Should the Tour De France just got to mandatory testing for every rider if they want to ride in the race? Nothing else seems to be working. If they haven't yet, why not?
-
David
The chief cause of failure in this life is giving up what you want most for what you want at the moment. -
All riders are tested prior to the start. After each stage, the stage winner, yellow jersey holder, and several riders selected randomly, are all tested.
I think cost and logistics are the main reason that they don't do comprehensive testing. It's not a trivial cost (although I don't know the actual numbers).
And from a logistics standpoint, you've got 200 guys lined up, after having just ridden 200Km. They're hungr,y sweaty, and may be bleeding from a fall. They'd have to be controlled so there was no cheating (someone else's urine substituted), causing further delay. It's not an insurmountable problem, but would add a lot more cost in personnel and facilities.
JRJR -
The other problem is the perpetual race between the testers and the users; the users are looking for drugs and doping means that can't be detected and the testers are trying to develop new tests to counter every new drug or method.
The post race testing may just be an ugly thing like airport security. You're tired, you've been up all night packing and raced to the airport, searched for parking and fought checkin lines. Now you're being scanned by the machine that sees through clothes, strip searched and cavity searched and having your shoes sniffed while they see if your PC boots up. "You've got 200 guys lined up, after having just driven 200Km in airport/holiday traffic. They're hungry sweaty, and may be bleeding from ticket and food price gouging." So what's the difference?Last edited by LCHIEN; 07-25-2007, 09:19 AM.
Loring in Katy, TX USA
If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questionsComment
-
Well if logistically testing everybody all the time won't work, then the international cycling govering body needs to just ban them for life if they are caught. I've no idea how practical that is but obviously the multi-year bans as deterrents that are in place aren't working.David
The chief cause of failure in this life is giving up what you want most for what you want at the moment.Comment
-
Interesting question. Before I answer, I'll say that I agree with David that something must be done.
The difference is that you're talking about the inconvenience of the modern world of travel, compared to the preparation and implementation of a top-flight sporting event.
A couple of years ago I saw a presentation by a trainer for the US Postal team. His main theme was that top performance is the product of top preparation. An athlete's recovery, the key to performance in stage racing, begins moments after a stage is completed. Riders get on the team bus and immediately begin re-hydration and carbohydrate replacement. On-board showers are also taken ASAP, with a view to fighting off any infection or saddle sores (one of the most common afflictions affecting cycling performance). There's loads more that they do...
If the objective is keep riders from using illegal means of recovering, it's counterproductive to take away their means of legal recovery.
edit: Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm Executive Platinum on American Airlines. I pride myself on my cool demeanor with airport staff (not my usual temperament...). These are, however, times that will try men's souls when it comes to travel.Last edited by JR; 07-25-2007, 10:05 AM.JRComment
-
Well said and there is no difference. EXCEPT they have notoriety and they are special and they are better than us peons and the sponsors might lose money and, and, and.........
If a person of some notoriety hides $100,000 in their freezer then, well we can't be sure if he may have done something wrong but if we peons hide $100,000 in our freezer and it was found by law enforcement then I would bet that $100,000 that we would be looking through some bars from the inside until they figured out what we did wrong.
If you are special then you get different treatment. Sorry for the rant but it irks me that these folks are treated as little godlings.
Don't hold your breath waiting for them to do the right thing.
RAGS 
Raggy and Me in San Felipe
sigpic
Comment
-
They're at least moving in the right direction. I'd go with a lifetime ban as well. It's unlikely anyone would return to top form after even the current two year ban, but it still means they can contribute to a team performance. I'm not sure who does the out of competition testing. It clearly needs more teeth as well. Maybe one warning of a test unavailability. #2 means is like a positive test and you're out for good.
I think the current system in the TDF is adequate as long as positive results mean something. The athletes have to know that if they're caught they'll never race sanctioned again.
BobComment
-
And that's what's missing right now in pretty much all sports. I realize the players' unions in the U.S. major sports leagues would never agree to a direct lifetime ban but the leagues could probably fine the teams exhorbitant amounts for signing contracts with players who have tested positive. Unless I'm wrong the union doesn't have any control over that.David
The chief cause of failure in this life is giving up what you want most for what you want at the moment.Comment
-
I was being sarcastic in my earlier comment about travelers going through testing lines
, but
JR makes an extremely good point about the importance of the post race "recovery" period that drug testing would mess up, although it would be equal to every contestant.
I did have an semi-serious idea. How about two competitions in one.
Men who swear on a stack of bibles that they don't do PE drugs and those who admit to it. Two prizes/Trophies/winners, each with the same benefits. Two stage winners each day. Two yellow Jerseys, (maybe one with a pharmaceutical capsule logo on it and the other with a capsule in a international red circle and cross-out
).
There's a prestiege problem with who finishes the line earliest and most often. So (A) figure out the average handicap no drugs gives you (this might take some time to figure out and would also be changing over time as different drugs fell in and out of favor) and let them have a staggered start so there's a competitive finish. Or (B) let the Drugfree guys go early one day and the druggies start the next. Probably 1 minute to 5 minutes would be enough to ensure the side that started first would finish first so they would take turns by days crossing the finish line first while each would have a chance to win the day's stage.Since the druggies and the non druggies compete on time within their own groups there is still drama and excitement.
Then the cyclists would have to make the choice of whether they wanted to risk the perils of drug use while getting the absolute highest score with asterisks vs. being natural and competing against others of similar convictions. Who knows the actual prestiege of winning "clean" might actually become more pretigious than winning with the fastest overall time.Loring in Katy, TX USA
If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questionsComment
-
LCHIEN
Comment