91Èȱ¬

Interesting article.

Interesting, we've all heard about the "whearabouts" system but it's nice to see it in action. Can you fail the test on medication you've been prescribed and declared?

Can you clarify whether the DCO would have been allowed to ring you?

Seeems a little odd that you could find out you are being tested by phone. As you say yourself "If I left his sight I could be taking a masking agent, preparing some clean urine"

Nice blog. Is that all or is there more to come? I hope so. And you have my deepest sympathies for undergoing that intrusive test.

At some point one has to ask the question whether really it's proportionate to force the vast majority of perfectly innocent athletes to suffer the indignity of having to urinate in front of a near stranger simply to preserve the "integrity" of sport.

There has to be a better way of testing surely?

Its only a two year ban if you're not a well known personality. Like Rio or Ohuruogu. Its actually easier to fail if you're Kolo Toure, then your ban mostly applies during the off-season.

As Tom notes at the bottom, the British athletes are tested to reduce the chances they can cheat but many athletes from around the world do not face such inconveniences.

Mark Cavendish was tested a few days ago. He is a clean athlete (as far as we know) but he will be trying to beat cyclists from other teams that are not.

We are aware that there is a cyclist competing who has failed tests and yet is still allowed to compete.

Unless all nations/teams/federations are taking the same measures it is extremely undermining. Wonder how the athletes who do have to go through the testing procedures feel when cheating goes unpunished and even appears sanctioned by rival federations.

"While the DCO has supervised every inch of the process"...Hahaa Tom! I know you never meant it, but a male giving a urine sample makes that line hilarious!

Given your going out to lunch point, can you change your plans at relatively short notice and how do you notify them?

With a check like this, its makes you wonder how people can beat the system? And having to decide between toothache and taking some painkillers!!!!! Do you agree that once an athlete HAS been found guilty producing a positive sample, they shouldn't be allowed to compete, EVER?!?

Fascinating stuff, great to be kept up to date on your experiment Tom.

@5 I actually think it is entirely proportionate to force our athletes to do this. It surely isn't that much of an embarassment to urinate in front of a stranger, anyone who has ever played team sports before would've showered in front of strangers before with a thought or hesitation.

What a brilliant article.
Thanks.

Nice insight into the actual process

I've always wondered why athletes don't just take the 7-8am slot and adjust their days according.

The blood transfusion only counts for someone else's blood I think - hence the EPO being legal under a certain amount.

@7 Football does not sign up to the IOC drugs code as far as I'm aware. There are supposedly equivalent codes, but there are arguments that football is taking a soft stance on drugs.

There is an issue worldwide with drugs in certain sports in certain countries. Some employ coaches who were themselves found to be drug takers - such condoning of performance enhancement measures is very wrong. The athletes I know willingly do this because 1) they wish to be fair and 2) they never want anyone thinking of them "I wonder...." Many top sportsmen become ambassadors of the drug test regime.

It is hard but you know, it's a bit like driving. A lot of people are casual about a bit of flouting, but once the points start adding up and a ban is on the cards, they drive very carefully. (well the sensible ones). So it is with testing, if you do mess up accidentally, the responsible atheletes don't mess up twice in 18 months, let alone 3 times. It's amazing how in control of your diary you can become!

And that, despite many protests by Federer bloggers/Brit newspapers, is why Rafa Nadal is as clean as they come.

This is an issue which has frustrated me for some time.
Firstly, I completely agree that athletes are drugs tested. Sport should be a clean and fair environment. But, the main area which frustrates me is the difference between UK anti-doping systems and others in different countries. Yes, our anti-doping system is extremely rigorous and tightly regulated, but it could be seen that UK sport is trying it's best to catch out our own athletes when other countries fail to follow similarly stringent protocols.

I think that the British Olympic Association's ruling that any positive drugs test results in a lifetime Olympic ban further deters British athletes from participating in performance enhancing drugs. This is a rule which is emulated by only one other country in the world. Surely there has to be a level playing field across all countries.

I have experience in high level sport both in the UK and abroad. I can say that anti-doping systems in other countries are in no way as higher a standard to that of those in place in the UK. Examples of these can range from timetabled doping tests, to unsupervised testing where it may be easy to give a 'clean urine' sample. Perhaps our desire to be 'fair' and 'British' puts us at a disadvantage to other countries, but in a completely wrong and unethical way?

Wow! Good Blog. Didn't realise it was that strict. Couldn't do it myself. Way too invasive on many levels.
But can they not just do a blood test? Surely this would give more comprehensive results.

18 - You need a Doctor before that can happen.........

Interesting article. However, I would have thought the first thing he would have done would have been to confirm your identity! Unless famous/well known, how does the DCO know he/she is testing the correct subject?

You need testing in case you been smoking gunja on the sly. Winter Olympics in Kingston, Jamaica - that's ok. Ice and snow imported from South Pole. Ja, Cool Running and groove under de sun, maan !"!

Tom,
Two tests a week sounds like a lot. In tennis, the players only receive two out-of-competition tests in a year. Half the players missed one of the two tests in 2009 (2010 data is still not out, but appears to be similar). So in three weeks you have already matched half the top tennis players for out-of-competition tests in a year.

The actual test procedure (appears) solid enough.

What isn't solid is that in a lot of sports (ie especially tennis), they have only a miniscule number of such tests each year, in some cases as low as none at all.

As they have to miss three such tests in 18 months before they are considered to have committed a doping offence, they are basically free to dope as much as they like in offseason training - the traces for modern drugs disappear from the body in days, so in-competition testing has no chance of catching them.

In other words: unless there are actually constant tests all year round, there is no chance of catching the cheats. Tennis is the prime example of this, with basically a non-existent doping system ...... for example, Wayne Odesnik was recently sanctioned for HGH. Was he caught by testing? Nope, Australian customs found it in his luggage.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.