugar and coca-cola could be construed as potentially performance enhancing and potentially harmful to health, yet coca-cola is routinely distributed to participants of marathon even while racing, specifically for performance enhancement reasons. Caffeine was on the list, until it wasn't. Even water is both performance enhancing and potentially harmful to health.
Here are my ideas, not all of which are under the control of anti-doping:
1) A strong athlete's union able to influence WADA's rules and guidelines and lists for the benefit of those who WADA purports to serve -- the clean athletes.
Following onto this point, given that most athletes are poor, even in rich countries, there should also be some sort of athlete legal fund and other guarantees that ensure that any athlete charged with a violation gets access to the resources he needs to ensure a fair adjudication process.
The current system places a heavy burden on the athlete, once charged, to defend themselves. This means legal fees, and scientific fees, all at a time when his/her income might be suspended precisely due to the charge and preliminary suspension.
A good example here is the case of Simon Getzmann, who spent more than 10,000 Euros of his father's money, to test painkillers he took, to learn that it was contaminated to higher than WADA's thresholds, but below the national thresholds for cross-contamination of medication. He eventually proved his innocence, but still suffered more than 1 year suspension and any related loss of income, and this no-fault incident counts as his first strike. A second offense will be 8 years to life.
Other innocent athletes will not be so lucky as to be out 10,000 Euros serving a 1-year suspension with a guilty verdict on their record. In cases that are virtually unprovable, their best option is in fact to plead "no contest" and get a 1-year reduction for saving prosecution time and effort and money.
