| In-Competition | Out-of-Competition | Pre-Competition | Total | ||
| 2006 | ITF | 1583 | 150 | - | 1733 |
| UCI | 5414 | 156 | 2683 | 8253 | |
| 2011 | ITF | 1934 | 216 | - | 2150 |
| UCI | 6226 | 5650 | 1181 | 13057 |
Sources:
UCI
Monday, March 26, 2012
A Question of Commitment
How (and why) was UCI able to increase out-of-competition testing so dramatically? What is behind the lack of growth in the ITF's OOC testing program? Which organization would you say is more committed to stopping doping?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mr. Ings,
ReplyDeleteIf my question has been asked I apologize for missing it....a recent thread on this site dealt exclusively with EPO testing...Sen found an article from 2009 (I think) in which Stuart Miller (I'm simply assuming you know who he is) claimed that EPO testing is only performed in response to suspicious blood test results...Sen wrote the ITF to ask if they stood by the claim and someone from the ITF responded by claiming they contacted Mr. Miller and that he did indeed stand by his comment...Is it possible for you to shed any light on this?...A frequent poster to this blog (Jenny) gathered some testing dates and statistics that on the surface would refute that claim (for example a player's being tested for EPO that had no recent harbinger blood test on record)....at face value it seemed like a very odd statement from Mr. Miller, but at the same time it appears that both he and the ITF verified his claim.
Lastly I'd just like to state my opinion....the two biggest issues in doping control seem to be budget and science (if you disagree stop reading now)....nothing should be more important to an "antidoping agency" that catching dopers or deterring the hell out of them, whichever comes first....if you're familiar with American movies then you'll get this reference....the town in the movie "The Truman Show" had no crime and thus would have been ill-advised to have 1000 policeman, an FBI headquarters and a local DEA office because there was no crime.....so I assume the ITF's antidoping agency exists for a reason and that reason is that anyone who has paid attention to professional sports in the last two or three decades knows for a fact that there is doping in professional sports...professional sports isn't the town in "The Truman Show" nor is it Maytag with its extraordinarily bored head of the Repair Divison (again, an American TV reference...the Maytag repairman hated his job because he never got a repair call)...anyway, if budget was such an issue (and I don't blame the agency for its lack of budget as the agency only has the money it's given and can't "make" money) then why isn't the major bulk of the budget spent on the top 10 players in the world?...if it's known that players ranked 187, for example, are doping then it stands to reason that players with measurably more power and stamina are probably doping too...the best way to deter those players is to make it clear that the top 10 is not immune....therefore, test Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray 52 times a year...nobody said testing has to be fair and if they don't like it they can join the Nationwide tour and play golf for a living...if the true fear is that testing them that often won't detect the substances they're using then the public is screwed and the antidoping agencies are a waste of resources...
...I have to finish my 2nd bottle of wine now...if you've read this far thanks for your time.
Swiss Cheese,
DeleteWhat Dr Miller outlines in regard to EPO testing is common practice in every anti-doping program I have seen.
When a urine sample is taken is gets a full screen test. That is every banned substance it can test for is tested for with the exception of EPO. EPO testing is a special urine test that requires additional urine volume and it is very expensive. Often costing as much if not more than the full screen test itself.
So anti-doping agencies practice a procedure of taking a blood samples, which is quick, easy and low cost, and if the blood test shows an unusual level of red blood cells or other markers, have the urine sample additionally analysed for EPO (which is sitting at the lab as you always take the urine and blood sample together) or other more complex test like CERA or even hGH.
In this way you do a $50 blood test which weeds out normal blood from questionable blood which triggers a $600 EPO test on the questionable sample. If the blood is normal it is extremely unlikely that a positive EPO test will occur. EPO and its derivatives are designed to alter blood parameters to boost oxygen carrying capacity which always sees a spike in the red blood or reticulocyte count.
So what Dr Miller outlines sees suspect samples tested for EPO versus wasting money testing samples with no blood evidence suggesting an issue.
And doping can happen at any level in sport. When I started running the ATP program, testing took place at Masters Series events only. I changed that by driving some program efficiencies to get nearly triple the testing in total done for the same budget. And with that I tested at Challenger events for the first time ever. And voila a positive for doping was found at the first event tested at I recall.
And saying that if the testers don't stop every athlete from doping then stop testing is like saying if the police don't stop every criminal, stop law enforcement. Athletes dope. And rules and programs try and eliminate that doping.
Will doping in sport ever just cease? No of course not. Rogue athletes will always try to beat the system and professional sports carry the greatest risk. But every effort (and greater efforts) must be made to protect clean athletes and that is what is happening.
Hi Richard,
DeleteOn the EPO question, you state "you always take the urine and blood sample together." The ITF's testing data indicates otherwise. For example, if you look at the 2008 stats:
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_62180_original.PDF
See the testing conducted at the Paris Open during October and November. For that tournament, 10 players had EPO tests. However, zero blood samples were taken. This would seem to indicate that the blood screen was conducted earlier in the year. Similarly, no blood samples were taken for any of the players that had an out-of-competition EPO tests in 2008.
Thoughts?
Sen, I guess this is another example of Mr Ings informing us of how things should be, but what actually happens being quite different.
DeleteThanks for your time Richard! You've helped inform us on how things work in tennis. And dare I say we've helped inform you on how things are very very much improvable.
Indeed. It was interesting while it lasted. Too bad he didn't comment on this particular item.
DeleteSEN. One for the road. Those numbers have room for improvement.
DeleteMost NADO's use blood to look for anomalies and then apply an EPO test where the blood results appear unusual.
I am pleased to pass on my experience. And to highlight what is good and not so good in anti-doping.
Anti-doping can evolve slowly. Too slowly. So this blog has a role to play in pushing for improvement and change.
But it is not easy. I remember when I introduced freezing samples at ASADA. It was a first and it got allot of criticism. Now it is normal practice. Also I built the partnerships between Customs and ASADA which got negative coverage in many anti-doping circles as not being useful. But now it too is everyday practice.
More than 30% of ASADA doping cases now come from investigations with no positive test in support. This is catching real dopers.
Good luck to you all.
Willy Cañas said “The ATP practices discrimination from an economic standpoint, like any multinational corporation. It’s just another of millions that there are in the world. Point being that I accept it, but I'm not buying into it that it is a group of players that decide (players union) because it isn't like that”. Do you believe that Willy is correct on this particular issue?
ReplyDeleteLuczak: Yes, I agree to an extent. The tournament directors (TD’s) and the players are in conflict. An example of this was that the players voted for players that have come back from a drug ban, shouldn’t be awarded wild cards on the comeback, but the tournament directors didn’t want that and then the deciding vote went in favour of the tournament directors.
The TD’s are worried about putting on a show and it’s a business for them, they have a different agenda, no tournament = no players, no players = no tournaments. The TD’s had too much power and it was important that the ATP won the lawsuit against Hamburg, we should be attempting to work together. At the moment there is too much conflict between the two groups, who are standing off against each other.
Guys…this is my last post. I have made quite a few entries to lift the veil on how anti-doping programs work (and don't work). Thanks for your interest in this topic and if ever you are confronted with a choice between conspiracy or stuff up, I would err on the latter in my experience.
ReplyDeleteAh Willy….A very capable player. Who won over $5 million in official prize money alone before endorsements (lets guess he earned a lazy $8 million including endorsements which seems to be a good rule of thumb). Pretty good economic discrimination that.
And the ATP is a partnership between players and tournaments. If a player has served their ban they should not be further discriminated against in my opinion. Enough is enough. And there is a limit to wild cards anyway. So the suggestion of not giving returning players wild cards did not have majority support at the Board level and lapsed.
Richard, one last question. Does tennis have a steroid problem?
DeleteDoping substances help athletes do the following
DeleteEnhance stamina
Recover quickly from injuries
Recover quickly from long matches
Compete at more events
Train longer and harder
In tennis if a player can have more stamina, train longer and harder, recover quicker from matches, play more tournaments and overcome injuries faster, they can build a ranking faster than players who can't do all those things.
So bottom line is that tennis is a high risk sport for doping as the rewards are massive and the benefits of doping are real.
As to your direct question as to whether tennis has a doping problem. Sorry but you are asking for how long is a piece of string? No one knows.
But a good rule is that more athletes are involved in doping than are being caught red handed.
Aren't there PEDs which can improve the hand-eye coordination, the reflexes, the focus and all that?
DeleteThere have been cases of table tennis players testing positive and I don't know if they would beneficiate form all those things you've listed above.
I thought I captured everything with my list. But I guess I left off doping enhancing aggression, concentration, reflexes etc.
DeleteIf you play sport there is a doping agent that will help you somehow.
Thank you for your time.
DeleteSome fun news from the world of MMA:
ReplyDeleteThe Nevada state athletic commission is going after Allistair 'Horse Meat' Overeem: http://www.mmafighting.com/ufc/2012/3/27/2906962/ufc-146-combatants-face-surprise-drug-tests-following-press-conference
Chris 'Cyborg' releases a video statement explaining her steroid use and seems to think the whole world consists of idiots. Some funny comments below the article too: http://www.mmafighting.com/strikeforce/2012/3/27/2906243/days-before-steroid-appeal-cris-cyborg-offers-statement-on-positive
Richard, thanks for your time. I'm not particularly a fan of tennis, but I have an interest in doping across all sports in general. Certain facts made me think tennis has a doping problem and led me to this blog. I lurk around the web to learn about doping and your contributions here have been very informative.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not too late I'd like to briefly answer your role-play challenge from the previous comments.
Thanks, I hope you drop in occasionally
1. "Money Talks" and a $2 million budget for anti-doping in tennis says "Go ahead and dope we don't mind". It's crazy that an anti-doping officer should have to make decisions like: Can I afford to send testers to Australia. I've heard of national olympic weightlifting bodies having to spend 50% of their budget on testing, but Tennis is not some impoverished minority sport. My main goal every day I came to work would be to secure a proper budget. I realise that whoever is in this role at present is probably doing this already and competing with every other department just like in every other large organization.
2. I would use an 80/20 rule in the testing. 80% of the resources dedicated to the top 20% of players. You say education is the most important thing in fighting doping. There would be no better education than a top player being taken down, nobody cares if a mid-level player dopes to get from top 100 to top 50. At least the message could get out that you might get away with doping to get into the top 10, but you won't be able to stay there.
3. I would insist on heavy punishment for any player that criticises doping procedures, i.e. Twitter updates complaining about ooc tests. These players are in a privileged position thanks to their sport and they should care deeply about its integrity. It should be written into their contracts that any such comments from them will be treated as bringing the sport into disrepute and would be punished, I'd suggest a 3 month ban is a suitable punishment. This is an easy win that could be brought in quickly and at low cost.
Sorry Richard, but I think you made a strategic error with your posts here. Like so many dopers who don't get caught, they get greedier, and greedier. You got too greedy here, and painted an unbelievable picture.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly characterized tennis as a predominantly clean sport where the authorities are getting better and better at catching dopers.
You have all of the "public" information that we have, and you have "inside" information that we don't. If it is obvious to us that there is, at the very least, a significant doping problem in tennis, then you are deliberately distorting the situation (much like those three monkeys, hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil), knowing that the "smoking gun" will never be found, since your friends will do everything to assure it never gets found.
I hope the Fuentes list comes out (we are almost certain that multiple pro tennis players are on that list, some highly ranked). The tennis authorities never asked for the list, (they were perfectly happy to take the assurances of the Spanish authorities that there were no tennis players on the list, in spite of the obvious partisanship of the Spanish authorities in all doping matters).