Cleaning up the sport

[peterlip]

Can someone explain to me why only 4 people per stage are tested in Le Tour? My understanding is that the yellow jersey, the stage winner, and two other random riders are tested each stage.
If they were serious about cleaning up the sport, why not test the entire field before stage 0, and then 20 or 30, or all competitors after every stage. This is the premier cycling event on the cycling calender, so why not?

 

[meandmybike]

Can someone explain to me why only 4 people per stage are tested in Le Tour? My understanding is that the yellow jersey, the stage winner, and two other random riders are tested each stage.
If they were serious about cleaning up the sport, why not test the entire field before stage 0, and then 20 or 30, or all competitors after every stage. This is the premier cycling event on the cycling calender, so why not?

Cost and logistics (that's a lot of pee to analyse).

It always comes back to money.

 

[peterlip]

Cost and logistics (that's a lot of pee to analyse).

It always comes back to money.

My wife works at a therapeutic community for people with drug and alcohol issues. Typically there are 60-70 residents, all of which are tested 3 times per week, 52 weeks per year
I don't know the cost, but this is a government and charity funded organisation, so I image the cost can't be ridiculous, otherwise they could not afford to do it.

Here we are not talking about a small time event. Le Tour is the biggest, highest profile cycling event on the planet. What is the cost to the sport if every accomplishment is questioned, or there is doubt about how clean a performance is? How many times has there been a statement in these forums about whether a person or teams effort is legal? We should just remove the questions and doubt and have a thorough testing scheme.

 

[meandmybike]

Here we are not talking about a small time event. Le Tour is the biggest, highest profile cycling event on the planet. What is the cost to the sport if every accomplishment is questioned, or there is doubt about how clean a performance is? How many times has there been a statement in these forums about whether a person or teams effort is legal? We should just remove the questions and doubt and have a thorough testing scheme.

I agree with all you've written but ultimately the Tour is a business and as long as the business makes money it will bang its fist in outrage whilst doing the bare minimum to eradicate doping.

A few people who aren't cyclists have asked me lately whether I think Landis is guilty. The thing that strikes me is that these decent, law abiding people don't really care whether he is or not, being of the mindset that drugs are in every sport so learn to live with it and enjoy the show.

Cycling might well end up as the new pro wrestling. But heh, wrestling draws the crowds so why on Earth would the UCI/organsiers carry out a thorough testing program? For the good of the sport? See paragraph one above. And so it goes.

 

[poulidor]

Cost!

Sometimes they do surprise test during the night for 1 or 2 or 3 teams...
it will be better.

 

[DiabloScott]

Can someone explain to me why only 4 people per stage are tested in Le Tour? My understanding is that the yellow jersey, the stage winner, and two other random riders are tested each stage.
If they were serious about cleaning up the sport, why not test the entire field before stage 0, and then 20 or 30, or all competitors after every stage. This is the premier cycling event on the cycling calender, so why not?

They do test every rider before the prologue. I'm not sure they do the whole battery of tests but they get blood from them all and check for hematocrit at least as part of a pre-race physical.

 

[whiteboytrash]

They do test every rider before the prologue. I'm not sure they do the whole battery of tests but they get blood from them all and check for hematocrit at least as part of a pre-race physical.

The UCI carried out 40 unannounced drug controls on the eve of the Vattenfall Cyclassics in Hamburg yesterday. At a pre-race press conference, German federation president Rudolf Scharping announced that all the tests were negative. Afterwards, the winner of the race, plus two additional riders, were also tested.

 

[poulidor]

If they were serious about cleaning up the sport, why not test the entire field before stage 0, and then 20 or 30, or all competitors after every stage. This is the premier cycling event on the cycling calender, so why not?

Here some explainations above how are done tests:
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-france/2006/sport_sto933641.shtml

 

[JRMDC]

Don't the teams also do regular testing of some sort? If so, the test results should to a governing body automatically. No increase in costs/burden. Does anyone know what teams typically do?

Stated differently, put the onus on the teams to participate in testing, upping the frequency of out-of-race tests. As for in-race tests, seems plausible to test, say, the top 10 after every stage of the race. But in an early part of a GT, that may miss the GC contenders.

 

[DiabloScott]

Don't the teams also do regular testing of some sort? If so, the test results should to a governing body automatically. No increase in costs/burden. Does anyone know what teams typically do?

Stated differently, put the onus on the teams to participate in testing, upping the frequency of out-of-race tests. As for in-race tests, seems plausible to test, say, the top 10 after every stage of the race. But in an early part of a GT, that may miss the GC contenders.

If teams test their own riders, it's likely they do so to avoid doping detection or high hematocrit values... they don't want any surprises. They could test as part of their own anti-doping program looking for riders to fire who dope on the side, but those tests would not be admissable as evidence - there would be no oversight.

 

[whiteboytrash]

The Chelsea football club in London was asked last year to stop self-testing by WADA because it saw it as a programme to avoid drugs controls... ie pull a player if he test positive in a self test thus not testing positive on the official test...

Some might remember PDM pulling their entire team due to food poisoning in the 1988 or was it 87 tour.... same issue here... or that the UCI told them to go home to avoid any problems...

If teams test their own riders, it's likely they do so to avoid doping detection or high hematocrit values... they don't want any surprises. They could test as part of their own anti-doping program looking for riders to fire who dope on the side, but those tests would not be admissable as evidence - there would be no oversight.

 

[SaintAndrew]

My wife works at a therapeutic community for people with drug and alcohol issues. Typically there are 60-70 residents, all of which are tested 3 times per week, 52 weeks per year
I don't know the cost, but this is a government and charity funded organisation, so I image the cost can't be ridiculous, otherwise they could not afford to do it.

Here we are not talking about a small time event. Le Tour is the biggest, highest profile cycling event on the planet. What is the cost to the sport if every accomplishment is questioned, or there is doubt about how clean a performance is? How many times has there been a statement in these forums about whether a person or teams effort is legal? We should just remove the questions and doubt and have a thorough testing scheme.

the cost of rec drug tests is next to nothing compared to PED tests. you're talking about tens of dollars vs. hundreds, esp. when you have your A and B samples being independently tested so multiply the costs by 2 for a regular PED test that your mom might give you if you pack on 30lbs. of muscle in a year, then think about the cost of security, storing all that blood and **** (it has to be an extremely clean and secure area). i would assume they don't keep the samples once tested at the clinic you're talking about since they're not especially concerned there's some new drug out right now we don't know about. if you do the math for a 150 member peleton to test all the riders @ $200 a pop (a very conservative estimate) would cost $30k a day, assuming they never had to touch the b samples; and that is not inclusing all the storage, security, etc.

 

[karlotta]

the cost of rec drug tests is next to nothing compared to PED tests. you're talking about tens of dollars vs. hundreds, esp. when you have your A and B samples being independently tested so multiply the costs by 2 for a regular PED test that your mom might give you if you pack on 30lbs. of muscle in a year, then think about the cost of security, storing all that blood and **** (it has to be an extremely clean and secure area). i would assume they don't keep the samples once tested at the clinic you're talking about since they're not especially concerned there's some new drug out right now we don't know about. if you do the math for a 150 member peleton to test all the riders @ $200 a pop (a very conservative estimate) would cost $30k a day, assuming they never had to touch the b samples; and that is not inclusing all the storage, security, etc.

+1 ... this isn't the home pregnancy test with blue circles and dots. Also, dont' forget that these samples are transported by air with secure chain of custody. And they'd have to have another 10 trailers (and transport them from stage to stage) to do them with the level of precision and security that would be demanded by WADA.

 

[JRMDC]

+1 ... this isn't the home pregnancy test with blue circles and dots. Also, dont' forget that these samples are transported by air with secure chain of custody. And they'd have to have another 10 trailers (and transport them from stage to stage) to do them with the level of precision and security that would be demanded by WADA.

Just use extra space in vehicles that are part of the tour caravan...

OR maybe have some special WADA vehicles, they could also toss blood bags out to bystanders, have it sponsored by the red cross...

 

[Mtventoux]

Heres how to clean it up, for certain and once and for all.

There are 21 teams in the Tour, and about 22 stages. Make it certain and known that every entire team will be randomly tested following one stage - they just don't know which stage.. That way, every stage has one entiire team "randomly" tested. Since they don't know when their number will come up, they can't schedule the doping around it. If any rider on a team tests positive, the entire team is out of the Tour, and all the riders on the team are suspensed for one year. Bye, see ya. The offending rider is suspended from the sport for however long, as well as the Director of the team. If these DS were to be punished, they would be damn sure they know what their riders are up to.

In addition, continue to test each stage winner and overall leader, and a certain amount of randoms. This ensures that doping can't start following your teams surprise test.

The problem will stop if entire teams are kicked out of the tour and maybe suspended for one year following a positive.

 

[drebro]

Some might remember PDM pulling their entire team due to food poisoning in the 1988 or was it 87 tour.... same issue here... or that the UCI told them to go home to avoid any problems...
[/font][/color]

It was 1991. Is this personal speculation, or have other people said the same thing?

 

[11ring]

Surely you could take the samples but only test a few, then follow up on sus results.

the cost of rec drug tests is next to nothing compared to PED tests. you're talking about tens of dollars vs. hundreds, esp. when you have your A and B samples being independently tested so multiply the costs by 2 for a regular PED test that your mom might give you if you pack on 30lbs. of muscle in a year, then think about the cost of security, storing all that blood and **** (it has to be an extremely clean and secure area). i would assume they don't keep the samples once tested at the clinic you're talking about since they're not especially concerned there's some new drug out right now we don't know about. if you do the math for a 150 member peleton to test all the riders @ $200 a pop (a very conservative estimate) would cost $30k a day, assuming they never had to touch the b samples; and that is not inclusing all the storage, security, etc.

 

[JohnO]

Surely you could take the samples but only test a few, then follow up on sus results.

You would still need secure collection and storage for the samples, and that isn't cheap. Have to collect them in a verifiable manner, and keep the samples secure from tampering, because the potential profits from spiking someone else's samples are as huge as the profits that can come from doping. How many people wouldn't be tempted, if 100k euros to the sample handler can get your team leader knocked out so you can move up to the big bucks?

Nothing is ever simple, is it?