Anti-doping systems in sport doomed to fail, says study

Insulin pumps check blood glucose levels and then deliver the required doseage. Maybe technology will advance where riders can opt to wear something similar that monitors a week or more worth of blood levels, and have it only 2/3 times a year at random intervals.

A system that I think they should look at is "pooled samples". If the cost of testing is too expensive then reduce the number of tests by taking samples from a group of riders and pooling them into one sample, then testing that group. If the group tests positive then you have reasonable grounds to perform tests on individuals. You could do the testing on either Teams at a time or on groups randomly selected...sampling method is up to the statisticians or the organisers.

It's a form of testing that we use regularly in Veterinary Medicine to screen entire herds of cattle for certain diseases. The only downside would be if the tests weren't sensitive enough to pick up particles when you essentially water them down with other riders samples. So it's not flawless but could certainly be investigated in a world where budget is everything.

Floyd Landis took a calculated risk he would not be caught. He might have got away with it. What I'm talking about is the cost of implementing a system that would reliably test for all doping. No one would try to cheat it because no one could succeed. And riders in the lower echelons of the sport would have nothing to gain by doping in order to rise up to pro team level, as their doping would be immediately discovered.

Stating problems is easy, coming up with solutions is the hard part.

Nowhere in this summary report is there even a hint of what should be done to tackle PEDs. Typical of the sort of waste of time research some people engage in. None of these conclusions are a surprise and all they have done is put a statistical shroud around it to derive some financial numbers.

In fact the comments board here has offered far more value in coming up with ideas on what needs to be done. Perhaps the funding dollars should be directed to the good folk here.

I see a business opportunity here for cheaper mass production doping tests.

Another problem: less testing on the lower levels relative to higher levels will result in many doping dependent athletes getting detected as they rise up. Therefore, unless doping tests are given seriously at the highest pre-professional levels, it will not be eradicated from, e.g., the tour de france.

I agree with some of the other comments, this report implies that it wouldn't work if you relied on random dope tests. With the UCI sorting longitudinal testing, and the fact that doping cases can be brought about based on 'suspicious values' means that even if you don't have an outright positive then you can be banned.

Having said that though, I haven't read the full paper, so its possible that they have accounted for these factors in the study, but the synopsis here doesn't support that being the case

Interesting. ALL doping in cycling could be reliably tested, BUT it would cost 9344 Euros per athlete. Dare I suggest the Pro Teams pay for their own tests? Taking SKY as an example, they have 27 riders, so the total bill would be 252288 Euros. It sounds a lot, but is only 1.3% of the 2011 Team budget. Isn't that a small price to pay for no more insinuations of doping, ever?

So anti doping is largely ineffective especially if a team was to pay close attention to details, like, how to beat the doping testing

I think trending is the key here and forcing the athlete to take responsibility, i.e. the system Froome said he is following.
Daily checks in to a website for his whereabouts and monthly blood tests to spot anomalies.

We have a much better understanding of a human's capabilities today than even five years ago, we know what tolerances athletes can perform within. I don't believe doping can be so precise as to limit someone's performances to that level and no more.

So, lets not be put off by the naysaying of this report but keep working at it and reviewing procedures to improve anti-doping methods

A lot of waffle and assumptions here.

With some intelligence behind the testing process the costs and effectiveness is much better.

Top riders get more testing, lower ranked riders less testing. In and out of competition.

UCI has the biological passport to monitor long term trends, surely it would not be too difficult or costly to take en mass samples at major races.

UCI/WADA also work with drug companies to predict new doping trends and appropriate testing methods.

EPO was so prevalent because it was initially undetectable and then given UCI 'approval' with the 50% limit.

Yep, there will always be cheats and dopers, but with a good strategy the testing can be good enough to catch and also deter doping.

Interesting and depressing. So whilst they tell us that we can not afford to test enough and that the testing that we do do has less than a 50:50 chance of catching someone that has been doping and that banning people for longer is an admission that we do not have a chance do they actually come up with any suggestions as to how to fix it?

No thought not. Sounds a bit like a Harry Enfield character. "you don't want to do it like that."
Might have been a bit more helpful if the research had come up with some suggestions as how to improve the process.