How random is random?

Dear Explainer,
I’ve been wondering about so-called “random” drug testing.

Maybe it’s just because my only sports interests tend to revolve around watching cyclists ride around the countrysides of France, Spain and Italy, but it seems to me that our little corner of the sporting world gets more than its fair share of such so-called “random” testing.

I hardly ever hear about athletes in other sports getting tested nearly as much as cyclists do. Professional baseball players, football players and basketball players seem to get tested on a relatively casual basis, while our guys are out there peeing in cups almost as much as they ride their bikes.

What gives?

Jorge Moreno
Citrus Heights, California

Dear Jorge,
First off, I want to point out that while you raise an interesting question, your examples are really a comparison of apples to oranges. In this case, cycling – the apple of your eye – is governed by a completely different set of rules than are the big three American pro sports.

As we’ve probably discussed before, the players in the NFL, NBA and MLB are covered by doping rules negotiated as part of their collective bargaining agreements. We’ll not go into how frequent or effective those testing programs are, but if you’re interested in working your way through a 409-page assessment of the quality of testing in one of the big three, the Mitchell Report on Major League Baseball makes for some terrific bedtime reading.

Cycling, on the other hand, falls under the bailiwick of the World Anti-Doping Agency and is clearly not governed by collective bargaining agreements between riders and the sport’s governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI).

Nonetheless, the key issue you raise is quite valid, namely: Is “random” testing really all that random?

The UCI is one of many sports governing bodies that signed – albeit reluctantly – the 1999 Declaration of Lausanne, creating the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA is responsible for overseeing enforcement of the World Anti-Doping Code (“The Code”) and those rules govern all Olympic and Paralympic sports and several non-Olympic sports. Here in the U.S., where doping duties fall to the U.S. Anti-Doping agency, that means sports ranging from cycling to track and field to synchronized swimming and even competitive rock climbing are covered by The Code.

So how does cycling stack up against those other sports? Well, Jorge, your gut reaction is pretty close to spot-on. According to the most recent numbers released by USADA, athletes either residing or competing in the U.S. were tested 6,555 times through the first three quarters of 2009. Of those tests, 872 were conducted on skinny people who ride 15-pound chunks of carbon, aluminum and a little bit of rubber. So, while athletes representing 73 different sports were tested over that nine-month period, 13.3 percent of those tested raced bicycles. Only track and field beat out cycling for the number of tests conducted (1,422). Swimming, at 710, came in a close third.

First off, we need to get beyond the misconception that all drug testing is entirely “random.” Our own experience in cycling serves as a good model. In a major stage race, like the Amgen Tour of California, in-competition testing is generally aimed at specific riders – top stage finishers and GC riders – and a random group picked from the rest of the peloton. Team managers are often notified that they need to deliver selected riders to the pee trailer after the finish, while the guys getting flowers, kisses and applause on the podium already know that their next appointment is with a plastic beaker.

Now, of the 6,555 drug tests conducted over the first nine months of this year, 2,395 represented that in-competition mix of random and targeted testing. The remaining 4,160 tests were conducted out of competition, without prior notice, sports doping’s version of the “no-knock” search. Those out-of-competition tests are even less random than those conducted at races.

According to USADA CEO Travis Tygart, the agency has to use its “limited resources wisely. We test where and when we think it will be the most effective. We do categorize sports as high-, medium- and low-risk for doping and it only makes sense that we focus on the high-risk sports first.”

Well, when you put it that way, it only makes sense that Paralympic boccia completely escaped testing these last three quarters and there were only 12 tests conducted in the IOC-recognized sport of ballroom dancing. (What do they test for in ballroom dancing? Is the Gin Rickey considered to be performance-enhancing in that event?)

While track and field can also be classified as high-risk, it also has a bigger pool of athletes than does cycling. That probably goes a long way toward explaining the big gap between their testing numbers and ours.

One of the reasons, too, that testing for cycling is as high as it is in the U.S. is that the sport is playing an increasingly important role on the international scene. A lot of those tests conducted on cyclists were done on behalf of the UCI in conjunction with this year’s Tour of California. All of those were handled by USADA and paid for by the UCI.

Our humble little sport, you might recall, also holds a special place in the world of anti-doping enforcement. WADA owes its very existence to cycling, since the agency was, in fact, created in response to the Festina scandal at the 1998 Tour de France. We may not be No. 1 in sports, TV ratings or money, but cycling is clearly No. 1 in the demands it places on athletes, and we’re clearly No. 1 in the hearts of the guys in the lab coats.

With that in mind, it only makes sense that testers would be pestering more bike riders than ballroom dancers. It’s kinda like ol’ Willie Sutton said, when asked why he robbed banks:

“Cuz that’s where the money is,” Willie keenly observed.
Email Charles Pelkey

FILED UNDER: Explainer