The Problems of Anti-Doping and Going Forward From Here

The acceptance of doping would undoubtedly simplify matters
but it is only a superficially attractive idea. If all controls were removed winning would largely be dependant on 2 factors. Firstly, access to funding-the most sophisticated drug programmes are expensive. Secondly, willingness to take risks-either by taking dangerous or experimental drugs or larger quantities.
To some extent this represents the situation that we have now, albeit everything is done clandestinely rather than being officially sanctioned. Although in reality current drug controls are extremely limited, they do serve a useful purpose in that they at least keep something of a cap on unlimited doping. Remove them and there will be no constraints whatsoever to a future that is little more than a potentially lethal, chemical arms race. The result would be a voyeuristic freak show with the added frisson of potential fatalities.
Some would argue that this is a realistic description of a very successful current sport-WWF-but with one essential difference. Only the deluded would regard the artifice of WWF as serious sporting endeavour. Sorry Helmut. In any case, not even this entertainment/sports hybrid dares advertise itself as being largely based on physique boosting drugs. Instead , it protects itself with deceit and hypocrisy with which the public happily colludes.
If Cycling or any other serious sport stripped away the hypocrisy and went fully open, the public would react with a fit of sanctimonious revulsion; sponsors would stay away and TV and the general media would be unwilling to risk a backlash by covering it. In short the sport would wither away to its tiny, hardcore support of those who have either always known what goes on or just don't care. In the long run, parents would actively discourage their offspring from following a tainted sport and there would not be enough money left in it to encourage those who were willing to risk their health.
Hypocrisy is not normally an attractive proposition but in this case it seems to be a far less grubby alternative than frankness.

Gregers said:

The acceptance of doping would undoubtedly simplify matters
but it is only a superficially attractive idea. If all controls were removed winning would largely be dependant on 2 factors. Firstly, access to funding-the most sophisticated drug programmes are expensive. Secondly, willingness to take risks-either by taking dangerous or experimental drugs or larger quantities.
To some extent this represents the situation that we have now, albeit everything is done clandestinely rather than being officially sanctioned. Although in reality current drug controls are extremely limited, they do serve a useful purpose in that they at least keep something of a cap on unlimited doping. Remove them and there will be no constraints whatsoever to a future that is little more than a potentially lethal, chemical arms race. The result would be a voyeuristic freak show with the added frisson of potential fatalities.
Some would argue that this is a realistic description of a very successful current sport-WWF-but with one essential difference. Only the deluded would regard the artifice of WWF as serious sporting endeavour. Sorry Helmut. In any case, not even this entertainment/sports hybrid dares advertise itself as being largely based on physique boosting drugs. Instead , it protects itself with deceit and hypocrisy with which the public happily colludes.
If Cycling or any other serious sport stripped away the hypocrisy and went fully open, the public would react with a fit of sanctimonious revulsion; sponsors would stay away and TV and the general media would be unwilling to risk a backlash by covering it. In short the sport would wither away to its tiny, hardcore support of those who have either always known what goes on or just don't care. In the long run, parents would actively discourage their offspring from following a tainted sport and there would not be enough money left in it to encourage those who were willing to risk their health.
Hypocrisy is not normally an attractive proposition but in this case it seems to be a far less grubby alternative than frankness.

Gregers - I really appreciate your thoughtful and incisive analysis. Some really educational points in your post. I agree with all your sentiments, though haven't gone as deep or expressed it that well.

I did worry however that my last paragraph which included the suggestion of doing away with anti-doping, might distract from the main discussion. It was only meant to be a speculative side-tangent for thought.

If we assume everyone is agreed that sanctioned doping would kill any sport (and a lot of its participants), how can we address the other 10 points I made regarding the challenges in the current system? Or other points that I am probably ignorant of.

You are too kind. I realised that I was not really replying to your main argument but then, regrettably most of my thoughts tend to be tangential. I jumped in to try and make evident the drawbacks of unrestricted doping. Although you and I might agree on this there are plenty of others here who take the opposite view. Wolfix, for example, (where's he been?) is a frequent advocate of this line. I was trying to get it out of the way before it's proponents advanced it as a viable proposition, which I strongly believe it is not. I may have failed in this and suspect that Mcgregers would have done a far more caustic job.

Crankyfeet,

There is no solution when the rules are bent depending on the individual and team. If the aim is to eliminate doping athletes from competition, then I would initiate an espionage network to track movement, meetings and associates of suspicious athletes and then if reasonable suspicion and guilt is presumed, I would temporarily suspend the athlete until the doubt is removed.

So if you have an association with a 'Fuentes' style character and it is known that said association is likely to be for PED administration and advice then I would suspend the athlete until that association is either conclusively proved to not be for doping reasons or if this could not be done then the athlete would have to cease a relationship with said associate.

I understand that this isn't quite the democratic pro western existance that many are used to but there is so much correuption within our current system that if a reduction in sports doping is the aim then drastic measures need to be taken.

Cycling is in a quite fortunate position that ASO is a private company and they control some of the biggest races away from worlds and olympics. This means that this company can put in place regulations without them being universally accepted or even fair.

Like many have posted in the past, mainly LIM, a lifetime ban and the return of any winnings for those who are caught would certainly be a good place to start. However, I can't see any pro signing on to such consequences with out a completely foolproof and independent testing process. And let's face it, science is not perfect and never will be as long as humans are doing the testing. Personally I don't see drugs leaving cycling or any other professional sport now or in the future. Since sport began athletes have looked for advantages legal or not and always will.

Let me try to respond to some of the points:

1) is actually two points. a) testing is expensive and that will probably never change, and b) more testing will lead to more positives (which is true now, but might become less relevant in a really clean sport).

2) This point is true, but I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I think the idea that monetary award and testing are separated is probably a good one. If it were the other way around, the possibilities for abuse would be staggering.

3) is true, and it ties in with point 1a) testing is expensive; money is required. I think the event organizer should make available a certain fraction of the prize money for testing. Similarly, any endorsement deal should give a certain fraction to testing. The fraction could be determined by the UCI. So as long as there's money in the sport (which makes it an incentive to cheat) there will be money to test.

4) is a point which depends very much on the people in power. YMMV

5) is true and certainly a big problem. I would argue that punishment should be related to how prevalent doping is in a sport. In a dirty sport, to single out one person (say, because of very limited resources for testing or for whatever reason) and punishing this person harshly would be relatively unfair. In a mostly clean sport, where the gain of undetected doping is relatively higher, the punishment could be proportionally harsher.

6) Again, this very much depends. I think the public simply loves winners may they be doped or not. I would also imagine that the public prefers exciting competition over one dominating athlete, but again, YMMV and I might be wrong on that one.

7+8) are almost the same point, which is: one cannot test for some doping agents at present. One might be able to test for some of them in 5 years or so, but think about the chain-of-custody problems, and other arguments which might invalidate such retrospective tests (deterioration, slow chemical reactions etc.). Anyway, the public doesn't care about sport events 5 years in the past.

9) could be changed by laws and regulations, but it requires the cooperation of the athletes themselves as well. They have to come forward and say who provided them with gear (which might implicate their fellow athletes). And then whoever is implicated could plausibly deny. So there's the pesky matter of proving the accusation.

10) This is true, but there's no way you can do such studies. Any research institution of any worth has an ethic commission, and any research in that field will not pass this commission (for good reason btw.). Anyway, would you really like to see more research on PEDs? Make public a how to? The thought doesn't appeal to me.

Thanks Cobblestones for giving your comments on the points raised. My intention with those points was to highlight problem areas (just some perceived) that are a "wrench/spanner in the works" to progress in anti-doping measures. I wasn't really making any arguments.

I like your idea of a tax or percentage fee on the promoter's/event owners in cycling. You're right that the testing body should keep out of owning the events. Which is unfortunately not what UCI are currently trying to do though. There's too much conflict of interest, let alone the almost certain short-comings of an essentially bureaucratic organization trying to play around in the sport promotion/marketing field.

I think that UCI should act as the government in cycling (which basically they are), and receive a percentage-of-revenue tax (not profit - that can be fiddled). UCI needs a steady revenue source outside of normal fees. By giving them a percentage of revenues, it hands them a stake in seeing that the events succeed and grow.