IOC president says war against doping can't be won

Joeinpoole wrote:

It's true that the "war against doping can't be won" ... because it's not a war, it's an arms-race. 

The cheats will always be looking for new ways to cheat and WADA will always be playing catch-up. WADA can only take action against a new form of doping when they find out that it actually exists and then work out a method to combat it. The advent of EPO was a classic example.

I agree, but you can say that about the policing of virtually anything. If the actual police had the budget of Bent Harry down the George & Dragon, they're not going to be expected to solve many murders.

Velovoyeur wrote:

Cheats are part of the sporting landscape - always have been, always will be. If any form of 'preparation' is not banned by the rules then it must be legal and permissible; right? So why not go all out and have a 'fully modified; open class' style of sport where contest is between different laboratories who are exploring the boundaries of human capability. The same as they are doing now but, all the time, trying to hide form the authorites. That'll start a moral debate about sporting ideals, contest, Olympian principles and choice of athletes. 

It's a nice debate... In practice, hmmm.

While I understand the argument for 'let them do it' - ie. difficult to police, and we just end up rewarding the best doctors and labs - I don't know how much further we have to go to get to 'fully modified'.

Cycling's history is industrial levels of drugs: testosterone, amphetamines, EPO. Impressively ticked that box. So when everyone's all at the same level there... Why not do blood doping - take a load of your own pre-stored blood for a nice oxygen boost up a mountain. Check. So why not go Full Transfusion and take someone else's blood... Done. Okay... The bike. Let's get a bit motorised... Yeah, that's happening. My point is, cycling's already at mind-boggling cheat levels. The next step is cyborgs on mopeds. 

All boils down to money, for me. I bet WADA could rustle up some great adverts on how Festina and US Postal kill 'sport' but ad campaigns cost megabucks. They just don't have the money, and nobody else is going to fund it, so the public continues to shrug shoulders and maybe boo Justin Gatlin... and, weirdly, throw horrible stuff at Chris Froome. 

Velovoyeur wrote:

So why not go all out and have a 'fully modified; open class' style of sport where contest is between different laboratories who are exploring the boundaries of human capability.

Because it would kill the sport. Most sports struggle to get sponsorship now. Imagine how much harder that would be if the sport was a chemical free-for-all. Would you let your son or daughter compete in a sport where anything goes with respect to doping, even if it's only at professional level? Few, if any, kids would do it and that's where the grass roots and the future of any successful sport is. There's nothing to stop adults doing it and of course there's already a sport like that: body building. I don't think anybody outside that "sport" takes it seriously.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

There ultimately can be no serious was on drugs in sports in general. Those in charge of most sports really aren't that bothered about taking it seriously. What benefit to football is drug free football? Players knackered at half time and wandering about the pitch.

Imagine if WADA suddenly got all the resources it needed and became successful? Loads of current of previous winners would be outed, records of those not found out would go unbroken for years to come, the public would become bored with the new breed of less-than-super men.

A sport like cycling can get away with being drug free (lol) because part of the attraction is the suffering. We are getting our pleasure from watching others put themselves through the grinder.

I agree and disagree with you. Your spot on about those in charge not bothered about drugs as they see other things as more important, its the groups further down the chain that are bothered but cant / or dont have the power to change things. 

However if WADA became the all powerfull group that most of us want then i think people would be happier knowing that their hero, heroine (is that allowed anymore or is everyone called a hero) won purely down to their skill and ability and not have a shadow cast over them by all and sundry. I have to agree about the cycling, in a weird sort of way its brilliant watching them suffer.

KINGHORN wrote:

What a dumbass statement, how about bullshitting the sporting world into thinking tests are improving and we can win the war. You've just opened the door for sportsman to cheat more, dicks!

You see, what I really hate is someone accusing people of being stupid, and offering invective against them when actually it is the accuser who is stupid.

Kinghorn, EVERY athlete in the anti-doping system already knows about this. They already know the weaknesses and failings of the system As has been said many times, if you fail a test for epo you've simply failed an IQ test. They haven't opened any door, it's been banging loudly in the wind since forever. It doesn't mean the system doesn't work, it just means that they won't ever have the upper hand. Mostly because they're bound by rules, and the cheats aren't. The tests are improving, and the athletes know that, but the cheating morphs faster than the catchers can change. 

davel wrote:

WADA's budget is in the same sort of ballpark as Team Sky's. They're supposed to police sports across the globe with less £££ than some of the world's biggest sportsmen could lay their hands on, individually.

That kind of one-sidedness makes Mayweather-McGregor look like a fair fight.

And it’s funded by governments, so will never have much money. Anti doping should be world wide and funded by sports. They should be funded as part of the professional and team membership fees of every sports governing body. After all, it is not for the benefit of governments or us, it’s ultimately so people involved in the sports know they are playing on a level playing field. Some sort of percentage of fees should work, so that sports will pay based on how wealthy the sport is so small sports are not penalised.

John Smith wrote:

davel wrote:

WADA's budget is in the same sort of ballpark as Team Sky's. They're supposed to police sports across the globe with less £££ than some of the world's biggest sportsmen could lay their hands on, individually.

That kind of one-sidedness makes Mayweather-McGregor look like a fair fight.

 

And it’s funded by governments, so will never have much money. Anti doping should be world wide and funded by sports. They should be funded as part of the professional and team membership fees of every sports governing body. After all, it is not for the benefit of governments or us, it’s ultimately so people involved in the sports know they are playing on a level playing field. Some sort of percentage of fees should work, so that sports will pay based on how wealthy the sport is so small sports are not penalised.

Totally agree. The (lack of) priority given to funding anti-doping tells us how seriously it's taken.

Pick one of the bigger Championship footy clubs. Its turnover will be around WADA's - £30m-ish. A single Championship club.

Don't moan about WADA's current performance, folks - it's amazing that it catches anyone. Moan about how it's being expected to police the sharks while being kitted out as Nemo.