Racer Ex 

Given that 99% of races are P1/2, then C2's should be paying the surcharge as well if that's the rationale. And 3's should pony up in 1/2/3 races. But who knows what the rationale is, because USAC ain't saying.

I'm sure it was mostly Cat 1 racers who were complaining about drug use in the amateur ranks in any case .

More than a little bit of cognitive dissonance there Matty.

$25 obviously isn't driving you out of the sport anymore than $10 more per license for drug testing (which would create a bigger fund if that's what you're after) would have people going "oh helllllll no".

As you pointed out, your shoe (singular) cost more than your license. Go pick a Cat 5 at random and do the math on the equipment inventory. Entry level racers aren't a different economic profile than Cat 1's.

Or just go into Starbucks before a race and count Cat 4/5 lattes.

You have made that point over and over again in this thread. And really the problem isn't getting people into the sport. It's the absolutely dismal retention rate. So naturally let's charge the people who raced the most and are your best customers more?

If dope testing is so important, how do you square this with NOT raising fees on everyone? Isn't a cleaner sport going to attract more racers?

Yeah. A bunch as well, probably way disproportionate to the number of non Cat 1 non master tests if you wanted to run the numbers.

Personally I could give a flying **** if they test everyone or no one at this point. I've yet to line up and think "well thanks be to USAC, we have a clean field today!"

If folks are happy with a costly anti-litter campaign that picks up every 15th piece of garbage, and hands out "I don't litter!" buttons to people who just dumped an old sofa in the park, whatever.

Racer Ex 

If they start charging by "busted dopers you have raced against" then I am going to be forking over a lot of dough.

Ygduf

1) they probably should raise fees on everyone, but maybe they are trying to bridge the gap between low cost for beginner racers and/or acknowledging that they are mostly testing in p12 races.

2) that's an opinion from someone who has multiple national championships and whatnot. you know you can beat dopers. There are probably people out there who think they'd have won a title if not for losing to cheats and they may feel differently?

3) Is it a money grab? I dunno. I'm not educated enough in the specifics to know otherwise, so I see it as a good-faith effort to improve the sport. But everyone knows I'm a sunny optimist about everything.

Racer Ex 

I'm doing a remake of: " ".

With your eternal optimism and my utter lack of cynicism I think we need to collaborate.

Ttoc6

Cat 3's did pay an anti-doping charge. It was not the full 25$ dollars. Only 5$ for 3's. Wonder if when I up to 2 if I'll owe USAC 20$.

topflightpro

I spoke with a pulmonologist, who also is a competitive cyclist, about Froome's doping, as I take many of the same meds as him.

His assessment was that Froome's positive test is not a big deal. It amounts to a couple extra puffs on a short acting inhaler that has limited effectiveness. He said he could easily see a person who legitimately has Asthma needing extra puffs during a hard, hot stage. Had Froome turned up positive for longer acting inhalers, that would have been a bigger red flag.

Doge

What that means as far as UCI suspension and DQ for the Vuelta will be interesting.

I'm willing to believe he didn't mean it/it was a mistake. Mistakes happen.

While nobody is suspended, DQs are given for being over 100g, or for juniors 1" of rollout.

This should be a DQ and suspension, as was done to Sharapova etc - mistakes.

Doge

@mattm was the program called RaceClean or the thread topic when you started this thread?


I registered an older Cat 2 - it was $5.

USA cycling Web Page is updated - new site format. It says.
https://www.usacycling.org/resources/race-clean
"How is RaceClean supported?
Growing the RaceClean presence at the amateur level is made possible by the $5 RaceClean surcharges added to Cat 1 mountain bike, and Cat 2 and 3 road, track and cyclocross memberships; a $25 surcharge added to pro mountain bike and Cat 1 road, track and cyclo-cross memberships; and a $50 surcharge added to UCI pro road licenses. See "Updates" for the most up-to-date numbers."

furiousferret

Effects of inhaled salbutamol in exercising non-asthmatic athletes | Thorax

We'll see how it goes, I'd rather he gets a pass though there's suspicion by the peanut gallery this was the result of a blood bag; I don't see how that can be proven though.

If this thing went full nuclear and they outright banned the substance. 8% of the population in the US has Asthma, and if athletes are more prone to it we can bump that up a bit. That would essentially eliminate 10% of eligible riders in USAC.

Doge

If it has no effect - it should be off the list for everyone. That would allow those 10%. Minimal effect, minimal danger - should be off the list. Dec 7 (last week) a USA rider suspended for THC https://www.usada.org/jay-henderson-...ping-sanction/. Most think the marijuana has no positive effect on riding. But it is on the list. So it is a technical foul, accident, or not, effective or not.

Right now many riders are getting secret (legal TUE) help to make them ride faster than they would be naturally.
They might as well start towing back those with mechanicals. Oh wait...

TdF winners not known to have used anything in 26+ years - Evans, Sastre and I think Nibali - 3 Tours.
The Low-T guys are not getting a fair deal.

Doge

They knew about the failure Sept 20.

Tony Martin- ""totally angry" and that a "double standard" is being applied to Froome."
"Other athletes are suspended immediately after a positive test," wrote Martin in a Facebook post.
"He and his team are given time by the UCI to explain it all. I do not know of any similar case in the recent past. That is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships."

Chris Froome backlash: 'Major blow' to anti-doping fight, says rival Tony Martin - CNN

topflightpro

Doge, Salbutamol does not require a TUE. It is conditionally approved for use in and out of competition. That condition stipulates a maximum amount allowable. Froome exceeded that maximum.

You do need a TUE if you take it in combination with a diuretic. Diuretics can be masking agents. But that has not been listed as an issue.

Doge

I just read that - for under WADA's 1,000 ng/ml threshold. Like caffeine and several others you do need a TUE to go over a certain amount, or as you posted in some cocktail.

The point is the same regardless of being on the list, or having a limit.

For anti-doping to work the cheaters and the nice-guys need to be punished equally based on what was done, not intent, and not even effect.
Others - Tony Martin, the one I'm reading, see this the way I do.

I believe Froome is a nice-guy, and am inclined to believe he did it for asthma, and also that it was not effective in making him go faster, other than faster than he would with asthma (which it that other issue about some riders deserving help and other riders not).

Froome's out is if this is the rule (taking it from the article).
"WADA say that an athlete can take up to eight puffs in a 12-hour period and up to 16 puffs in a 24-hour period."
And he can show he puffed within the rules.

But that is kinda like the DUI guy saying I had one drink an hour and is .16 BAC. I don't think WADA can let this one go.

mattm

This thread was forked off of some other thread, I didn't actually start it. But the "RaceClean" USAC program was already a thing, if that's what you're asking.

gsteinb

I do believe the program was was raceclean. The ride clean thing was a riff on that. And yeah, this was separated out from another thread.

gsteinb

The problem with the half-ass approach is gives people the opportunity to pretend something is happening. Just look at the pro ranks. They started busting people, but guys went to different drugs or different protocols. People cheered that the sport was getting cleaner, then guys started getting busted for something else.

A few years back there was a push in NJ to do testing. Loads of really important riders (a bunch of cat 2s among them) beat their chest that this was going to be the sea change. But a handful of tests were done. One rider got popped because he flatted in a crit near the parking lot, threw his bike in the car and split. He was on the list. But when you really look at how many riders crossed the starting line in metro NY the amount of tests done amounted to peeing in the ocean. There are a ponderous amount of races around here. Many of the NYC fields sell out 110 riders. There are races 5 days a week. I think they tested two NYC races that year. They caught a rider. Is it cleaner? Isn't it just as likely as the 6 guys working for the winner who got popped could be doping too? Never mind the doctors and dentists and vets and stock brokers. Loads of NY higher cat riders with real jobs that pay real money. It's NYC.

Is catching a doper good? Sure. Why not. But it isn't indicative that things are getting cleaner. There's just not enough data, not enough tests.

Ygduf

I see it the other way. If the spectrum is

|--------------------------------------------------------|
Nothing-----------------------------------------Perfect


Half-assed falls somewhere in the middle and perfect is unattainable. If we're doing perfect-or-nothing, we might as well never even try.

Doge

Thanks for the visual.
Just changing the list the fairness / gamble changes.

Small List:
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|

Big List:
|---------|----------------------------------------------|

There are things that are much more catch-able, and things much more / effective at enhancing performance.
Recent THC use is catch-able, but I don't *think* it enhances performance. Take it off the list.

Homebrew01

I don't think that applies to cycling. Spectators can't tell that cyclists are going .5 mph faster by being doped.

But they can easily see home run counts increase, or bulked up NFL guys, or track & field records broken.

gsteinb

Perhaps I failed to properly explain myself. It was more about obfuscation. Do a test, catch a rider. People crow the sport is cleaner. Meanwhile, a million other riders crossed the start line the same day without being tested. The idea that the sport is cleaner is a more an exercise in perspective than anything else.

Grumpy McTrumpy

Just out of curiosity (if anyone here is an amateur historian)... Are there any historical examples of where a punitive approach actually worked well to create change? Assuming that the tools and materials for breaking the rules are still just as available as ever (i.e. not removing the actual drugs from the market).

Doge

Doping doesn't just change speed. It changes aggressiveness, confidence, risk.

These are my observations. It may be made up, but I think it...
Doped rider:
- gives "the look" and goes for it.
- Makes break and does NOT get caught
- Attacks more than non-doped
- Ignores what the PM says and grinds it out.
- Yells at director, removes ear radio and solos
- If not THE guy will challenge THE guy.
- feels better the next morning and is bouncier/more playful and photogenic on the start line.

All of that makes for a more animated spectator interesting drama filled race.

Or you have...group breaks off from start. Stays away 4 hours with gap up to 7 min. Gets caught at mile 130 with 200m to go. Big team wins.
Of course it is not always like that. There is Sagan and other that light it up. I just think the dope does it more.

Doge

You are clear.
An increase in conviction rates means something. Maybe they are at 3% and they were at 1%. If they are still at 1% then more are doping. I expect at the WT level doping has not increased. When Cadel won, I think it was pretty clean.

You would have a better perspective than I would at masters. Seems like doping may be increasing at USA masters. Puppy says it is pretty normal for Euro adult non-pros. I don't know how he would know that, but it was a reason he didn't want to race in Belgium. Seems it may be creeping into juniors too.

I still think the junior trying to make a career out of cycling is at much higher risk than a masters dentist at their lives being screwed up. Youth and early 20s get better just by aging. The risk is higher for them, and the "need" less. Once they land a contract, the pressure to remain employed makes it much more tempting. That, cheating and some of this stuff is not safe is why it really depresses me seeing some kids get into it, I just don't think it is the same percent as those on the declining physical end.

gsteinb

Why? That would presume I go home with people, or have some inside info into what folks are doing. I don't. But as I recall you'd want my team suspended if someone who rides in my kit tests positive. I have teammates I won't see the entire winter. Some I won't race with the entire year, because we're doing different things in different places. Surely there are guys who are too fast that I suspect. But then again folks say that about me too. There are ex pros and convicted dopers I'll always suspect.

As to the rest I think your meter needs to be recalibrated. A 20 year gets popped and he gets kicked out of cycling. Big whoop. He wasn't really making a career of it. He'd be better off getting a gig in Starbucks and working his way up to manager. The dentist gets flamed on social media, loses friends, loses face. It eventually passes, and if he's fast enough he lands another team. Cesar Marte came off his suspension and like the rest of the NYC dopers immediately landed back on a team. A few talk behind their hands, but there's not much social consequence. Some say one is worse than the other. It's really just a matter of opinion. So I call both scenarios a toss up.

big john

Well, we do have a prison population over 2 million, I'm not sure if that system works.