Who gets tested and when?
If you are not a pro, does the race have to say they are going to do testing? If you refuse is that just like missing one of three test or is it worse? If you are a retired pro, how long after you retire can they keep testing you? Can they test you in races that do not have prize money?
I'd be interested in hearing an answer to this a well.
Scenario: Super stud cross fit guy does a race with his buddies and ends up winning the thing. They tell him he is going to be tested. He tells them he is not a runner and they can F off.
What happens? Does he get banned from running?
Dunno about your USA rules but where I live there is no testing for amateurs. They also can't compete in races like national championship, an amateur can never be a national champion if he isn't signed on a club. Even if he wins.
refusing a drug test is not equal to missing a test. missing a test means that when testers showed up at your house, you weren't home. you get 3 of those...but if you just refuse a test you can be banned.
AdrianCh wrote:
Dunno about your USA rules but where I live there is no testing for amateurs. They also can't compete in races like national championship, an amateur can never be a national champion if he isn't signed on a club. Even if he wins.
Amateurs in the US definitely can be a national championship. Anybody can enter USATF nationals by filling in the online entry and providing proof of a qualifying mark.
If you win, you'll immediately be escorted to the drug testing facility on site. Refusing the test would likely result in a sanction and your results being invalidated. But if you're an amateur, you might not care, but you wouldn't be running at nationals the next season.
While simply stated, these pinheads don't get the distinction or nuance. We are wasting time on a lost generation. Testing is hard, man
What about this dude? Why would you test 2:35 male marathoner who dropped out of a race? And why, as a non finishing armature could he not just refuse the test?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/local-runner-fails-drug-test-1.5326713
Here's a "59 year old" cyclist who was ambushed at his home for an OOC test. He refused and was hit with a 4-year ban! He says he doesn't why he was target tested when he doesn't win any races. ?
testing wrote:
Who gets tested and when?
TL;DNR: In the US, there are basically two groups that get tested: Elite athlete, and people who compete in events that require drug testing.
The USADA, along with the governing body for each sport, determines who is an elite athlete. In track, elites include runners on national teams, professionals, and so on. Elites go into a testing pool, which means they can be tested at any time, not just at races. Elites are in the "whereabouts system," which means they have to tell the USADA where they are at all times, so they can be randomly tested.
The USADA, along with the various governing bodies, determine which events will require drug tests. In track, these include Nationals, Olympic Trials and so on. The managers of other races may also decide to require drug testing for their race as well. Usually, the top finishers in every race have to be tested, along with a random sample of other runners. (Testing is expensive, so many race managers elect not to require it.)
Thus, a hobby-jogger who runs the Boston Marathon might get tested, although it's unlikely.
I've left out a lot of the specific details. You can find them on the USADA website:
https://www.usada.org/resources/faq/The USADA "Athlete Handbook" has everything you want to know, and more:
https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-athlete-handbook.pdf
whatwhat wrote:
Why would you test 2:35 male marathoner who dropped out of a race? And why, as a non finishing armature could he not just refuse the test?
Maybe they had him flagged, either because someone ratted him out, or because his record raised suspicions (he seems to have won several lower tier races recently). Or maybe they just got lucky and randomly caught a doper.
Despite what the CBC story says, he was a doper -- he tested positive for recombinant EPO and GW501516. According to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport news release, he "waived his right to a hearing," and "accepted" his penalty.
So here's a situation. Your random runner, even if very fast but still amateur, won't know all the rules and substances to avoid. Having a cold or a flu and taking some medicine may flag you for banned substances. If an amateur gets a positive because of random testing because he happened to be taking something for sickness, is that fair? We can't realistically expect for every runner to know what is doping and what is not.
It's honestly not hard at all to check whether something is allowed or not.
https://www.globaldro.com/Home
Just go that site, confirm your country and your sport, and enter the name of the medication or substance.
Easy.
I'm pretty sure it would happen if your registerred with the IAAF or local masters association etc. and then competing for prizing in certain races.
It's Crazy Out There! wrote:
Here's a "59 year old" cyclist who was ambushed at his home for an OOC test. He refused and was hit with a 4-year ban! He says he doesn't why he was target tested when he doesn't win any races. ?
/
I'd refuse to if someone showed up at my house. I'd be like, "I'm not in any testing pool, I don't know you and I'm not just giving you my DNA. Now get the F off my property."
It's Crazy Out There! wrote:
Here's a "59 year old" cyclist who was ambushed at his home for an OOC test. He refused and was hit with a 4-year ban! He says he doesn't why he was target tested when he doesn't win any races. ?
https://masterstrack.blog/2018/05/cyclist-59-suspended-for-refusing-drug-test-outside-race-are-we-next/
At that level, most unannounced tests are based on tips from whistleblowers. These agencies don’t have the budget to do blind random testing, especially out of competition. They aren’t going to do something like they did with this guy unless they think there is a very good chance he is glowing.
AdrianCh wrote:
So here's a situation. Your random runner, even if very fast but still amateur, won't know all the rules and substances to avoid. Having a cold or a flu and taking some medicine may flag you for banned substances. If an amateur gets a positive because of random testing because he happened to be taking something for sickness, is that fair? We can't realistically expect for every runner to know what is doping and what is not.
I’d be pretty surprised if a governing body didn’t grant mercy in that situation.
Assuming you provide them with all the relevant details, your test results and story match, and what you took was bona fide medicine not some protein/pre-workout/fat loss supplement called extreme something with a roided-out meat-head on the bottle.
I don't know about running, but in cycling it was fairly common for testing to show up unannounced. I recall unannounced testing several times a year at cycling races in the northeast. Typically they would test the winner and a couple of others in the top 10-15. More common in category 1/2, but I can think of examples where category 3 was tested as well (category 3 is basically a reasonably fast recreational rider). I can also recall at least two positives from races that I was in. Never heard of out of competition testing though.
I THINK that the regional governing authority paid for it (not the race or the doping agency). Not totally sure about this though.
If they don't do this at running races, they probably should!
7370 wrote:
I don't know about running, but in cycling it was fairly common for testing to show up unannounced. I recall unannounced testing several times a year at cycling races in the northeast. Typically they would test the winner and a couple of others in the top 10-15. More common in category 1/2, but I can think of examples where category 3 was tested as well (category 3 is basically a reasonably fast recreational rider). I can also recall at least two positives from races that I was in. Never heard of out of competition testing though.
I THINK that the regional governing authority paid for it (not the race or the doping agency). Not totally sure about this though.
If they don't do this at running races, they probably should!
For those popped by regional authority, what are they banned from? Just local cycling races?
banned from what wrote:
7370 wrote:
I don't know about running, but in cycling it was fairly common for testing to show up unannounced. I recall unannounced testing several times a year at cycling races in the northeast. Typically they would test the winner and a couple of others in the top 10-15. More common in category 1/2, but I can think of examples where category 3 was tested as well (category 3 is basically a reasonably fast recreational rider). I can also recall at least two positives from races that I was in. Never heard of out of competition testing though.
I THINK that the regional governing authority paid for it (not the race or the doping agency). Not totally sure about this though.
If they don't do this at running races, they probably should!
For those popped by regional authority, what are they banned from? Just local cycling races?
They were banned from the sport entirely for several years. One turned up a few years later and raced again and the other one never showed his face again. Its all public on the USADA website.
USACycling is the governing body for almost all sanctioned road racing, and anybody who races is a member (you need a racing license to register for virtually all races). When you register you officially acknowledge that you are part of the testing pool. If you test positive, your USACycling license is banned. That being said, even recreational "gran fondos" have testing (mandated by the race organizer and not USACycling) and there have been numerous positives which would render you ineligible for a USACycling license.
I guess USA Track and Field is the analogous entity in running, but you don't need a "racing license" in running, so it seems the testing policy is specific to each race. Elites probably have more specific licensing requirements that require them to be a part of the testing pool out of competition as well.
The field sizes in running are huge so it is probably a lot harder to police than cycling (where most fields are 50-125 people x 3-5 categories). That being said, budgets are higher in running, so they can afford to test more people.