Isn't this a bit of a Catch-22? You can't tell if people are cheating unless you test, but you don't want to test unless you know people are cheating.
Yep. We also can't tell if people are actually Cylons unless we test.
But my real question is: what good will testing do? Will it be a net positive? Of course cheaters exist, but is anyone really concerned that cheaters are getting all the Masters records? Does anyone think they got second place at Nationals because the first-place swimmer cheated?
What I see in all of these discussions about doping is a bunch of armchair experts who say "swimmer X dropped too much time", "swimmer Y's muscles are too big", "swimmer Z is too old to go that fast". These are not valid reasons to institute drug testing.
This is a solution in search of a problem, and implementing it will just cause more problems. There will be false positives, people who took stuff before it was banned, people with medical necessities, etc. And what happens when there is a false positive? Even if exonerated, that person's achievements will be tainted forever. Is it worth it?
Adding $5 to our membership dues would cover the cost of testing 500 swimmers/year.Where did this number come from??? Please provide details and attribution.
I believe that the tests run between $500 and $800. We have 60,000 members. Do the math.So the tests are on the honor system? Please pee in a cup and send your sample to a testing lab.
Or does the $500-$800 include doping control and administrative expense. And what about the cost of stationing doping control personnel at all sanctioned swim meets? Is this factored in?
It's unusual for swimmers in their 50's to suddenly start doing times they did in their 30's or early mid 40's.
Unless they didn't know how to swim in their 30's or 40's
Fundamental Rationale for the Code and FINA’s Anti-Doping Rules
Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport”. It
is the essence of sport; the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents; it is how we play true.
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:
• Ethics, fair play and honesty
• Health
• Excellence in performance
• Character and education
• Fun and joy
• Teamwork
• Dedication and commitment
• Respect for rules and laws
• Respect for self and other Participants
• Courage
• Community and solidarity
Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.
Consider testing anomalies,
swimmers who are unusually muscular for their ages,
elite masters swimmers who have abnormal time progressions, and
ones who have sudden improvement spikes.
Wow, so we should target people based on supposition, innuendo, and appearance? Maybe have USMS members report people that they deem suspicious? This sounds awful.
I know I dropped some time when I started using a nose clip and staying underwater for 15m during my races. I'm sure there are many people who have similar stories. Do most USMS members even begin competing in their 30s?
I can definitely see testing for the big three -- HGH, EPO and steroids. No good reason to be on those. But my understanding is that USATF tests for everything with no "masters exceptions," which as Rob has said could be a logistical nightmare for USMS when only a tiny % of people even care.
To get an idea of how many USMS national records are set in a year, I downloaded the reports from this page:
www.usms.org/.../recordexport.php
...and then added up all of the records that were dated 2015. The totals were:
Individual records (SCY, LCM, SCM): 257
Relay records (SCY, LCM, SCM): 59
Note that the relays each contain four swimmers, so that would be a total of 59x4 = 236 swimmers who set relay records.
So that is a total of 493 swimmers who set national records during the 2015 year. (Of course some of them are the same people who set more than one record, but this at least gives an estimate for the potential number of tests that would have to be conducted.)
