Drug Testing @ Road Races — HELP

Print out poster size images of Lance Armstrong, Tyson Gay, Marilyn Jones, etc... Stand in front of said images with your board and say that these cheats didn't get caught soon enough and brought shame to the races they "won". Do you want shame?

Doing drug testing at a local road race is a dumb idea.

You need help convincing the board because they realize it’s a dumb idea.

Good luck on your journey. It’s a local race. It’s a small cash prize. Be grateful that you are getting some out of town competition to make the race more exciting.

And if drug testing (10-15k) is easily within the budget and you are giving 5k to the winner, you and your board are assholes.

Why would it be 15k for drug testing??? It’s 4-5k MAX.

It’s a local race org 16000 people that sells out in 15 minutes and attracts Caroline Rotich and Silas Kipruto among others.

Whaaaat wrote:

Why would it be 15k for drug testing??? It’s 4-5k MAX.

It’s a local race org 16000 people that sells out in 15 minutes and attracts Caroline Rotich and Silas Kipruto among others.

Why not just throw that 4-5k back into the race and skip drug testing?

We've become a nation of drug testing for sporting events. That's the big buzzword now; drug testing.

Before you know it, they'll start drug testing at these local-mocal charity 5ks where the age group winners get a cheap ribbon and a handshake from the race director. Lol.

I did x3 for the top 3 fam, but perhaps I made a faulty assumption.

Get good lawyers and insurance when the test results are challenged

East Africans are flying to the US for a chance (no guarantee) of winning about $4,000.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I find that surprising. Are you sure they aren't Easr Africans living and training in the US?

Ciro wrote:

Are you sure they aren't East Africans living and training in the US?

Not the OP, but I read him as saying these are East Africans who fly in from somewhere else in the US.

I have to admit, I'm a bit saddened by some of the responses here. Do people really only care about the total money offered, and not who wins it?

[BTW, for the record, I do not buy into the implication that all east Africans who win are doping. There are clean east Africans. And plenty of dirty Americans.]

I'd point out to your board that not only is taking steps to ensure your prize money is won fairly the right thing to do, it's also following the example of several other well regarded organizations. NY Road Runners started testing in its local races 2 years ago (

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/sports/new-york-road-runners-doping-tests.html

). The Garry Bjorklund Half tests its top finishers, and offers similar prize money to your race, though distributed through 10 places, not 4. Implementing testing is one step you can take to elevate your race .

Drug testing of non-world class runners is also becoming much more common in other endurance sports - age groupers and local elites are being tested in triathlons and cycling, and getting busted. This is going to extend over to running in the next few years.

[see:

https://www.usada.org/aaa-panel-imposes-doping-sanction-jennifer-schumm/

https://www.usada.org/bill-beyer-accepts-doping-sanction/

]

Getting a reputation as a race where dopers can swoop in and get cash can have a negative effect on a race's reputation. A great example is that Chip and Joanna Gaines race from earlier this year. Getting a reputation as a race that stands up to dopers also burnishes a race's reputation - see the positive reaction to Richmond late last year when it DQed three runners for lying about their affiliation with an agent associated with doping athletes..

You also don't have to test a lot, or test every year. Test just enough, and randomly, to make your threat credible.

I'd also implement some other anti-doping steps that I've seen other races take. State that runners who have been suspended for doping in the past are not eligible for comped entry or support, and are not eligible for prize money. Or just bar them from entry altogether. And require all comped athletes to sign a statement saying that they are familiar and compliant with USADA/WADA antidoping regulations before they pick up their bibs.

I just don’t get it how ignorant some of these races are that offer $500-5000 for 1st place which brings in carfuls of Africans we’ve never heard of. It’s such a waste of money to pad the pockets of these types of runners who contribute nothing to the sport and American running. You could make it American only prize money and actually support the circuit of top Americans and developmental athletes.

Yes, I misread. I believe you are correct.

It's not a waste of money.

It's a small return for men and women who work their ass off. Forget about nationality, our sport needs this. Ocassinally these runners do make the next level and in some cases those East Africans get US citizen and represent the US.

Why do running fans insist on this? But other sports are mature enough to accept the money simply goes to the best regardless of nationality.

Advice; get big instance or put your house in someone’ else’s house.

invest in American runners wrote:

I just don’t get it how ignorant some of these races are that offer $500-5000 for 1st place which brings in carfuls of Africans we’ve never heard of. It’s such a waste of money to pad the pockets of these types of runners who contribute nothing to the sport and American running. You could make it American only prize money and actually support the circuit of top Americans and developmental athletes.

Where I live, 500 bucks for first will not attract any foreigners, unless they happen to be living locally and need a tuneup. It will tend to attract c-level elites (13:50 5000m pr range).

Anyway, OP, roughly what is the prize for first place? Find the cheapest possible cost of testing only your top one or two. If it is a small fraction of the prize, use it. If it is a significant portion, dont bother with testing.

If you dont test, maybe consider a clause that runners eligible for the top money must be in their country's testing pool, if the past winners justify it. Or maybe include a clause that prize money can only go to athletes who have never been sanctioned by any of the WADA signatories or NCAA.

These ideas arent as sure to avoid paying a doper as also including testing, but it is better than nothing and should be relatively low burden on time/budget.

No really, it is a waste of money. People talk about the depth of American distance running in the '70s and '80s. It's because Americans had a fighting chance to work hard and succeed- we were competitively on equal ground. Runners were motivated to continue beyond college. All the prize money the past 20-30 years has brought B and C level Africans over here on six month visa, possibly dope, running lower level races every weekend with no drug testing, and they go home never to be heard from again? This has done nothing to help develop and elevate American running and depth. Races need to be investing in American runners, not padding the pockets of a bunch of no name Africans who take the money back home never to be heard from again.

Everyone should scrap drug testing altogether. We want to see epic performances, who cares if it takes drugs to do it? Let athletes choose for themselves what risks they want to take on their bodies. And the whole elitism argument isn't valid, as it seems EPO is cheap and available over the counter in many countries. Allowing drugs will get rid of the grey lines that dominate our sport.

Anonymous opinion wrote:

Everyone should scrap drug testing altogether. We want to see epic performances, who cares if it takes drugs to do it? Let athletes choose for themselves what risks they want to take on their bodies. And the whole elitism argument isn't valid, as it seems EPO is cheap and available over the counter in many countries. Allowing drugs will get rid of the grey lines that dominate our sport.

Scrap testing will put loads of lawyers out of work,can’t have that.

What is the insurance to get cover for mucked up testing?

another runner wrote:

Tell all the athletes that there will be drug testing. Even have them pee in a cup. But then don't actually drug test them. Saves you money and encourages a clean race.

This seems like a sure fire way to get sued.

Imagine if I walked around the local park and asked every runner to pee in a cup for no reason.

I'd be sitting in jail with daily meetings from the banger boys.

$5000 divided by 16,000 race entrants = 3 cents more per entrant.

Ethical arguments aside, since you're probably not an IAAF-sanctioned event, what are you going to do if athletes test positive? Ban them? Withhold prize money? Pass the prize money on to lower finishes who themselves must be tested? It's admirable what you're attempting but you are opening a huge can of worms.