A question about drugs cheats in sport

KNiVES

KNiVES

KNiVES

Soldato
Joined
4 Jan 2005
Posts
15,014
In the sports news every now and then, we hear of athletes who have tested positive for drugs, accompanied with the usual condemnation and soul-searching within the sport.

Why don't they just do a drugs test on everyone who wins? You win the 100 metres, great now do this drugs test. Won the Tour de France? Drugs test time. Broke the weightlifting record? Time to check you out.

Why don't they do this? Drugs test today are done extremely fast and cheap. It makes zero sense to use a scattergun approach and do random tests on a whim either long before or long after actual sports events. It really makes absolutely no sense to me at all, and I bet you that athletes would never ever touch drugs if they knew that if they were first across the line, they would have to be checked out for legitimacy.

The mind really does boggle. Everytime it's on the news I can't help but think '****ing mugs. The answer and solution is blindingly obvious'
 
They can't just test the people that finish first, a lot of athletes will be on drugs/substances during training and will be flushed out prior to the actual event.

If they only test after the event then how would they catch them in the act? I would bet my house that an awful lot of athletes are on something but NEVER test positive because they know exactly when to take them which will not be traceable when they actually get tested.
 
Random testing is better because (well prepped) users will be clean by they time they compete. More likely to be on cycle at other times of the year :)
 
They do, after a stage in the TdF they test the yellow jersey holder, the first three riders in the stage, and then 3 at random I think.

Unfortunately, with the money involved nowadays, the cheats have got smarter, they know how to play the odds of getting tested, know how to hide substances, and know which substances are harder to trace.
 
I rather thought they did test the winners (in fact the first few) after every race (at least in athletics) and also used random testing, one without the other isn't really getting sufficient coverage so it seems logical to do it that way.
 
Morba said:
More likely to be on cycle at other times of the year :)
Click to expand...
Not sure about other sports, but i know that cyclists get random drugs tests throughout the year (in and out of the racing season) to stop this.

As has been said, they also test the winners of each race and others at random.
 
Just let everyone use drugs, it's easier. Most top athletes are on some sort of drugs, so just leave them do it, then competitors can decide to do them or not.
 
touch said:
Not sure about other sports, but i know that cyclists get random drugs tests throughout the year (in and out of the racing season) to stop this.

As has been said, they also test the winners of each race and others at random.
Click to expand...

Which was my point ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom