WADA ! Oh what big teeth you have !

Last week WADA elected a New President ! This week we find that UNPLEASANT
News will be delivered to hundreds of thletes ! Seems that " PED Testing methods " have been even more enhanced , in recent times ?

Whilst Tennis Stars are screeming in the Media about having the " Bio Passport " imposed on them , thus some already being given 2 year Holidays , some of the Athletes nearing the end of the 8 year Statute of Limitations , will read the following with DISMAY :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/10458454/IOC-to-act-after-new-testing-methods-reveal-hundreds-of-positive-results.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/11/19/ioc-using-new-steroid-test-on-turin-doping-samples/3641581/

Just seen Usain Bolt , on the TV talking about his Autobiography , will he be worried about these developments ? His problem is that his Country's Anti Doping Agency , has a questioable history . Throw enough mud and some will stick ? Bearing in mind that about 6 of his Discipline Colleagues , were suspended in the recent times and soon we will have a Media Feeding Frenzy , even if the Guy is as clean as he claims ?

Testing 2006 Winter Olympians at Torino produced only one recorded result , a Russian Biathlete . In 2010 some retesting was done with negative results , but now more are being subjected to the new tests . With these tests revealing several Athletes at the Moscow World Championship Event in August 2013 , 2 of whom have already been named , but others to be revealed , it is an odds on certainty that there are Winter Olympians of 2006 Torino awaiting their post ?

Retesting of Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics has been done in 2012 , with 5 Athletes being detected . Guess this quote will unsettle a few of the Beijing Athletes :

  "  "We can go back to Beijing before 2016," Ljungqvist said. "We may do that. We haven't decided yet. We will do it as the eight-year time approaches."

Problem that continues to exist is that a determined Doper , will reap the Glory of the Podium and the Financial Rewards attendant to that , meanwhile , the CLEAN Athlete will be overlooked and may even leave the Sport , through financial hardship , if not dissolusionment with not being able to reveal their knowledge ?

TIME that there was a MORE EFFECTIVE " whisteblowing system " in place , perhaps with Financial Incentives " to ensure that " Determined Dopers " know that they are no longer immune , and will not have the opportunity to enjoy their UNWARRANTED benefits , for years , as is currently the situation .

WADA has been shown to be receiving a smaller Budget in coming years , BUT , with the fact that , Hundreds of recent tests are reported to be " Negatives " ,  is it not  time that their Budgets , were severely enhanced ?

MORE TESTS , MORE RESULTS ?  

I for one , want to see clean Sport !

There are some that are helping WADA in their fight for CLEAN SPORT !  Skins chairman , Jaimie Fuller , is one such . Using his company resources he has taken the fight to UCI , successfully causing the Aigle Tag Team Duo , to withdraw from their unfounded Legal Action against Paul Kimmage , who Outed Lance Armstrong . 

In recent months together with Ben Johnson , he made a World Trip highlighting Doping before visiting the IOC HQ in Lausanne . Ben Johnson was caught Doping in Seoul , his life was changed by that event . His Celebrity and life since should serve as a warning to ANY OTHER contenplating PED use as a way to enhance their Career ?

Another point reflecting on :

  "  Why does the degree of Doping/ PED use matter? I always hear rape is rape. If nice guy doped and bad guy doped, well dope is dope. Why treat them differently?"

As regards the USADA Reasoned Decision , which saw off , an athlete that seemingly avoided

detection , UCI Management in tzhe period 1999 & 2001 , intervened to " Hein & co`s benefit . This is a common observation on his fully deserved Life Time Ban :

  "  Like bribery, coersion, money laundering, drug dealing/supply, witness intimidation, perjury, libel, fraud and corrupt business practices 

Add all that into the mix and the perp in question deserves slightly different treatment to somebody who takes the odd shot of EPO every now and then don't you think? "

DOPING pays in the Short Term , BUT WADA , will now ensure that the DOPER , takes a serious knock in the FUTURE !

WADA ! Oh what big teeth you have !

WADA International Testing Standards

These are the rules that are to be applied regardless of the Sport being scrutinised !

" International Standard for Testing"

"World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Testing is a mandatory International Standard (Level 2) developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program."

Some excerpts from the WADA's International Standard for Testing:
Random Selection: Selection of Athletes for Testing which is not Target Testing. Random Selection may be: completely random (where no pre-determined criteria are considered, and Athletes are chosen arbitrarily from a list or pool of Athlete names); or weighted (where Athletes are ranked using pre-determined criteria in order to increase or decrease the chances of selection)...
Target Testing: Selection of Athletes for Testing where specific Athletes or groups of Athletes are selected on a non-random basis for Testing at a specified time...

4.3.9 The ADO [Anti-Doping Organization] shall ensure that the timing of Testing is planned to ensure optimum deterrence and detection of doping practices...

4.4.2 ADOs shall ensure that a significant amount of Testing undertaken pursuant to the Test Distribution Plan is Target Testing, based on the intelligent assessment of the risks of doping and the most effective use of resources to ensure optimum detection and deterrence. The factors that will be relevant to determining who should be made the subject of Target Testing will vary as between different sports, but could include (without limitation) some or all of the following factors:

a) Abnormal biological parameters (blood parameters, steroid profiles, etc);
b) Injury;
c) Withdrawal or absence from expected Competition;
d) Going into or coming out of retirement;
e) Behaviour indicating doping;
f) Sudden major improvements in performance;
g) Repeated failure to provide Whereabouts Filings;
h) Whereabouts Filings that may indicate a potential increase in the risk of doping, including moving to a remote location;
i) Athlete sport performance history;
j) Athlete age, e.g. approaching retirement, move from junior to senior level;
k) Athlete test history;
l) Athlete reinstatement after a period of Ineligibility;
m) Financial incentives for improved performance, such as prize money or sponsorship opportunities;
n) Athlete association with a third party such as coach or doctor with a history of involvement in doping; and o) Reliable information from a third party.

4.4.3 Testing which is not Target Testing shall be determined by Random Selection, which shall be conducted using a documented system for such selection. Random Selection which is weighted shall be conducted according to clear criteria and may take into account the factors listed in Clause 4.4.2 (as applicable) in order to ensure that a greater percentage of ‘at risk’ Athletes is selected.

One wonders how many Sports observe theses rules correctly ?

WADA International Testing Standards

GREG LEMOND'S TAKE ON THE 2010 TOUR

Data of optimism?
By: Greg LeMondPublished: July 26, 10:05, Updated: July 26, 10:23Good news on this year's Tour


LeMond won the 1989 by eight seconds and that Tour is still talked about almost 20 years later.


view thumbnail gallery
Hating to be the bearer of bad news too often, I am really happy to be able to see some real positive statistics come out of this year's Tour de France. The race between Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck was great to watch. Either one could have won this year’s Tour de France. What made the racing so exciting was how close the competition was. Most importantly their rides are believable and fall within the historic norms of athletic ability.

I have been very critical of the sport and, I believe, justifiably so. I am a cyclist who took up cycling by accident. This sport is so exciting, so romantic and so beautiful that I spent half of my life dedicated to it. My only hope is to see cycling right itself and gain back the credibility that any sport needs to thrive.


With that said, how do we eliminate the huge advantages of doping? The best way is to use the science and technology that already exists today to help eliminate the possibility of getting the huge benefit from taking doping products. This way a clean rider will have the chance to win in any event that he decides to compete in.

To get a better idea of what I mean, go to this website, http://www.sportsscientists.com, and read what two very knowledgeable scientists have to say regarding the performance of the riders in this year's Tour. I have read quite a few of their studies and they seem to know what they are talking about. They are very knowledgeable about the physiology and science of cycling, and have been doing this for years now.

When I read what their data indicates, I get hopeful that there has been a big effort to change the old habits of the past. This does not mean that the Tour is 100% clean but it does hint that things are possibly changing for the better.

I think that when you see levels of 5.8 or 5.9 watts per kilo for over 20 minutes, it is believable and falls into historical norms. It depends on the VO2 Max, of course, but I believe that a rider like Contador has a lot of talent and is therefore capable of that.

After reading their article, all I could think of was why doesn't the sport embrace scientists like these two to help figure out a better way to control the doping that has destroyed the integrity of cycling? I am a big believer in science and in the end it is the science that will stand the test of time.

The sportsscientists.com guys were saying that in the 90s and early 2000s, most of the climbs were done at 6.2, 6.3 and even up to 6.7 watts per kilo; this is a sign of blood doping.

As regards the future of drug testing, a better term might be drug controlling, controlling the drugs that really boost an athlete's performance. That would be done by using a combination of blood profiling, wattage output, using a system like the SRM Power meter, and profiling of O2 intake.

If you combine the above with criminal consequences for drug distribution and with the possibility for a positive rider to plea bargain his return back to racing (though only if the positive rider names his or her supplier, and with a life ban for those who refuse to cooperate), you might be able to slowly take out those people who have been a large part of the doping problem.

By controlling the hormones and blood boosting drugs plus the transfusions, all that might be left will be drugs that might give the rider a minimal benefit. The placebo effect can have more power to change a rider's ability than some of the drugs on the list. Hopefully talent, focus and motivation could make up the small difference.

Every athlete has a genetic max. Yes, there are things that even the best sports scientists might not be able to explain or understand at this point but eventually, science will discover the answer to the unanswered. One thing that I believe to be true is that huge gains in wattage cannot occur in a short period of time in a sport that is as competitive as cycling. This sport has been highly competitive for over 40 years and I believe that the performances of riders like Merckx would still stand up to the best in today's cycling.

There is some very good data out there that indicates little improvement in aerobic capacity when you look back at many of the Tour de France champions from the pre-EPO era. Hopefully steps will continue to be taken to ensure that the Tour de France is won by someone with natural talent who shows that his performance is backed up by his natural ability.

One thing is for sure - Alberto Contador is very talented and I am happy to see some data that indicates his victory could be the result of natural ability.

Overall, to me it looked much more like the racing I knew. There was a lot more fatigue and exhaustion - the attacks go, but then they fade. There is this hesitation in the riders, too - when you feel the suffering, you are going to start racing more tactically. That is what I have seen in this Tour. It's very different to the Tours you saw five years ago - then, the flat stages had the bunch in one long line. And when people got to the climbs, they were being dropped, but there was no sign of suffering. This year looked a lot better.

Finishing up, there's been a lot of talk about the chain problem that Schleck had the other day, and the fact that Contador and a few other riders didn't wait. I don't think his victory should be overshadowed by what ifs, as this is part of racing.

I think if it's 30 or 40 kilometers out, then absolutely - wait. But if it's three kilometers from the finish of an uphill, it is different. When you are racing like Contador was, you are not sitting there lucid and aware [of everyone]. You are completely focused on what you are doing.
If you look at the replay, Vinokourov was between Contador and Schleck and I think that obscured his view. I think that Contador did finally see that Schleck had stopped suddenly, but I don't think that he had any idea that he then got off his bike and had to put his chain back on, being further delayed.

It is certainly tragic for Schleck as it was clear that day that he was strong, and perhaps stronger than Contador, but I don't think Contador's victory should have an asterisk next to it. I don't think that Contador took an advantage.

When I look at my own career, I flatted on the last climb going into Pau in 1990. I think it was the Marie Blanc. Chiappucci saw me, got his teammates and just took off and attacked. I think that's different, when you consciously see someone flat and then you take off.

Anyway, I didn't like it, but the fact is that it was part of the race and I had to deal with it. I was more annoyed that my team car wasn't there. We were two minutes down and if it wasn't for Gilbert Duclos Lassalle and, I think, Kvalsvoll, who were up front yet sat and waited for me, I would have definitely lost the Tour.

GREG LEMOND'S TAKE ON THE 2010 TOUR