# Crowdsourced Drug Testing



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

One of the chief obstacles to testing amateurs is cost. Why not crowdsource it? 

What if there were a way for people to contribute money to target test individuals? If the suspect doper is crushing guys week after week, his competition will eventually pony up enough to purchase the tests. They could submit the funds online, anonymously, using some sort of Kickstarter "Click here to test Masters Racer John Doe"

Once the urine test is purchased the racer can be tested after any event. If it is a blood test the suspect is given 3 days to show up to the lab.

If the tests come up negative the competition can keep donating money to retest or accept that the racer is clean. If they want, they can donate enough money for more expensive tests. 

Alternatively, racers can donate to test the winner of certain events. And why not, if they are paying $35-$45 to race, some may pitch in an extra $5 to test the winner of their Cat. 

If a racer comes up positive they can be banned by the district. USADA can target them in the future if they like. 

Dumb idea?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

What's the big deal? Why bother testing since "everyone is doing it" and "its the culture?"

So its OK when clean Pros / U23s get pushed out of the sport, but its not OK when locals get crushed at races? 

Right now, the dopers are so far ahead of the testers, 5$ (Or 50, or 500) wouldn't begin to cover the testing needed. I think the situation needs fixed, I just don't have an affordable or practical solution on how to fix it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

After reading your posts I'd pay to drug test you.

And I think that's the point. If you don't like someone or think they are on the sauce, you can put your money where your mouth is and pay for that individual to get tested.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> After reading your posts I'd pay to drug test you.
> 
> And I think that's the point. If you don't like someone or think they are on the sauce, you can put your money where your mouth is and pay for that individual to get tested.


and if I refuse the test? not like you have any jurisdiction one way or another. Sounds like a perfect harassment lawsuit to me.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

den bakker said:


> and if I refuse the test? not like you have any jurisdiction one way or another. Sounds like a perfect harassment lawsuit to me.


Sounds like a system people would use to settle petty scores. Why all the hocus pocus? Why not just advocate raising fees, then test 1-3 and a few randoms?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> Sounds like a system people would use to settle petty scores. Why all the hocus pocus? Why not just advocate raising fees, then test 1-3 and a few randoms?


how else are you going to get back at people you think neg rep you?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

den bakker said:


> how else are you going to get back at people you think neg rep you?


Lol, so true!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> and if I refuse the test? not like you have any jurisdiction one way or another. Sounds like a perfect harassment lawsuit to me.


It's a district program. If you refuse it's known in the district that you refused. 

What basis is there to sue?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Sounds like a system people would use to settle petty scores. Why all the hocus pocus? Why not just advocate raising fees, then test 1-3 and a few randoms?


It's supposed to settle petty nonsense. When some 47 year old racer laps the crit in the P1/2 and people on the sideline mumble about how the masters champ needs to pee in a cup, this would give them a way to do something about it. Raising fees effects everyone.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> how else are you going to get back at people you think neg rep you?


Troll their threads with nonsensical blather, as Bluenote is doing to me here. Or maybe those are just bluenote's normal posts, not sure. 


den bakker said:


> jurisdiction


Alternatively, the funds can go to pay USADA. I think the point is for the people *in* the races who want their peers to get tested can pay for their peers to get tested.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Troll their threads with nonsensical blather, as Bluenote is doing to me here. Or maybe those are just bluenote's normal posts, not sure.
> Alternatively, the funds can go to pay USADA. I think the point is for the people *in* the races who want their peers to get tested can pay for their peers to get tested.


If you can't see the contradiction between apologizing for Pros who dope, then being upset when locals dope, there is nothing I can do to help you.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> If you can't see the contradiction between apologizing for Pros who dope, then being upset when locals dope, there is nothing I can do to help you.


Fair enough, I'm not asking for your personal judgments or help. But is it too much for me to ask for your silence?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> Fair enough, I'm not asking for your personal judgments or help. But is it too much for me to ask for your silence?


you can always ask.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> It's a district program. If you refuse it's known in the district that you refused.
> 
> What basis is there to sue?


cute so then I'm being hung out as an assumed doper in either case. If I pass I'm just lucky given the three day window (really, did you give that one even half a second thought?)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> you can always ask.


Can I ask it of you too?


den bakker said:


> cute so then I'm being hung out as an assumed doper in either case. If I pass I'm just lucky given the three day window (really, did you give that one even half a second thought?)


Most would be urine tests on the spot, no three days. 

Assume that the blood test is a CBC to get hct %. How can someone lower their crit in three days? Once the guy returns 53% he'll have to pretend to everyone that he has polycythaemia. 

What basis is there to sue?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> Can I ask it of you too? Most would be urine tests on the spot, no three days.
> 
> Assume that the blood test is a CBC to get hct %. How can someone lower their crit in three days? Once the guy returns 53% he'll have to pretend to everyone that he has polycythaemia.
> 
> What basis is there to sue?


you can ask whatever you want. if you don't want people answering make your own private forum. 
how to lower hct? you have got to be kidding us. you can lower it in less than hours. 
sue? you're wasting my time going for blood tests for no reason just to disrupt my work and my training. clearly you'd have a hard on for me. 
let the judge decide. you don't mind spending time in court proving you are not harassing me right?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> how to lower hct? you have got to be kidding us. you can lower it in less than hours.


How? And if so, perhaps a urine test is the best route.


> sue? you're wasting my time going for blood tests for no reason just to disrupt my work and my training. clearly you'd have a hard on for me.
> let the judge decide. you don't mind spending time in court proving you are not harassing me right?


The idea is that the district gets in on this testing. They add additional provisions for the racers. If you want to race here, you submit to the crowdsourced testing program. Don't like it, don't race. Where is the basis to sue? I would argue that there is no basis for a lawsuit here. Nice try!

Also, if you don't like the idea of having the district do it I already gave an alternative, the funds can be funneled into a USADA testing program. Florida already has something similar going: Florida Clean Ride Fund ? ...because clean cycling matters!
I'm just taking it a step further. Put money into testing, donate to the general fund if you like. In addition, why not let the racers decide who gets target tested? And let the racers pay for the tests. That's really all I am proposing here.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> How? And if so, perhaps a urine test is the best route.
> 
> 
> The idea is that the district gets in on this testing. They add additional provisions for the racers. If you want to race here, you submit to the crowdsourced testing program. Don't like it, don't race. Where is the basis to sue? I would argue that there is no basis for a lawsuit here. Nice try!
> ...


yes a urine test to test for hct. brilliant. 
You did _not_ suggest paying into the general fund. Utter BS to suggest this now. 
"What if there were a way for people to contribute money to target test individuals?" "Click here to test Masters Racer John Doe"
That is the rider paying deciding who to be tested. Very different.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> yes a urine test to test for hct. brilliant.


No, the CBC at the lab test for hct. That's the 3 day window, to give people time to get over to the lab. No blood draws in the field. Too much trouble? Stick to urine testing. 

I never thought or suggested that a urine test would give a blood count. It's as though you manufactured a gotcha moment out of spite. Please try to stick to what I write and respond to what I am actually saying, rather than mistaken things you think I am saying  


> You did _not_ suggest paying into the general fund. Utter BS to suggest this now.
> "What if there were a way for people to contribute money to target test individuals?" "Click here to test Masters Racer John Doe"
> That is the rider paying deciding who to be tested. Very different.


OK, and? 

Please explain why paying to test individuals (either as a standalone or in addition to general donations to testing) is a bad idea. I actually think it would increase the number of tests. If I am going to donate to some fund, I do not know if it will make a difference. If I think the next Meeker or David Anthony is doped and not happy that he's riding away from the field, I can donate to have him tested. 

What's the problem? Are you being argumentative because you have a personal grudge against me?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

den bakker said:


> yes a urine test to test for hct. brilliant.
> You did _not_ suggest paying into the general fund. Utter BS to suggest this now.
> "What if there were a way for people to contribute money to target test individuals?" "Click here to test Masters Racer John Doe"
> That is the rider paying deciding who to be tested. Very different.


Pretty much this.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

How accurate does a HCT have to be?

At the local blood bank, they put a couple of drops of blood into a capillary tube, then put it into a centrifuge. It only takes a few drops of blood and about a minute, and they get a fairly good HCT measurement. It could be done with a mobile unit at registration at a cost of a few cents per rider.

It should be good enough to identify suspicious riders, that could then be confirmed with more accurate tests.

As far as amateur racing, it would be easy enough to implement a system to test, say 10% of the riders, and 100% of the top 3 finishers. 

Snag a person, and they're out for the season, or if that isn't enough of a deterrent, 2 years. Also blacklist them so that the riders that have been caught have to pony up $200 extra per race for testing, and they must get tested in every future race.

One can't exclude a person from being retested, but weight it so that fewer people are retested to try to get more people covered with the random samples.

Anyway, there should be ways to minimize the cost and impact of drug testing.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Yes, good call. There are quick and easy ways to test hct with a small amount of blood. There are handheld machines about the size of a grocery barcode scanner. These machines are expensive and a phlebotomist is required to draw the blood, but the procedure itself is relatively cheap and painless.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> No, the CBC at the lab test for hct. That's the 3 day window, to give people time to get over to the lab. No blood draws in the field. Too much trouble? Stick to urine testing.
> 
> I never thought or suggested that a urine test would give a blood count. It's as though you manufactured a gotcha moment out of spite. Please try to stick to what I write and respond to what I am actually saying, rather than mistaken things you think I am saying


Here's what I said: "how to lower hct? you have got to be kidding us. you can lower it in less than hours."
You respond "How? And if so, perhaps a urine test is the best route." 
sorry for "misunderstanding" what you write. 
have a nice day.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Lol, so true!





Bluenote said:


> Pretty much this.


Nice cheerleading!


den bakker said:


> Here's what I said: "how to lower hct? you have got to be kidding us. you can lower it in less than hours."
> You respond "How? And if so, perhaps a urine test is the best route."
> sorry for "misunderstanding" what you write.
> have a nice day.


Thanks for apologizing. 

If you go back to post # 15 in this thread you'll see I spelled it out pretty clearly -- urine tests on the spot but if someone needs to get in to a lab they have a three day window. The lab work/CBC is used to measure hct. 

I can see how you made your mistake though, just a little inattentiveness and sloppy reading/reasoning on your end. No big deal. I'm trying to come up with a solution to the "testing is too expensive" problem. My idea isn't perfect and I'm working through it here. Can we move forward? 

Can you explain how someone can lower their hct in a few hours? Are you suggesting a saline transfusion? If someone is that dedicated then there isn't much we can do to catch them aside from a full biological passport. 

Also, what can we do to catch amateurs who want to auto-transfuse their own blood? That will not show up w urine tests. Some things will be beyond the testing.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

If the concern is the hematocrit (HCT), then a complete blood count (CBC) is unnecessary. One doesn't need to know about the white blood cells after all. Just do the pin-prick and capillary screening test. 

As a rider, I would have less objection to donating a drop of blood than a couple of vials full on race day.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Nice cheerleading!
> Thanks for apologizing.
> 
> If you go back to post # 15 in this thread you'll see I spelled it out pretty clearly -- urine tests on the spot but if someone needs to get in to a lab they have a three day window. The lab work/CBC is used to measure hct.
> ...


The UCI doesn't use one time tests or hematocrit by itself to sanction riders for doping - for a reason - its not accurate or reliable. There are too many false positives, from fairly simple things like being dehydrated, just coming down with a bug, altitude, even stress. 

It's merely a "health check;" if riders fail, they sit for a few weeks. 

A rider wouldn't need to lower their hematocrit, they would just threaten to sue because of A) the process - being singled out by peers and B) the test - innacurate, not accepted by the UCI, WADA, etc... 

USA Cycling couldn't justify stripping someone's results (and tarnishing their good name,) with a test that is so innacurate that the UCI only uses it as a 'health check.' A health check voted on by people you just beat, after the fact? 

Seems like you don't really understand how tests for blood doping work.

Your passport, please - VeloNews.com

Or see how locals can use the same tricks as Pros to avoid testing positive (microdosing, out of competition cycles, designer steroids, etc...)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I know you're really hell bent on poking holes in this but you're being obtuse here.

There will be no lawsuits. The county court does not give a crap if some cycling association refuses to let someone race. It doesn't matter if they are singled out by their peers or the test is inaccurate, or whatever.

There is no *right* to race in California, whether it is the SCNCA or NCNCA. That's one of the reasons why slightly more lax testing can come with more lax punishment. This isn't something that would happen midseason, but something that all riders would consent to at the start of the year. 

And a 54% hct will not have to result in a rider getting banned. The information can just go out to the rider's peers. If 29 out of 30 racers have hct between 42-46% and the guy who laps the field registers 54%, well that's just one more reason to be suspicious. Peer pressure and a tarnished reputation are the hammer here, not USADA. They can call him a doper to his face or behind his back if they want. 


On the other hand, if the money goes to USADA for targeted urine tests are used an metabolites for deca/nandro show up as they did with Meeker, USADA can ban them.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

HCT should be considered as a quick & easy screening test.

There are a number of tests being proposed to screen for autologous transfusions, and tests will likely improve over time, but no need to invest in expensive screening if the HCT is "normal", or in the case of a passport, within the individual's normal range.

The passport, of course, just checks for consistency, which may or may not be adequate to detect habitual dosing.

I could care less if the person holding up the back of the pack is doping. My biggest concern would be those standing on the winner's podium. And, in a team sport, perhaps also the team mates that provide drafting to the "winner".


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> I know you're really hell bent on poking holes in this but you're being obtuse here.
> 
> There will be no lawsuits. The county court does not give a crap if some cycling association refuses to let someone race. It doesn't matter if they are singled out by their peers or the test is inaccurate, or whatever.
> 
> ...


This is America, people sue for everything. Look at McDonald's hot coffee lady. They can certainly sue if they are arbitrarily kept out of races, when others are allowed to participate. Someone who is stripped of prize money by an inaccurate "health check" would have a legit beef. 

Leaking people's hematocrit seems pretty sketchy, too. How does USA Cycling justify publicizing the results of someone's "health check?" It serves no useful purpose other than to smear someone's reputation in the court of public opinion. How is a "health check," something that needs to be made public?

Now you're so eager to bust dopers that you are advocating A) witch hunts by disgruntled peers B) tests that register lots of false positives C) leaking health tests to the public at large. Wow, recent converts really are the most zealous.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> This is America, people sue for everything. Look at McDonald's hot coffee lady. They can certainly sue if they are arbitrarily kept out of races, when others are allowed to participate. Someone who is stripped of prize money by an inaccurate "health check" would have a legit beef.
> 
> Leaking people's hematocrit seems pretty sketchy, too. How does USA Cycling justify publicizing the results of someone's "health check?" It serves no useful purpose other than to smear someone's reputation in the court of public opinion. How is a "health check," something that needs to be made public?
> 
> Now you're so eager to bust dopers that you are advocating A) witch hunts by disgruntled peers B) tests that register lots of false positives C) leaking health tests to the public at large. Wow, recent converts really are the most zealous.


Your ignorance and opinions are noted. 

Anyone else?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Your ignorance and opinions are noted.
> 
> Anyone else?


Nothing is stopping you. You could show up at the next local race with a tip jar, ballot box, phlebotomist, specimen cups and some medical equipment. Demand that you be able to "drug test" whoever's name winds up in the ballot box, or else you will take out a full page ad in the local paper "so and so was voted most suspicious by his / her peers, refused to take drug test." Plus, emailing this to all the other participants, of course. 

Heck, you could even start a facebook page "Joe Smith refused a drug test." And get it trending on twitter. #whatwitchhunt?

This is the age of start up. Start up your own little drug testing thing. Why wait for stuff like USA Cycling, or an accurate set of tests?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Nothing is stopping you. You could show up at the next local race with a tip jar, ballot box, phlebotomist, specimen cups and some medical equipment. Demand that you be able to "drug test" whoever's name winds up in the ballot box, or else you will take out a full page ad in the local paper "so and so was voted most suspicious by his / her peers, refused to take drug test." Plus, emailing this to all the other participants, of course.
> 
> Heck, you could even start a facebook page "Joe Smith refused a drug test." And get it trending on twitter. #whatwitchhunt?
> 
> This is the age of start up. Start up your own little drug testing thing. Why wait for stuff like USA Cycling, or an accurate set of tests?


Weird. 

Anyone else?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

These are the questions (and please only answer if you race):

Have you ever wanted your opponents to be tested? 

Are you frustrated that nobody is being tested due to lack of funds? 

Would you pay for specific individuals to be tested?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> This is America, people sue for everything. Look at McDonald's hot coffee lady. .


You might want to actually go read up on that incident before using it as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> One of the chief obstacles to testing amateurs is cost. Why not crowdsource it?
> 
> What if there were a way for people to contribute money to target test individuals? If the suspect doper is crushing guys week after week, his competition will eventually pony up enough to purchase the tests. They could submit the funds online, anonymously, using some sort of Kickstarter "Click here to test Masters Racer John Doe"
> 
> ...


Dumb idea.

FWIW, some local associations raise the money to bring in USADA through crowdsourcing. At least NYSBRA did a few years back and I think something similar happened in Florida.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

kbiker3111 said:


> Dumb idea.
> 
> FWIW, some local associations raise the money to bring in USADA through crowdsourcing. At least NYSBRA did a few years back and I think something similar happened in Florida.


OK read through the thread. What if the funds can be used by USADA for targeted tests, chosen by donors?


----------



## ZoomBoy (Jan 28, 2004)

And who gets to pick the jury or is it just drop a name in a box at the finish line and the person with the most votes gets tested? All it will take is for a bunch of amateur anti-doping experts to get it wrong or be butt-hurt enough to vote someone off the island. Then watch the civil suits/ass whoopin's begin. 

Dumb.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

ZoomBoy said:


> And who gets to pick the jury or is it just drop a name in a box at the finish line and the person with the most votes gets tested? All it will take is for a bunch of amateur anti-doping experts to get it wrong or be butt-hurt enough to vote someone off the island. Then watch the civil suits/ass whoopin's begin.
> 
> Dumb.


Whoever pays gets to pick. People vote with their money. 

If you want rider X to get tested, pay for him to be tested.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

For all the internet attorneys at LOL who think there will be a lawsuit, what law would these tests break? 

What difference is there between USADA picking who to test and racers paying to pick who USADA will test?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> For all the internet attorneys at LOL who think there will be a lawsuit, what law would these tests break?
> 
> What difference is there between USADA picking who to test and racers paying to pick who USADA will test?



I don't know that there is a law you straight up breaking but since you "testing" system is not sanction nor do people agree to undergoing it like they do withe USA Cycling program, the whole "we will publicly shame you if you don't submit to the test" would likely run you into a mess of trouble, try it with one of the "has a ton of money and lawyers" masters racers and you would likely get to spend your funds defending yourself in court.

I liken this to a bunch of folks getting together and demanding that someone take a lie detector test for being a rapist, something that would be very very silly for some one to do unless legally required to do, and then when they refused the group running ads saying that person refused to take the test so they must be a rapist.

Im all for more testing but your trying to set up an additional system to one already in place and then demanding I agree that your going to be fair and have no axe to grind. I don't know that I would agree to your testing, and I have been personally affected by dopers.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Whoever pays gets to pick. People vote with their money.
> 
> If you want rider X to get tested, pay for him to be tested.


Testing needs to be done by an unbiased 3rd party, otherwise the system breaks down. If your superdoped master is doing well enough and there is semi regular testing, it will eventually catch up to him. 

If you're so obsessed with whether or not your competition is juiced up, you're missing the point. All you can control is your own performance, worrying about doped up competition is just one more excuse you're making for yourself. And FWIW I do think there is a significant amount of amateur doping, especially among masters racers, but you can't dwell on how that affects your race.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

If there is good evidence to suspect a rider is doping, then report it to USADA. 

They will take it from there and target the rider if the information is solid. They would prefer to do targeted testing based on intelligence that totally random testing. It means they can test at a time more likely to result in a positive, than say on day of competition. Of course it's somewhat difficult given such athletes are not on ADAMS.

I am against direct funding of such efforts by an individual or anyone that can compromise an ADA - it becomes a conflict of interest. Once a rider themselves becomes an income stream for the ADA, well the ADA is conflicted wrt that rider.

Funding of anti-doping controls by an event may come though increased entry fees or a proportion of event sponsor $ and/or reduction of prize money. The problem with this approach is that competition day tests have low probability of positive controls for those who are doping (since they will have timed doping accordingly). It might catch the odd idiot who screws up their timing.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

deleted repeat post


----------

