Why? Testing samples from the 04 Olympics?

[Gummee]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/re-tested-2004-olympic-samples-reveal-adverse-analytical-findings

Ummm guys... That's farging EIGHT years ago! Why?!

I don't get it. If the best science of the day didn't detect it, why dredge up old nastiness with new science?

M

[e-RICHIE]

why dredge up old nastiness with new science?

M


Any deterrent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIR3d2wVgtQ) is welcome atmo.
The Dubin inquiry was the first and only time that leading figures in International athletics were sworn under oath to describe their drug taking.
The reward for such honesty - to be banned by both National and International athletic federations, thus providing a significant disincentive for
any other nation to follow suit.

[Louis]

I agree with e-R.

It's a way to tell present day cheats who are using stuff undetectable by today's technology that they may still have to pay the price at some point in the future. Not a terribly effective threat, but better than nothing at all.

[Richard]

The goal is to stop PED use. If the results can be reviewed and voided retroactively, it makes it less attractive to develop cheating methods that are ahead of detection methods as you will be caught eventually. Here here, I say.

[weiwentg]

I mean, the OP himself alluded to the reason: the UCI must feel that the science has improved enough.

Some seem reluctant to dig up the past. Why? Obviously you have to respect the statute of limitations, but all indications are that doping is a problem endemic to cycling. Shouldn't we address it?

[PQJ]

Why not?

[firerescuefin]

Any deterrent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIR3d2wVgtQ) is welcome atmo.

Agree with both Richards on this one..If you know that you won't always be ahead of the curve..and that you will probably found out/stripped eventually....your less apt to cheat.

[maxdog]

Why not?

An answer both literally and philosophically correct.

[67-59]

Agree that you want deterrents...but where does it end? Anybody wanna go get some blood from Eddy to see if today's technology can detect something he may have taken decades ago? If not, why not? After all, he could have doped, and think what a deterrent it would be to strip him of all his titles. Or how about Miguel Indurain?:rolleyes:

Seems like the best deterrent would be to show the athletes that we're focusing all of our resources on what's happening today.

[ultraman6970]

It is a good deterrent but the bus is long gone, i mean... 4 or 8+ years ago in the case of another character everybody knows... but as i said before is just too late... "ok, from the samples from 4 years ago looks like you took like 500 litters of coffee that morning when you won the gold medal for jumping jacks so we are going to take the medal out and everything you did plus all your money... but why, I retired 3 years ago... !!!""

IMO is just stupid, probably 90% of the elite athletes was on something undetectable 4 years ago. Just nuts...

[xjoex]

I have to say I think it's a waste of time and resources to look at samples from that far back. Spend the effort focusing on the present.

-Joe

[djg21]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/re-tested-2004-olympic-samples-reveal-adverse-analytical-findings

Ummm guys... That's farging EIGHT years ago! Why?!

I don't get it. If the best science of the day didn't detect it, why dredge up old nastiness with new science?

M

Deterent value. Will athletes dope today if the dope is now undetectable, but may be detectable in 8 years? I'm all for it.

[54ny77]

They should test Twinkies from '04. I bet they're still fresh.

[67-59]

They should test Twinkies from '04. I bet they're still fresh.

You're talking 1904, right?:eek:

[Germany_chris]

I mean, the OP himself alluded to the reason: the UCI must feel that the science has improved enough.

Some seem reluctant to dig up the past. Why? Obviously you have to respect the statute of limitations, but all indications are that doping is a problem endemic to cycling. Shouldn't we address it?

It is?

No we shouldn't. Not in the manner we are at least.

It appears that the testing will only stop when they find something.

The rule should probably go, if you are actively competing you are fair game once you retire then it's now off limits in this case if they are competing in London it's on if these folks are teachers in podunk then it's off.

[67-59]

Deterent value. Will athletes dope today if the dope is now undetectable, but may be detectable in 8 years? I'm all for it.

I think you get far more deterrent value if you show athletes that you're pouring all of your anti-doping resources to what they're doing today. Just think of how many more samples coud have been taken and tested, and perhaps how much more resources we could have put into developing new and better tests, if we hadn't wasted all that money on things like the Lance witchhunt...err...investigation.

[e-RICHIE]

The rule should probably go, if you are actively competing you are fair game once you retire then it's now off limits <cut>

Eh I dunno atmo. Folks are released from prison decades after they were wrongfully sentenced owing to advances in DNA science. The courts keep cases open for generations and revisit them whenever old evidence turns up. The cat from Philly just got his sports car back 30-40 years after it was stolen because his kept receipts spoke to his ownership. What, the crook is gonna say, "Sorry. It's been too long."? The testers are always behind the tested. I am all for 100 percent, across the board retro-activity.

[Germany_chris]

Eh I dunno atmo. Folks are released from prison decades after they were wrongfully sentenced owing to advances in DNA science. The courts keep cases open for generations and revisit them whenever old evidence turns up. The cat from Philly just got his sports car back 30-40 years after it was stolen because his kept receipts spoke to his ownership. What, the crook is gonna say, "Sorry. It's been too long."? The testers are always behind the tested. I am all for 100 percent, across the board retro-activity.

Criminal activity must be looked at differently then PED's.

[FlashUNC]

There's a reason the Atlanta Olympics is referred to in some circles as the HGH Games.

I'm all for it.

It isn't as if this is the 1970's and drug testing is just being introduced. Then I could understand some kind of grandfathering in to the current regime. But athletes these days have grown up since day 1 knowing that if you perform at the highest level, you will be tested, and you may get caught. Whether that's tomorrow or 8 years from now is immaterial.

I don't understand folks' willingness to excuse people who are breaking clearly established rules of the sport. These aren't people going back and saying "Oh, you did steroids, but those were legal when you did them, now they're not, so we're going to punish you." These are people taking banned substances that current, at the time, tests couldn't catch. But advances now allow us to do so.

The cheats will always be ahead of the testing, so this is an elegant solution imo.

[Germany_chris]

There's a reason the Atlanta Olympics is referred to in some circles as the HGH Games.

I'm all for it.

It isn't as if this is the 1970's and drug testing is just being introduced. Then I could understand some kind of grandfathering in to the current regime. But athletes these days have grown up since day 1 knowing that if you perform at the highest level, you will be tested, and you may get caught. Whether that's tomorrow or 8 years from now is immaterial.

I don't understand folks' willingness to excuse people who are breaking clearly established rules of the sport. These aren't people going back and saying "Oh, you did steroids, but those were legal when you did them, now they're not, so we're going to punish you." These are people taking banned substances that current, at the time, tests couldn't catch. But advances now allow us to do so.

The cheats will always be ahead of the testing, so this is an elegant solution imo.

What does it solve?

[firerescuefin]

I think you get far more deterrent value if you show athletes that you're pouring all of your anti-doping resources to what they're doing today. Just think of how many more samples coud have been taken and tested, and perhaps how much more resources we could have put into developing new and better tests, if we hadn't wasted all that money on things like the Lance witchhunt...err...investigation.

If you know anything about athlete performance science...you know that no matter how much money and effort you throw at testing...you can't test for something that you don't know exists.

A combination of the two...attempting to keep up/retroactively testing samples is as good as its going to get. If you can't see how retroactively testing samples doesn't have deterrent value...then I can't help you.

Big difference between the witch trials and Lance.....Let's not skew reality

[e-RICHIE]

Criminal activity must be looked at differently then PED's.

I don't know why. The PEDs are not purchased from Amgen or its equal. Some how and some way, there is a pipeline that allows professional athletes to have access to medicine and pharma products that have real value to sick people, yet are using them with only performing enhancement in mind. And, it's organized. If some cat excels, he gets endorsements and paid appearances at the mall, incentives for further run ups on the scoreboard - and folks line up to buy the bicycle or candy bar he endorses. It's not some guy, alone in a locker room, emptying a vile. It's a system, and it's been covered up. Any single option available to shine a light on the misuse or even vaporize the organization is a good option.

[Grant McLean]

It appears that the testing will only stop when they find something.

Ridiculous.

No logical argument is going to persuade people who think there is some
conspiracy to find doping where there is only clean samples.

Re-testing with any new protocols is a great tool, I say go for it.
Test Eddy, test 'em all if they want.

-g

[67-59]

I think people are WAY overstating the deterrent value of punishment years (or decades) after the glory of the win. Remember, we're talking about kids in their 20s and early 30s who we're trying to deter -- who in my experience are FAR more concerned with what happens today than they are with what might happen many years from now.

My daughter is on the early fringes of this age group - very bright kid, in college, planning for the future, etc. But still when my wife and I try to get her to balance short-term vs long-term issues...the short-term ALWAYS wins.

So putting that into the context of doping and racing...I think you'll get WAY more bang for your buck if you make it clear that you're dumping boatloads of resources into catching them today, as opposed to maybe catching some now-retired champion years later.

[Germany_chris]

I don't know why. The PEDs are not purchased from Amgen or its equal. Some how and some way, there is a pipeline that allows professional athletes to have access to medicine and pharma products that have real value to sick people, yet are using them with only performing enhancement in mind. And, it's organized. If some cat excels, he gets endorsements and paid appearances at the mall, incentives for further run ups on the scoreboard - and folks line up to buy the bicycle or candy bar he endorses. It's not some guy, alone in a locker room, emptying a vile. It's a system, and it's been covered up. Any single option available to shine a light on the misuse or even vaporize the organization is a good option.

The quantity of drugs being cycled to athletes is quite small compared to the production of Amgen, or Merck. If these companies were actually altruistic then the availability of these drugs would be free/little cost where they are needed. My bet is that all the drugs that are taken at the level we're talking about we prescribed and I'll bet you could find a legitimate reason for the prescription. I have an even harder time believing that an athlete sells anything the team might but the cyclist not. Whats your waiting list? Mr. Kirks, Mr. Parlee's, Mr. White's? None these bikes are under any team labeled as such. Colnago didn't sell less well the year or so they left the pro peleton.

The problem is it's not a deterrent, frying (pick a cyclist) doesn't effect me because my drugs are better, my doc is better, and I'm just smarter. Executing murders doesn't seem to be bringing down the quantity of murderers.

[Earl Gray]

It's pretty clear that those talking about this as a deterrent don't know ***** from shine-ola about addiction.

These pro level athletes are physically addicted to the adrenalin rush that comes from training, competing and more importantly winning.

They have been dominating their sport from a very early age and have a physical need to continue.

I'm not talking addiction in any kind of metaphorically reference. They are physically and mentally addicted to the competition and all that goes with it. If you think fear of being caught 4 to 8 years later is going to stop a crack addict from hitting the pipe, you might want to consider stepping away from the pipe yourself.

If the regulating bodies are not doing EVERYTHING in their power to deal with and help the athletes that are competing TODAY, they are just as clueless as many of you and are doing a HUGE disservice to everyone.

It would seem that these regulating bodies are made up of nothing but arrogant Roadie Bastards, Engineers, Lawyers and Holier than thou PHD's.

[MattTuck]

The reason most bureaucracies do anything is to legitimize their own existence. The more press that exists about 'doping' and 'PEDS', the more important it is to have WADA, USADA, and any other organization to 'protect' us.


As a philosophical question, how does doping work for team sports? What if one person on the gold silver medal soccer team were to have a positive finding on a test. Do they strip the whole team of their medals?

[PQJ]

It would seem that these regulating bodies are made up of nothing but arrogant Roadie Bastards, Engineers, Lawyers and Holier than thou PHD's.

You forgot to include the "haters".

[Germany_chris]

Deterrence works :p

ask Fränk

[Earl Gray]

You forgot to include the "haters".

I covered them in the title:hello:

[gdw]

A waste of time and money. If they plan to penalize athletes who doped in the past they'll have to take away all of the medals earned by the athletes who competed for the communist nations in the late 70's and 80's. Anyone remember those "female" East German speed skaters......:eek:

[FlashUNC]

What does it solve?

Maybe, I dunno, it keeps people from dying?

Why do people assume this is some kind of victimless crime? The dope, in all its myriad forms, continues to kill people in this sport.

Rouleur did an excellent story about how a marginal Italian pro cyclist died in a race in the early 1960's due to a combination of heat, dehydration and amphetamines. And authorities essentially did nothing. The very same mix that killed Tom Simpson in 1967, was killing people years before, yet folks essentially stood by and let it happen.

These days, all the blood doping products are nearly as dangerous. How many cyclists in the 90's somehow just died in their sleep? Or suffered heart attacks at entirely too young an age?
Even injecting your own blood back into yourself is fraught with peril. It nearly killed Riccardo Ricco.

So push aside all the competitive issues. How about aggressive testing, retroactive or not, might not be a cure all, but if it helps try to correct potentially lethal behavior, what's the harm?

I do object to going back and retroactively finding drugs that were once legal but have since been made illegal. That's not fair to the atheletes. But if you were doing EPO in 2004, and the test wasn't sensitive enough to pick it up then, but is now? You should totally get popped for it.

[e-RICHIE]

I do object to going back and retroactively finding drugs that were once legal but have since been made illegal. That's not fair to the atheletes.

I fully agree atmo. If it wasn't banned or on a list (at the time), fine.
When Delgado got collared in 1988 (?) I said/felt the exact same way.
No rule was broken.


ps

arrange disorder

;););)
;););)
:):):cool:

[67-59]

If you know anything about athlete performance science...you know that no matter how much money and effort you throw at testing...you can't test for something that you don't know exists.

And if you know anything about the mindset of teens and early 20-year olds (when they're starting to make decisions to dope or not), you'd know that the remote possibility of getting busted YEARS after being crowned a hero has virtually no deterrent effect in the face of becoming a hero in the first place.

If you gave them the choice of winning the Tour at 25 then getting busted at 40 -- or riding clean but probably never winning it at all -- most will probably choose the former. They get to stand on the podium, the accolades, the money, the girls...all things they may never see if they ride clean. The possibility that someone may erase their name years later -- you seriously think that's going to get them to give up what they may think is their only real shot at all of this in the first place? Seriously? If so, I have some land for sale....

Edit: And by the way, I know plenty about performance science (got a Masters in Physiology), and have NO expectation that current testing will reveal all of the dopers. I just don't think that the recent emphasis on reopening old cases will have the deterrent effect that many in this thread think it will have. Ask Frank....

[Germany_chris]

Maybe, I dunno, it keeps people from dying?

Why do people assume this is some kind of victimless crime? The dope, in all its myriad forms, continues to kill people in this sport.

Rouleur did an excellent story about how a marginal Italian pro cyclist died in a race in the early 1960's due to a combination of heat, dehydration and amphetamines. And authorities essentially did nothing. The very same mix that killed Tom Simpson in 1967, was killing people years before, yet folks essentially stood by and let it happen.

These days, all the blood doping products are nearly as dangerous. How many cyclists in the 90's somehow just died in their sleep? Or suffered heart attacks at entirely too young an age?
Even injecting your own blood back into yourself is fraught with peril. It nearly killed Riccardo Ricco.

So push aside all the competitive issues. How about aggressive testing, retroactive or not, might not be a cure all, but if it helps try to correct potentially lethal behavior, what's the harm?

I do object to going back and retroactively finding drugs that were once legal but have since been made illegal. That's not fair to the atheletes. But if you were doing EPO in 2004, and the test wasn't sensitive enough to pick it up then, but is now? You should totally get popped for it.

Since I'm sure you were speeding in '04 but our radar at that time was was not accurate enough to return results under 3 mph since then we've purchased an update that is accurate down to 1 MPH were now going through all our records, here is your ticket. Speeding is a hazard to you and your community, after all many of us know people who were involved in car accidents some of them fatal. Here is your first ticket, we'll continue to sift through our records to make sure there were no other violations remember if you get 12 points your license was suspended.

[FlashUNC]

Since I'm sure you were speeding in '04 but our radar at that time was was not accurate enough to return results under 3 mph since then we've purchased an update that is accurate down to 1 MPH were now going through all our records, here is your ticket. Speeding is a hazard to you and your community, after all many of us know people who were involved in car accidents some of them fatal. Here is your first ticket, we'll continue to sift through our records to make sure there were no other violations remember if you get 12 points your license was suspended.

Considering there's studies out there that show speeding often plays only a minor role in accidents -- and reckless driving is far more common contributor -- if you swap one for the other, then totally agree with your example.

And I'll counter your thought experiment with another one.

You robbed a bank seven years ago, but the footage from the security camera was blurry, so we couldn't identify you. Now, we have the computer technology to clear up the image and identify you to prosecute you for your crime, but instead of that, we'll devote all our energy to trying to thwart people robbing banks right this second. Its a waste of time to try to get justice against bank robbers from the past. Bank robbery is a victimless crime, right? They're just taking money from vault. Who's harmed?

[Germany_chris]

Considering there's studies out there that show speeding often plays only a minor role in accidents -- and reckless driving is far more common contributor -- if you swap one for the other, then totally agree with your example.

And I'll counter your thought experiment with another one.

You robbed a bank seven years ago, but the footage from the security camera was blurry, so we couldn't identify you. Now, we have the computer technology to clear up the image and identify you to prosecute you for your crime, but instead of that, we'll devote all our energy to trying to thwart people robbing banks right this second. Its a waste of time to try to get justice against bank robbers from the past. Bank robbery is a victimless crime, right? They're just taking money from vault. Who's harmed?

Speeding is reckless driving I spent a night in a Michigan jail for that offense.

The bank robber analogy doesn't work because we know there was a crime committed. In this case we don't know there was a crime we're just re-testing to see if there was. I guess we'll re-test all the negatives in '16 to see if a crime has been committed and on and on.

[Grant McLean]

And I'll counter your thought experiment with another one.

You robbed a bank seven years ago, but the footage from the security camera was blurry, so we couldn't identify you. Now, we have the computer technology to clear up the image and identify you to prosecute you for your crime, but instead of that, we'll devote all our energy to trying to thwart people robbing banks right this second. Its a waste of time to try to get justice against bank robbers from the past. Bank robbery is a victimless crime, right? They're just taking money from vault. Who's harmed?

Yours is a much better metaphor. Additionally, everyone speeds (no to excuse it,
just to continue the abstraction ) but not everyone robs banks.

-g

[gdw]

"You robbed a bank seven years ago, but the footage from the security camera was blurry, so we couldn't identify you. Now, we have the computer technology to clear up the image and identify you to prosecute you for your crime, but instead of that, we'll devote all our energy to trying to thwart people robbing banks right this second. Its a waste of time to try to get justice against bank robbers from the past. Bank robbery is a victimless crime, right? They're just taking money from vault. Who's harmed?"

Sorry but that's a poor analogy too. The federal statute of limitations is five years for noncapital bank robbery.

[Rueda Tropical]

It is?

No we shouldn't. Not in the manner we are at least.

It appears that the testing will only stop when they find something.

The rule should probably go, if you are actively competing you are fair game once you retire then it's now off limits in this case if they are competing in London it's on if these folks are teachers in podunk then it's off.

I don't know any activity where the rule is, if you get away with it, you don't need to worry about getting caught later. Any type of fraud, if they turn up evidence a few years later you are going down.

The testing tech will always lag the doping tech so it makes perfect sense to raise the bar by letting athletes know that not only do you have to beat the tests you know about, you have to beat future tech as well. In any case, lots of athletes active careers span more then a decade.

[1centaur]

Why is there a statute of limitations for any crime? Why does it vary by crime?

How does any athlete fingered by a retroactive test defend himself?

Is it wise business to tear down the achievements of the past?

[Gummee]

You robbed a bank seven years ago, but the footage from the security camera was blurry, so we couldn't identify you. Now, we have the computer technology to clear up the image and identify you to prosecute you for your crime, but instead of that, we'll devote all our energy to trying to thwart people robbing banks right this second. Its a waste of time to try to get justice against bank robbers from the past. Bank robbery is a victimless crime, right? They're just taking money from vault. Who's harmed?
More accurate is 'we think this bank got robbed, but we're not sure so we're going thru the videos with new technology to see if the bank got robbed or not and your name was kicked back as a possible perpetrator.'

There was officially no crime committed back then. Re-testing now just seems like a witch hunt.

M

[Grant McLean]

Re-testing now just seems like a witch hunt.

M

I can't really take anyone seriously who offers the term "witch hunt"
that implies that the anti-doping authorities have little regard to actual guilt or innocence.

I think it's fair to debate the value of re-testing samples, but to suggest
that anti-doping institutions have no regard for the truth, I find that accusation
to be without credibility.

-g

[Gummee]

I can't really take anyone seriously who offers the term "witch hunt"
that implies that the anti-doping authorities have little regard to actual guilt or innocence.

I think it's fair to debate the value of re-testing samples, but to suggest
that anti-doping institutions have no regard for the truth, I find that accusation
to be without credibility.

-gWhat would you call it then?

They're digging into samples where there wasn't an expectation of any wrong-doing just to see.

I agree that stopping drug use in athletics (not just cycling) is important, but at some point, ya gotta stop and think 'what's this going to prove?'

M

[bikinchris]

Even the death penalty does not deter some people.
Athletes don't think like that. Winning is above all. Don't you remember the survey where they asked olympic athletes if they would take a drug guaranteed to kill them if it meant winning?

"There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain."

The full read:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/phys-ed-will-olympic-athletes-dope-if-they-know-it-might-kill-them/

Personally, I think they should have a 4 year rule. After 4 years, all samples are tested, then discarded.

[Rueda Tropical]

It appears that the testing will only stop when they find something.



If there was no doping there will be nothing to find.

If the focus is on getting athletes to give up the doctors and coaches then it impacts current doping as you need experienced high tech professional help to dope without getting caught.

Once you have a new test developed may as well get your money's worth for it. It is an excellent way of uncovering doping infrastructure. The athletes may retire but the doctors, managers and coaches continue as enablers for the next generation of athletes.

Deciding to dope might be an easy decision but finding enablers that can ensure that you can do it without getting caught is not so easy. It takes, lots of professional knowledge, time and experience to get to the level of a Dr. Ferrari. It is encouraging that the USADA is going after doctors, coaches and team management. If only athletes get busted it's almost a waste of time. Use whatever past and current offenses to go after them. Since it's easier to uncover past doping its a cheaper and more sure path to getting at the doping mafia.

[54ny77]

they should retroactively test all olympians from 1984. the excessive use of hair products was rampant.

http://blog.bikeridr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/topps.jpg