In almost every case, a random drug screen is accomplished via urinalysis and is inherently invasive, embarrassing, and undignified. According to the World Anti-Doping Agency鈥檚 , a clear line-of-sight must be established and maintained between an observing agent (the 鈥渙bserver鈥�) and the donor鈥檚 collection cup during the entire collection process. This is necessary to eliminate the possibility of a dishonest donor covertly substituting a clean sample (which 聽more than once). For clean athletes, the process is particularly humiliating, and dehydration, a common condition for athletes, .

But there鈥檚 a new body of research underway that may make dopers think longer and harder about cheating than the threat of urinalysis or 鈥攊n which WADA looks for changes in an athlete's blood over time, rather than for specific substances鈥攅ver did. A team of scientists at the University of Oslo, under the leadership of Dr. Kristian Gundersen, has found that , the performance benefits of anabolic steroids are viable long after the steroids have been withdrawn. If the research findings can be duplicated in human testing鈥攁nd 鈥� the performance benefits of doping could remain latent for decades, and could be activated whenever the athlete resumes training. If that鈥檚 true, everything about sports doping enforcement could change because no amount of waiting, rehabilitation, or forgiveness 聽can wash those tiny, illicit protein factories from the offender鈥檚 muscles. If you dope, you鈥檙e out for life.

Despite some skepticism, Gundersen鈥檚 research is not a fly-by-night operation. In fact, its legitimacy is what gives many within sport a renewed hope that clean athletes will ultimately win the battle against doping. WADA itself had聽, though Gundersen says he recently rejected a WADA research grant because the agency “wanted the right to amend his research data,” .聽Nonetheless, WADA鈥檚 director of science聽Dr. Olivier Rabin 聽the current results of Gundersen and others as 鈥渟olid and robust scientific鈥� evidence.聽

Furthermore, the Oslo study is not limited to anabolic steroids. According to Gundersen, any artificial agent introduced with the specific purpose of 聽would come under the same scrutiny.

But research can be agonizingly slow and the jump from mice to humans is just now beginning. According to Matt McGrath of the BBC and my personal communication with Gundersen, WADA, at some time before October, 2013 to proceed聽with human testing. Gundersen told me in February that he was preparing for human testing and had applied for ethical permission from an unnamed research ethics body (presumably within WADA). As to a time frame, Dr. Rabin , “You never know with research but they normally [studies] run for two to three years and can be re-conducted if there are some interesting elements.” These are the latest known steps in the process.

Still, it鈥檚 hard to resist imagining the ramifications if the preliminary findings with mice can be proven in humans. It would be revolutionary. After all, how can it then be permissible for any athlete with a known artificial advantage鈥攑ast or present鈥攖o engage in any sanctioned competition? The effect on enforcement, if followed to its logical conclusion should, at the least, result in lifetime bans in most cases for first-time violators. To take it further, it is even feasible that any former violator, regardless of present status, should be banned for life.聽

Perhaps the current lull in Gundersen鈥檚 research presents an opportunity鈥攅specially now, with a of 聽making its way into various national and international federations under the umbrella of WADA鈥檚 anti-drug influence. It would be wise and prudent for those leaders to prepare for what many think is an eventuality. If the day comes when it can be scientifically proven that banned substances have no effective expiration date, then on that very same day, current drug policies will become obsolete. The athlete who plays by the rules, and who for too long has been paying for the sins of the cheat, deserves nothing less.

The post Dope Once, Test Positive for Life appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

In late March, the International Association of Athletics Federations made from its world headquarters in Monaco that excited track and field fans everywhere:聽Usain Bolt聽entered the 100-meter dash at the June 13 Adidas Grand Prix in New York, a regular-season聽nonchampionship event. Later, the IAAF added Bolt to the roster of two similar events in Paris and Switzerland.

The announcements seem like a victory for a sport that struggles to attract attention outside of the Olympics. But while adding a big name to the roster is a good step forward, the IAAF missed the most important part of the crowd-generating formula: a worthy opponent. It鈥檚 like promoting Muhammad Ali without Joe Frazier. Any combination of a Justin Gatlin, Tyson Gay,聽or Yohan Blake alongside Bolt in that announcement would have changed the聽dynamic and charged the atmosphere with Olympic-level enthusiasm. Instead, the IAAF is missing a critical promotional point: Track needs to consistently stage epic regular-season聽nonchampionship matchups to survive and attract a fan base. It cannot promote itself with a single superstar.

The IAAF鈥檚 Diamond League series, which includes the races in which Bolt will appear, was introduced in 2010 as part of a strategy to provide high-quality聽nonchampionship competition from May to September in聽hopes of dispelling the notion among casual fans that track and field exists only in Olympic years. 国产吃瓜黑料 Europe, the 14-meet annual series now holds competitions in North America, the Middle East,聽and Asia.

But the league, particularly in two of the sport鈥檚 glamour events, the men鈥檚 100聽and 200聽meters, has suffered a self-defeating catch-22 since its inception: It鈥檚 designed to promote the sport, but the IAAF president himself says he doesn鈥檛 want big-name head-to-heads at regular meets because聽that could聽overshadow the IAAF World Championships, held in late August.

Responding to a question about Diamond League head-to-heads in the months leading up to the 2011 world championships, IAAF president that it would not be realistic to expect multiple matchups between Gay and Bolt. 鈥淭hat could diminish the value of the world championships. Maybe they will meet just once before then,鈥澛爃e said. 鈥淲e will see.鈥�

Yes, the 10-day聽biennial World Outdoor Championships are track and field鈥檚 golden goose in terms of revenue production. But Diack is wrong to assume that their聽value would drop by allowing the sport鈥檚 fastest men to do what should come naturally for any athlete鈥攃ompete, early and often.

Take the women鈥檚 sprints, for example, where quality head-to-heads throughout the聽season only increased the intensity of the championship buildup in 2013. Bolt鈥檚 teammate聽Shelley-Ann Fraser-Pryce聽ran in eight Diamond League races against the best competition, was beaten three times, and still came away with gold medals in three of the most highly聽anticipated events (women鈥檚 100 and聽200 meters聽and the 4×100 relay) at the 2013 Worlds in Moscow鈥攁n event with just under 聽and another estimated , according to the IAAF.聽

But the IAAF is not the only party employing flawed logic: Elite sprinters do it too. Some pro athletes hesitate to compete head-to-head in nonchampionship settings. Their handlers seem to fear the risk of injury or a tarnished image if,聽heaven forbid,聽their athlete should fail to win. This practice is unique to track and is contrary to every other major sport, where athletes repeatedly put their reputation and health on the line whenever they step onto the field of play.

The solution to track鈥檚 fight for relevance, fans hope, lies in a change of leadership at the IAAF. Diack , and two of the sport鈥檚 all-time greats who competed during track鈥檚 heyday are vying for Diack鈥檚 seat of power: Great Britain鈥檚 former middle-distance ace, 聽a two-time Olympic gold medalist and world record聽holder from the early 1980s; and Ukraine鈥檚 , a six-time world champion pole vaulter聽and Olympic gold medalist who competed throughout the 1980s and 鈥�90s.

Both have extensive service in politics, the Olympic movement, and IAAF leadership. In the lead-up to the August elections, Coe and Bubka have each released their manifestos, which,聽while not specifically addressing the head-to-head problem,聽promise聽to reform the sport with a view toward maximizing its potential. It would appear that, between the two, there really is no bad choice.

For track to flourish, the IAAF isn鈥檛 the only player that needs an attitude change. Reluctant athletes also need to change their view of competition. Ultimately, the IAAF and the athletes are hurting themselves in the long run by 鈥渟aving鈥� themselves for the championships and not seriously participating in the season-long buildup. It only diminishes overall interest聽and, ultimately,聽the power of the sport.

The post Why Usain Bolt Can鈥檛 Save Track appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.