Originally Posted by
Duke of Kent
There are a few "if" statements to follow:
If my Cat1 license from OBRA-land had transferred to USAC, if I was only racing on the road in USAC, I would very seriously considering downgrading.
However, due to the fact that I just upgraded to a higher category on the dirt, I'm within that realm. I will be very, very angry if they post my name on some board at a race in BFE, ______ (insert mountain west state name here), I'm already gone, and I get suspended as a result. I don't stick around after races unless I'm getting money or a podium picture to send to the parents.
Seeing as most races I do use the entry fees to fund trail work or local advocacy groups as opposed to prize lists 20 deep, or a "pick your prize" table consisting of women's non-bib shorts from the early 2000s, I rarely stick around, even if I podium. Someone else can have that set of orange Jagwire V-brake cables and housings.
USAC should have bigger fish to fry than RANDOMLY testing middle aged guys who race around in circles in the woods for little to no gain. If I'm blowing up a local, regional or national race series? Sure, test me. But, first fix the selection process for worlds or like events, balance the organization's budget, etc.
i'm in the same boat as you...cat 1 MTB = higher surcharge for me. i might downgrade as there really are few USAC-run MTB events, and if I do one it is easy enough to bump it back up. however, i actually am happy to support increased anti-doping efforts. i'm
assuming (big assumption) that they will work. i'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
the reason i responded to your post, though, is that i don't think the fact that you're a cat 1 (road, mtb or whatever) is going to increase YOUR odds of getting tested; it seems just that they are making the higher category riders bear the brunt of the cost.
now, presumably higher category riders may race more and race higher profile events, so that could increase the odds of testing, but they have not said that will be the case.
Originally Posted by
dz_nuzz
I think I am in the same boat of many people here, sure the money isn't really an issue, I can deal with it for a yearly license. But what are we really gonna accomplish? I mean so we test 3% of athletes instead of 1%? Is it really worth it? I don't think so. If someone is doping then let them run through the ranks, hit Nationals, win something and then get caught is my take.
Unless perhaps there was some voting system where everyone could vote to have Dude X tested and USADA just arrived at his house at 3am and demanded urine.
a couple things.
1%->3% may not be worth it. i don't know what the actual numbers will be.
based on some testing done last year, it SEEMS like testers may have responded to tips. i don't know how it works but have heard about a tip line. maybe if they get enough flags for the same rider (votes, in your example), that triggers testing? maybe that's not a bad thing.
finally, your idea of "just let the dopers run through the ranks, win nationals, and then get caught" troubles me a bit. doping really violates a moral contract that we have when we're competing in sport....amateur sport. in my mind, doping to win nationals is no worse than doping to win the local cat 5 criterium. either one is doing something that goes against the code of fair play. that said, i suspect the odds of someone doping for something as "prestigious" as nationals (for whatever that is worth) are probably higher, which means testing there is likely to be better use of limited $$.
to the point @
Grumpy McTrumpy was making, the sport has a big problem in terms of barriers to entry. personally, i think it is expensive, with or without a license fee surcharge, but that's another discussion. if people are -- or feel that they are -- being cheated out of the opportunity to play fairly, then that perception further reduces the chances of someone entering a cat 5 race or sticking around. we all know the sport is difficult at any level; it requires time, $, and sacrifice. there are lots of opportunities for people to get demoralized in training alone. add "competing against dopers" to the mix and, well, it doesn't INcrease the chances people will enter races or stay in the sport.
i'm not saying people who think that way are correct, but it does seem to be a real perception amongst the masses that doping is an issue.
as a result, i can't really agree that we should not care about a doper until they hit nationals.
on a daily basis or within a race, i don't concern myself with who is/is not doping, as i don't see much point to it. i prefer to win a race and would prefer not to lose to someone who is playing dirty -- but the reality is that the real takeaways from the sport deal with much more than finishing 2nd vs 1st or even 10th vs 9th @ cascade or anywhere else. BUT.....if we are going to bother to test, i would prefer for it to be wide-spread and effective.