Don Catlin - Founder of UCLA Olympic Lab: 'Drug tests are easy to beat....very easy'

[giusti825]

try 4 years later.

and thats enough to stop their career then and there

Why was this person allowed to compete in the first place?

Lets say someone gets a gold that only intended on competing in one olympic games.

They get all their endorsements, all the fame, public recognition and money for public speaking. Their demand is usually only high the six months to a year after the olympics.

Testing them 4-10 years later and getting them stripped wont make any difference in the grand scheme of things and im sure the silver medalist wont really care as much about receiving a gold for an event where there is video of them losing.

 

[giusti825]

what youre failing to account for is retroactive testing (samples can be kept an re-analysed for up to ten years)

sure, at the 2008 and 2012 olympics they didnt catch that many people

but guess what, in 2016 they caught 100 people in retroactive testing from those two olympics, including a shit ton of medallists

so you need to factor that in..

So what your saying is, that out of 22,000 athletes, they caught 100....Years after the olympics....

In what other field are results like this considered successful?

While i admit i think there is only a slightly smaller PED problem in olympic competition. Theres no way catching less than .5% should be considered successful anti-doping.

It just doesn't exist.....at what point are the numbers themselves evidence enough for the Anti-doping industry to feel some shame taking money from event organizers?

 

[giusti825]

1) No. Athletes would still use whatever they have available and whatever they can afford.

If it was legal, access becomes easier and the price comes down....hell, the doctor may be able to prescribe it for off-label use....

2) Again, no. No physician can tell you the effect of the drug you will use like that. there will be always new drugs and medicine will run behind, trying to assess the benefits and the damage it causes. Besides, PED is already known of having nasty effects on their bodies.

Of course doctors can tell you the risks and help you mitigate them. Its part of their job. Ethically speaking, if a patient goes to their doctor and tells the doctor they intend to use steroids or other PEDs, the doctor should probably try to talk them out of it, but otherwise should help their patient be as safe as possible.

3) no. the sport would be dominated by those who can afford better drugs, widening the gap between the best drug user and the "natty" ones.

Designer drugs go to the way side for safer, proven PEDs if its legalized. The barrier for entry in PEDs isn't as high as people think it is. The high-cost steroids are usually such because they offer an ability to beat detection.

Otherwise, steroids aren't that expensive....

Overall, you would be simply killing the sport.
The fact they can't catch all users is known. but the athlete passport coupled with the punishment of the cheaters that get caught should work as a warning to anyone willing to use those banned substances.

It wouldn't 'kill sport'. Sport would likely be more exciting with PEDs. Less injuries, longer careers, no last minute anti-doping cancellations.

Honesty about the realistic chances of being able to make sport PED-free would greatly benefit every one.

If we just accept it cant be stopped, and its really none of anyones business, then the culture of lies can end....

 

[Shaddows]

If it was legal, access becomes easier and the price comes down....hell, the doctor may be able to prescribe it for off-label use....

Nah.
As everything in life, it would widen the gap.
Yes, the "cheap ones" will be available for everyone. But the expensive ones, built for that specific athlete? That will cost too much and benefit only the (already) rich fighters widening the gap.

Of course doctors can tell you the risks and help you mitigate them. Its part of their job. Ethically speaking, if a patient goes to their doctor and tells the doctor they intend to use steroids or other PEDs, the doctor should probably try to talk them out of it, but otherwise should help their patient be as safe as possible.

You missed my point.
Yes, normal PED's are known, their effects as well (and they are harmful).
But drugs (especially if allowed) will start a race to get better and better, and those new drugs will have an unknown effect on fighters until it is probably too late.
If anything it would not be safe until someone dies of it, and then the outcry would curb end up banning it... which will be back where we are now.

Designer drugs go to the way side for safer, proven PEDs if its legalized. The barrier for entry in PEDs isn't as high as people think it is. The high-cost steroids are usually such because they offer an ability to beat detection.

Otherwise, steroids aren't that expensive....

I forcefully disagree with you.
It is the same thing as claiming cars are allowed, so they are cheap.
Yeah, buying an used 2000 used beetle is dirt cheap. But try to buy a Ferrari... same with PED's. The bland ones (that makes most bad) will be cheap. But the custom designed ones? Only the top guys will be able to afford it.

It wouldn't 'kill sport'. Sport would likely be more exciting with PEDs. Less injuries, longer careers, no last minute anti-doping cancellations.

Honesty about the realistic chances of being able to make sport PED-free would greatly benefit every one.

If we just accept it cant be stopped, and its really none of anyones business, then the culture of lies can end....

Sorry, but if a UFC fighter dies due to allowed PED use, it might kill the sport. or at least the promotion.
Either way, this would be a huge step back for the sport.

Besides, I gotta quesiton this claim of yours.
I don't know what you are talking about.

No one thinks this is a PED-Free sport.

Fighters getting caught are a blatant reminder that it happens.

But again, the USADA partnering with the UFC, the newly implemented Athlete's passport and the examples being made of top athletes is a great deterrent to other fighters.

Will there be cheaters? Yes.
But this is not exclusive to our sport.

In every single sport we have people who think like Sonnen: "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't trying hard enough".
But this is their problem, not ours.

I want a sport Free of PED's. And the more we can do, is always welcome IMHO.

 

[giusti825]

Sorry, but if a UFC fighter dies due to allowed PED use, it might kill the sport. or at least the promotion.
Either way, this would be a huge step back for the sport.

Besides, I gotta quesiton this claim of yours.
I don't know what you are talking about.

No one thinks this is a PED-Free sport.

Fighters getting caught are a blatant reminder that it happens.

But again, the USADA partnering with the UFC, the newly implemented Athlete's passport and the examples being made of top athletes is a great deterrent to other fighters.

Will there be cheaters? Yes.
But this is not exclusive to our sport.

In every single sport we have people who think like Sonnen: "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't trying hard enough".
But this is their problem, not ours.

I want a sport Free of PED's. And the more we can do, is always welcome IMHO.

If a fighter were going to die due to PEDs used by an opponent, it would have happened a long time ago.....

Usada parades their testing around as if it ALOT more effective than it is in reality......

To the point where fans and journalists use the word 'clean' when discussing fighters who pass.....

'clean' or 'natty' means not using drugs.....not just passing an easy-to-beat test.....

there is such a chasm between passing USADA testing and being natty.....that calling athletes 'clean' because they pass a test is changing the words definition

 

[Shaddows]

If a fighter were going to die due to PEDs used by an opponent, it would have happened a long time ago.....

Usada parades their testing around as if it ALOT more effective than it is in reality......

To the point where fans and journalists use the word 'clean' when discussing fighters who pass.....

'clean' or 'natty' means not using drugs.....not just passing an easy-to-beat test.....

there is such a chasm between passing USADA testing and being natty.....that calling athletes 'clean' because they pass a test is changing the words definition

yes, but claiming they do nothing to curb PED usage is also false.
A lot of fighters are afraid of getting caught.... for they know that if they are not top athletes, they will be cut and their careers might be in jeopardy.

Both are extremes, and the truth is a "happy" medium.

Look, no sport is really clean.
But they all try.

UFC is doing the same. I don't see much difference here.

 

[grimballer]

Lmao

If that's true, then Jon Jones has to be the dumbest motherfucker alive....

He was framed

 

[JSN]

So what your saying is, that out of 22,000 athletes, they caught 100....Years after the olympics....

In what other field are results like this considered successful?

While i admit i think there is only a slightly smaller PED problem in olympic competition. Theres no way catching less than .5% should be considered successful anti-doping.

It just doesn't exist.....at what point are the numbers themselves evidence enough for the Anti-doping industry to feel some shame taking money from event organizers?

You're