I propose a doping statute of limitations

[cetuximab]

It is a waste of time and resources to rehash events that happened years ago. I propose a month statute of limitations. Sure test them right after a race. But if evidence turns up after a month, leave them with their victory. Sorry if this has been dicussed previously.

[Joachim]

Before I get involved in the discussion. What is your rationale for using 1 month?

[goonster]

FWIW, the statute would not apply to the Contador and Ullrich cases, because the recent rulings are simply the result of a lengthy appeals process, not a case of charges being brought long after the violation.

[cetuximab]

A week, a month. Enough time for the lab. But not years later.

[Rueda Tropical]

Testing generally lags behind the latest doping methods. Rather then saying if you get away with it now you get a pass, better that they store the blood and retest 2-3 years later or whenever really new and more effective technology is available.

Knowing eventually that you are almost sure to get nailed by some as yet unknown method makes it much less attractive to dope. If you paid off someone now maybe you won't be so lucky a bit down the road.

So if Ullrich, Armstrong and everyone who stood on a podium and cheated eventually gets caught maybe it's not such an attractive option going forward. If a younger pro sees they had a long whole career and got rich, got the glory and got away with it, then maybe I can to.

[tiretrax]

I'd look at criminal statutes. Looking back at 1999 seems ridiculous.

[firerescuefin]

It is a waste of time and resources to rehash events that happened years ago. I propose a month statute of limitations. Sure test them right after a race. But if evidence turns up after a month, leave them with their victory. Sorry if this has been dicussed previously.

I think the OPs intent is say that a guy shouldn't be racing for almost 2 years after the original incident and potentially nullifying the results of not only races, but grand tour races (stages and overall). Completely agree...it makes the sport seem like an absolute clownshow.

....but it's easier to parade cyclists out there as the villians rather than take away World Cups or Premiership/UEFA championships.

To be clear, I am sooo against doping, but these organizations are about as altruistic and caring about the sport as the IOC and the FIA (Formula One)

[Joachim]

Testing generally lags behind the latest doping methods. Rather then saying if you get away with it now you get a pass, better that they store the blood and retest 2-3 years later or whenever really new and more effective technology is available.


This is pretty much it. From managing a drug development lab and heading the method development group, I can say that with unlimited resources (financial, equipment, manpower etc), 3 years to develop new tests and get through the legal red tape. The way is currently setup with only a handful anti-doping approved labs out here, thousands of samples (cycling is only a drop in the bucket) and the time it takes to develop new tests, 10 years are more realistic. Maybe for the TDF the samples have priority status, but normally they would just slot in the queue behind the others. I can go in detail about costs, for example, if I would run a sample using the same method as they use for EPO, I would charge around $600/sample for non-academic clients. Granted running doping tests are not as intense as doing drug analysis for FDA approval (can you say $1 billion and 10 years for each FDA approved drug), there are still a ton of SOP's involved due to the legal ramifications. All of that takes extra time.

With a statue of limitations equal to the running time of a sample, I'll be much better off working for Dr.Ferrari and having a MeiVici for every day of the week, since they may as well close all anti-doping labs.

But again, we are trying to combine the legal part (statue of limitations and tests that are legally sound)) with the science (time to develop new tests for known compounds/doping methods and tests for new compounds, ie AICAR etc).

Disclaimer: I do not manage an approved anti-doping lab. I do however use the same techniques for both drug development and drug analysis.

[Rueda Tropical]

The way is currently setup with only a handful anti-doping approved labs out here, thousands of samples (cycling is only a drop in the bucket) and the time it takes to develop new tests, 10 years are more realistic.

You could make the podium in a dozen races the priority for future tests. If it takes 10 years to develop the technology to catch a cheat then that's the best we can do now. Bust enough of the top tier right at the end or top of their careers and it will start to look like not such a smart way too go for up and coming riders who have real talent without dope.

[jpw]

What about an amnesty?

Tell all and you're off the hook - i.e. reveal the tricks of the trade to the authorities and carry on riding. Don't tell and if we catch you you're banned...for life.

[Joachim]

You could make the podium in a dozen races the priority for future tests. If it takes 10 years to develop the technology to catch a cheat then that's the best we can do now. Bust enough of the top tier right at the end or top of their careers and it will start to look like not such a smart way too go for up and coming riders who have real talent without dope.

I agree. I am however using the 10 years as the extreme (since we are talking about statue of limitations here and getting it approved for legal purposes). In reality it takes less than 10 years. How long have we known about autologous blood doping and there is still not an approved test, yet. Even the current HGH test has a very short testing window.

[PQJ]

Joachim - Are tests with immediate results at all within the realm of feasability? Is anyone working on it? Any talk of maybe working on it? I guess it's the pipe dream of a nonscientist, but it would be great if the athlete could get tested, see the result, and get another test if necessary, with another immediate result, right then and there.

[Rueda Tropical]

I agree. I am however using the 10 years as the extreme (since we are talking about statue of limitations here and getting it approved for legal purposes). In reality it takes less than 10 years. How long have we known about autologous blood doping and there is still not an approved test, yet. Even the current HGH test has a very short testing window.

I get the feeling the system we have is by far from the best it could be. No surprise considering the bunch who are managing it. With the proper allocation of resources and smart management it might actually be possible to control doping without making absurd demands on riders like have a lab test done on anything you ingest as if it's contaminated your a cheat even if you did not benefit from it. I'm not referring to Contador here as he could not produce proof positive but others have proved it was accidental and had no performance benefit were suspended anyway.

[Joachim]

Joachim - Are tests with immediate results at all within the realm of feasability? Is anyone working on it? Any talk of maybe working on it? I guess it's the pipe dream of a nonscientist, but it would be great if the athlete could get tested, see the result, and get another test if necessary, with another immediate result, right then and there.

So what you are talking about here is a mobile lab first of all. For some compounds you might be able to get away with some small-ish (think half a desk) size instrumentation, such as testing for amphetamine. There actually mobile labs that could test for these drugs, but if you look at the number of drugs for anti-doping it exceeds the "party" drugs by a few orders of magnitude.

Therefore, analyzing the number of compounds (time), extraction of the analytes from the urine/blood (time), some of the bigger instrumentation involved (the bigger mass spectrometers, both LC-MS and GC-MS) and wet lab instrumentation (space) it will become a logistical nightmare.

So for the London Olympics the IOC ask the help of Glaxo-Smithkline for running the tests, since they have such high throughput capacity. Also, I think the successful test for CERA was in part due to the help from Roche (the manufacturer).

[Joachim]

I get the feeling the system we have is by far from the best it could be. No surprise considering the bunch who are managing it. With the proper allocation of resources and smart management it might actually be possible to control doping without making absurd demands on riders like have a lab test done on anything you ingest as if it's contaminated your a cheat even if you did not benefit from it. I'm not referring to Contador here as he could not produce proof positive but others have proved it was accidental and had no performance benefit were suspended anyway.

Possibly. I don't know much about WADA, UCI and IOC management of the labs, but I do know my research technician can usually develop a test for an "easy" drug in about 5 days. Some methods might take longer if you need to test different sample extraction methods, but we are still within a few weeks. Its just chemistry. Developing methods for unknown (ie BALCO type) compounds take a little longer since there are other studies involved. In the end, the hold up is at the legal side. Accepting the test for legal purposes after excessive validation and agreement from a bunch of geeky scientists :).

Just think how long it took for the blood passport and there are still disagreements about some of it.

[PQJ]

Yes, mobile lab, exactly. I'm coming at this purely as a non-scientific entrepreneur. I think it'd be a phenomenal business opportunity, but the scientific hurdles and barriers to entry may make it impossible.