Michael Ashenden at Play the Game (Photo: Ingrid Trier)
Australian blood doping expert Michael Ashenden has three ideas on how to prevent doping users from winning competetions. One of them involves a GPS system, that tells doping authorities where athletes are at all times.
Project coordinator at the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping, Michael Ashenden, presented his controversial proposal at the Play The Game conference on Monday. His idea is to replace the whereabout system with a GPS device in form of either a watch, bracelet or mobile phone, which the athlete is supposed to carry 24 hours a day.
Ashenden does not find, that his proposal violates the athletes rights, but in stead sees it as a help to both the doping authorities and the athletes.
”In this way the athletes do not need to spend time informing the authorities, where they are. The GPS system will do it for them, so this would be a help to both parts,” he says.
His second suggestion is possibly even more controversial than the first one. The blood doping expert wants to lower the barriere for when it is possible to suspend an athlete following a possible doping violation. Ashenden wants the opportunity for doping authorities to suspend athletes for a shorter period of time than the existing fixed period at two years, if they show suspicious results.
”If there is less evidence, the suspension should be smaller. Sometimes it is going to be a travesty, but for the good of the sport the athletes would have to accept it,” Ashenden says.
Finally Michael Ashenden wants to ban team-based medical staff known from for instance cycling.
”If the athlete really needs a doctor to get to the finish line, maybe he shouldn’t be competing,” Ashenden says.
The president of the International Cycling Union (UCI) Pat McQuaid, however, is not impressed with Michael Ashendens suggestions - especially the idea of a GPS system.
”I do not think, this will stop the problem of doping. It has been discussed, but whether or not a GPS system should be etablished is not clear at this point. You might say, that the riders have the right to a life besides cycling and a form of dignity as well,” he says.
Michael Ashenden, on the other hand, finds that there is a need for new solutions in solving the doping problems in sport, and that further testing is not the way. He lists a number of products with a similar effect as EPO, but which are at the moment untraceable in doping tests.
Furthermore, he states, that the technology for the GPS system is available, and, therefore, it is only a question of will, wheather or not it should be established. The blood doping expert feels, that his three suggestions would make it unlikely for a doping user to win a competition in the future.
”With these suggestions in place an athlete can either win or cheat, but not do both,” Ashenden says.
Related link: Ashenden: -CSC anti doping system proves nothing
8 responses so far ↓
1 Jacque // Oct 30, 2007 at 11:47 am
Its great - a new paradigm - he has the guts to discuss approaches that put him out of a job - as well as the cheats!
2 Pookie // Oct 30, 2007 at 11:56 am
How does carrying a cell phone remove one’s dignity? Only if one has something to hide - is it any wonder UCI’s president objects - funny about that!! May prevent some trips to the Spanish blood bank!
3 Allan Priess // Oct 30, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I think his objective is, that there must be a limit to how much the anti doping authorities can look over the athletes shoulders, and that they are intitled to som form of privacy like everyone else.
4 Werner // Oct 30, 2007 at 12:46 pm
From my point of view, the fact, that proposals like using a GPS-device for informing NADO officials about where the athletes are reflects to some extend the level of disrespect of human rights within the anti doping discussion. Hopefully we will not have to read more about such proposals!
5 Robin Parisotto // Oct 30, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I applaud Mike on ‘thinking outside the square’. Those who think that its an infringement of human rights then perhaps if there were not so many cheats who infringe on the rights of clean athletes then perhaps sport wouldn’t be in the mess it is today!
6 robyn hunter // Oct 31, 2007 at 1:46 am
Are you kidding Werner? To do what the athletes do to themselves, their own bodies, ilicit medical practice- that is the utmost disrespect of humans. (Not to mention to the health of their children as well as Parisottos’ comment on the rights of clean athletes and the rights of the public who pay to see clean sport). Remember that there is unbelievable pressure for these young people to take drugs or sneak off to store their own blood - it is not exactly fully informed consent safe medical proceedure. There is another aspect to the anti-doping cause and that is protection of athletes.
Yes, put your head in the sand, use some all-encompassing excuse such as “human rights” - anyone who dares to argue against that one must be immoral - and lets hear no more future discussion of such proposals - as you suggested!! - that would make it much easier for the cheats , for the sporting bodies to continue to make their millions from cheated public, and for athletes to kill themselves when they OD, create long-term chronic health problems or infuse someone elses blood by mistake- yes, has happened.
The whole purpose of the talk and the conference is to promote discussion, not to shut it down. Maybe 24/7 GPS is not the way to go - how about voluntary? - how about 3 weeks before and event only? - how is that more invasive than having to turn up for a urine test on demand? - Is it? - it has not been explore d enough and it has a right to be. Dr. Ashenden has got people thinking about adjunctive alternative methods and thats what it is about - as Parisotto puts it - “thinking out of the sqaure”.
7 simone // Oct 31, 2007 at 2:54 am
Allan Priess says “there must be a limit to how much the anti doping authorities can look over the athletes shoulders”. Certainly this is the case. To me it seems like cat and mouse - the mouse runs faster, the cat has to go faster to catch it. As the athletes resort to more and more sophisticated doping techniques, the anti-doping authorities have responded with more action. Trouble is the action is largely medical testing and this takes years and many $ to perfect. By that time a test comes out, many medals have been “won” and many “champion” athletes have retired. So I would say to Alan that the limit will come when the athletes (or more correctly the medical teams and institutions assisting them) reach their limits in concocting ways to enhance their natural abilities artificially. Athletes are entitiled to privacy and dignity. The reality is doping is rife and if the sporting boides are really serious in their efforts to stop it (I doubt that as it implies self-sacrifice….another issue) athletes need to “play the game” with new rules. Just as we have to surrender privacy , dignity and time in airport security as terrorism threat has become reality, athletes who want to compete in clean competition may need to sacrifice some dignity - like carrying a cell phone? Maybe. How else to help the cat?
8 Jim // Oct 31, 2007 at 3:17 pm
@Werner
You must not have a job.
Anyone that works for a living is expected to be available to thier employer when working. the more people make the more their own time is squeezed for the company. Most top level executive are available 24/7 to their company and you can be sure that their whereabouts are always known.
If these athletes are going to be making millions for themselves and others then being made available 24/7 while they are working is completely reasonable. If they want to get out of the spotlight they can always leave the sport.
Leave a Comment