Get On, Clip In, Fall Off

If you want to stop doping, do the testing right.

The still-dragging-on Floyd Landis case and the fact that cyclists are continuing to note chain of custody and test protocol issues today makes me sad. Patrik Sinkewitz's recent positive test for testosterone came from a session where a number of riders noted concerns about protocol and chain of custody issues on their control forms. Add to that the numerous lamentable holes in laboratory technique that arose during the Landis arbitration hearing, and it's clear that way too many doping tests and their associated analyses are being carried out using shoddy techniques. Even worse, most anti-doping agencies refuse to acknowledge this, preferring to repeatedly claim that their tests are bulletproof when it's clear that when they're being carried out in such a shoddy manner, they're not.

As an obsessive nerd, this offends me. If the lab work is shoddy or the testing protocols are dodgy then the science is bad and the evidence is bad too. Of course people who dope and cheat deserve to be caught and dealt with severely (and in all sports too, not just in cycling), but such terrible evidence handling would never stand up either to scientific scrutiny as a piece of research or in a court of law as evidence. The anti-doping agencies too often prefer to simply rely on their word being stronger than that of an athlete to get a conviction, and that's neither fair nor valid.

As with anyone accused of anything, suspected dopers deserve due process, and right now it seems they're not getting it. Due process is replaced with trial by media as test results are almost routinely leaked even before athletes and their teams have been told (Sinkewitz's result was faxed to the news agencies, for heavens' sake). This runs the risk of ruining peoples' careers and stripping them of their livelihoods and reputations just so an anti-doping agency can hold smug press conferences about catching cheats - never mind if they can be called guilty with near-100% certainty or not.

This shouldn't be rocket science. It should be possible to carry out doping controls accurately, scientifically and fairly. I'd like to present Mike's List of rules for drug testing protocols in sports which should help restore the confidence of athletes and fans alike in the ability of testing regimes to accurately catch cheats with as little suspicion as possible of false positives. Just as you don't want the innocent to be wrongly punished, you don't want the guilty to have a question mark left hanging over the validity of their test results.

1. An athlete suspected of doping is innocent until proved guilty by a positive B-sample or by a confession.
2. Until a B sample has been tested and the athlete concerned and their team have been properly informed, a positive or non-negative A sample result is confidential to the parties involved.
3. When a non-negative sample requires further investigation, it shall be treated as a negative result while enquiries are being made.
4. The chain of custody of test results shall be subject to the same control as the samples themselves. To minimise the risk of media leaks, an athlete producing an adverse test result shall be informed as soon as possible after their identity is positively ascertained following testing.
5. B-sample analysis shall under no circumstances be undertaken at the same facility that performed the A-sample analysis. Wherever possible the B-sample analysis shall be performed in a different country under the auspices of a different agency.
6. Sampling procedures, chain of custody recording and laboratory technique should be beyond reproach, and shall be held to the same well-known standards that are required for evidence in criminal courts.
7. All errors in handling and analysis shall be clearly logged and the testing process repeated where necessary, or upon request of the athlete or their agents.
8. The athlete or their designated agent has the absolute right to be present at the testing of a B sample. Laboratory and anti-doping personnel shall make every effort to accomodate this within reason.
9. No laboratory worker involved in an analysis shall ever be aware of the identity of the athlete whose A-sample they are processing.
10. Notwithstanding the above, no person associated in an official capacity with an anti-doping regime shall make any public remarks designed to imply that an individual or a number of individuals are guilty of doping offences or evading doping controls unless they are in possession of significant material evidence that this is the case.

There. Of course, they stand no chance of being enacted as this is only a random bloke's blog after all, but it makes me feel better.

Posted by mpk at July 20, 2007 11:56 PM | TrackBack