Are the pros tested at random?

TiMan said:

Are they tested at random all year...just during the "inseason"...or just before/during races?

The UCI can send someone to your house any time without warning. If you want to keep racing, you have to let them in and take the test no matter where you live or what you're doing. Pre-season, at a race, or off-season. In Europe or America.

I could give you numerous examples. It happens to the top guys now and then.

TiMan said:

Are they tested at random all year...just during the "inseason"...or just before/during races?

anytime, anywhere.

ed073 said:

anytime, anywhere.

That's the rule.

In practice, tests are less than comprehensive and infrequent. Riders can be unavailable for many hours, until eventually presenting themselves for a urine test.

The chief problem with all testing is MONEY, and the lack thereof. Staffing, # of testing screens, blood testing vrs urine only, and most importantly, the legal expense which will be incurred if an athlete fails a test. The athlete will always protest (guilty or not)--and both the tester & lab will have to defend themselves.

Endorsed athletes protest the loudest--and can afford the most attorney fees.

Seldom is a blood sample drawn which naturally eliminates much discovery.

Many synthetic hormones cannot be tested for no matter what sample is drawn. Some can, but are not.

In addition, urine tests can be less than accurate for all manner of reasons, some reasonable, some not.

In any case, riders carrying TUE (therapuetic use exemptions) can expect to explain away many findings as "false positives".

Lance's 1999 corticosteroid positive was one, more interestingly, 2nd place GC Alex Zulle had no such problem and he injected corticosteroids each night at 10pm, 19 hours prior to any possible test. Only Lance needed the TUE, not Alex.

According to Don Caitlin, Director of the UCLA, the single beggest threat to honest drug testing is the inevitable legal costs. No lab can compete with high paid endorsed athletes.

Corporations sponsor athletes and sport, not laboratories.

And that is why "drug testing" is mostly a Public Relations cover up for widespread doping in sport and it helps to reconcile that while: testing has presumably increased in importance, no evidence of reduced abuse can be observed. Doping remains a massive and widespread practice as we start 2005.

Flyer said:

That's the rule.

In practice, tests are less than comprehensive and infrequent. Riders can be unavailable for many hours, until eventually presenting themselves for a urine test.

The chief problem with all testing is MONEY, and the lack thereof. Staffing, # of testing screens, blood testing vrs urine only, and most importantly, the legal expense which will be incurred if an athlete fails a test. The athlete will always protest (guilty or not)--and both the tester & lab will have to defend themselves.

Endorsed athletes protest the loudest--and can afford the most attorney fees.

Seldom is a blood sample drawn which naturally eliminates much discovery.

Many synthetic hormones cannot be tested for no matter what sample is drawn. Some can, but are not.

In addition, urine tests can be less than accurate for all manner of reasons, some reasonable, some not.

In any case, riders carrying TUE (therapuetic use exemptions) can expect to explain away many findings as "false positives".

Lance's 1999 corticosteroid positive was one, more interestingly, 2nd place GC Alex Zulle had no such problem and he injected corticosteroids each night at 10pm, 19 hours prior to any possible test. Only Lance needed the TUE, not Alex.

According to Don Caitlin, Director of the UCLA, the single beggest threat to honest drug testing is the inevitable legal costs. No lab can compete with high paid endorsed athletes.

Corporations sponsor athletes and sport, not laboratories.

And that is why "drug testing" is mostly a Public Relations cover up for widespread doping in sport and it helps to reconcile that while: testing has presumably increased in importance, no evidence of reduced abuse can be observed. Doping remains a massive and widespread practice as we start 2005.

Although I agree with much of what is written, modest gains have been achieved. I repeat modest. The average Hematocrit at the Tour de france has declined over the past years from 45.5 in 98 to 43. 8 last year and 43. 2 the year before (While one can always say they are infusing saline or use of other volume expanders, recent tests have employed much less lead time for the rider). More recently cycling has utilized "stimulation index" for sreening. This measurement will pick up anyone who has utilized Erythropoietin out for about one week and effected less by hemodilution. It's not 100% specific nor sensitive but what screening test is.
Out of competition tests are one answer, but are expensive. Also a hematologic passport has been suggested and to some extent is starting to happen. In Tyler Hamiltons case and in others there has been suggestion that suspicious fluctuations in their blood profile lead to further testing.
[font=Verdana]"The health data that we accumulate allow us to target our controls, and to carry out surprise controls on suspected riders or those preparing for an event," said UCI doctor Mario Zorzoli.[/font]
[font=Verdana][/font]
Once again these are modest gains.

The Olympic TV rights sell for billions. WADAs annual budget is ~ 20 million. In 2003 the UCI spent about 1.3 million in anti-doping. A urine epo test cost about $400 and routine blood tests $40 when you are tlaking about thousands of samples-> 500 protour riders and multiple events you can see the costs adding up.
Another problem with out of competition testing is as mentioned availability. May Athletes can't be found. The greek sprinters in this Olympic are one case in point. While you are supposed to keep your location posted to your federation one athelte listed his location to his federation as Germany.
The problem with lawsuits is real and is a common concern for any clinical test. In all honesty, Medical science as a whole is not staying awake at night wondering how to catch a few Athletes. Truth be told more pressing issues are at hand such as TB, Aids, Malaria, Cancer....

A good reference, others can be provided.
cyclingnews.comtour04Open ↗

By the way any reference for the story about "Alex Zulle had no such problem and he injected corticosteroids each night at 10pm, 19 hours prior to any possible test." ?

Perro Loco said:

Although I agree with much of what is written, modest gains have been achieved. I repeat modest. The average Hematocrit at the Tour de france has declined over the past years from 45.5 in 98 to 43. 8 last year and 43. 2 the year before (While one can always say they are infusing saline or use of other volume expanders, recent tests have employed much less lead time for the rider). More recently cycling has utilized "stimulation index" for sreening. This measurement will pick up anyone who has utilized Erythropoietin out for about one week and effected less by hemodilution. It's not 100% specific nor sensitive but what screening test is.
Out of competition tests are one answer, but are expensive. Also a hematologic passport has been suggested and to some extent is starting to happen. In Tyler Hamiltons case and in others there has been suggestion that suspicious fluctuations in their blood profile lead to further testing.
[font=Verdana]"The health data that we accumulate allow us to target our controls, and to carry out surprise controls on suspected riders or those preparing for an event," said UCI doctor Mario Zorzoli.[/font]

Once again these are modest gains.

The Olympic TV rights sell for billions. WADAs annual budget is ~ 20 million. In 2003 the UCI spent about 1.3 million in anti-doping. A urine epo test cost about $400 and routine blood tests $40 when you are tlaking about thousands of samples-> 500 protour riders and multiple events you can see the costs adding up.
Another problem with out of competition testing is as mentioned availability. May Athletes can't be found. The greek sprinters in this Olympic are one case in point. While you are supposed to keep your location posted to your federation one athelte listed his location to his federation as Germany.
The problem with lawsuits is real and is a common concern for any clinical test. In all honesty, Medical science as a whole is not staying awake at night wondering how to catch a few Athletes. Truth be told more pressing issues are at hand such as TB, Aids, Malaria, Cancer....

A good reference, others can be provided.
cyclingnews.comtour04Open ↗

By the way any reference for the story about "Alex Zulle had no such problem and he injected corticosteroids each night at 10pm, 19 hours prior to any possible test." ?

I hear you. In theory I am for strict drug testing and strict liability too. No excuses.

In practice, I am more discouraged. Doping Control and its very existence seem to serve as a cover for doping. The riders point to controls as "a warranty against cheating", when in fact, the doping continues unabated. To this extent, I am opposed to controls when they are effectively hyjacked by the dopers.

To the extent that the economics in on the side of doping, research, distribution, and legal protection of privacy, and due process, the dope controls and lab work will NEVER prevail.

The Tyler Hamilton case was a big surprise to me. So maybe there is some hope for limits.

Insofar as Alex Zulle's doping practices, they can be dug up in several places.

1) [censored] Voet's book, Breaking the Chain, Page 65 paragraphs 3 & 4.

2) There should also be some confirmation of this at the October 2000 Lille, France sporting fraud trial involving Festina & Banesto rider Thomas Davy.

Flyer said:

Insofar as Alex Zulle's doping practices, they can be dug up in several places.

1) [censored] Voet's book, Breaking the Chain, Page 65 paragraphs 3 & 4.

2) There should also be some confirmation of this at the October 2000 Lille, France sporting fraud trial involving Festina & Banesto rider Thomas Davy.

Thanks, I have a morbid semi-professional interest in doping. (no I don't race or use or even advocate).
Perhaps someone can explain the rational behind the use of corticosteroids/glucocorticoids in cycling. I can understand potential short term usage but over the couse of three weeks it would seem counter productive.
I understand their actions as anti - inflammatory effects would be beneficial over a 3 week period, also the initial well being, but other properties such as fluid retention, muscle breakdown would come into play even after a week or so.
Regarding Armstrongs positive test- it was an extremely low level of triamcinolone acetonide, a form commonly used to treat topical problems. It also has a half life of 18-36 hours so you would have to be really dumb to use it systemicaly in any significant amount. I am not being an apologist but I 've always thought more was made of this than probably should have been given concerns about more serious doping issues.

Perro Loco said:

Thanks, I have a morbid semi-professional interest in doping. (no I don't race or use or even advocate).
Perhaps someone can explain the rational behind the use of corticosteroids/glucocorticoids in cycling. I can understand potential short term usage but over the couse of three weeks it would seem counter productive.
I understand their actions as anti - inflammatory effects would be beneficial over a 3 week period, also the initial well being, but other properties such as fluid retention, muscle breakdown would come into play even after a week or so.

Well I,m guessing here but I don't think that cyclists should worry about fluid retention. Bodybuilders probably but not cyclists... REgarding muscle breakdown, growth hormone maybe? Just a guess...