USAC stepping up to the plate: offering local associations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub

[Astorian]

In response to overwhelming interest from local associations, promoters, clubs, and riders from across the country, USAC has stepped up to the plate to offer a streamlined way for local associations like MABRA to be proactive and support clean cycling on both a national and regional level.

Its a great example of USAC listening to its constituency, and being proactive to eliminate bureaucracy, and redundancy. Instead of 20 nationwide acronyms for "clean ride" funds, and 20 bands of "vigilante scythe wielding weirdos" (trust me, I've been called lots of things), there is a centralized mechanism for making everything fair and work. This is what I wanted to happen from the beginning. It rocks. And I hate hateful emails. 

1. USAC has offered all local associations (e.g. MABRA) to match payments to a regional test fund up to $6000 (in increments of $3000). Therefore, committing $3000 to the fund would earn a match of $3000 from USAC. Many LAs have already committed. Its "buy one, get one free". 
   
2. USAC has agreed not to charge any administration fees which means that these funds will pass through to USADA, and be used solely for testing. 
   
3. USAC has also allowed local associations to contribute with a deduction from their USAC rebate. It is at the LAs discretion how to fund the donation. Some associations are implementing a per race-entry fee. Others are simply using the rebate. Others are setting up voluntary donation funds. 
4. USAC will also offer an optional checkbox donation option while renewing your license. If a local association (e.g. MABRA) participates in the matching offer above, then riders from this region will have the option of donating directly to the regional fund (with no matching, unfortunately). So in the fund you'll have the seed funding from the local association, and then all donations from local riders. 
   
5. If MABRA were not to participate, regional riders would still have the option of donating to a national fund.
   
6. The testing that would be performed using this regional fund would be no different than the testing (both in and out of competition) that currently occurs. No member of the local community would be required to volunteer, or would be notified about the testing. All rules -- the rules we agree to when we get licenses -- would remain the same. MABRA would make public our race calendar and bar standings, which we already do. So,... nothing changes. Everything stays exactly as it is today. All MABRA races -- as they've always been -- will be in the pool of events. 

The catch? The MABRA board has to act quickly and decisively and commit a minimum of $3000 to the effort. This will give all regional riders the option to donate regionally while renewing their licenses. It would also qualify us for the USAC match. At the moment this is not about whether testing will or will not occur more frequently next year -- because by popular demand nationally USAC has made sure that will happen -- but whether our local association will be leaders, or will miss the boat. 

And that's the update ... 

Cheers

John

[Fred Grim]

So basically if MABRA ponies up 3k the USAC will pony up 3k to have
what exactly? More testing of Pro/1/2 fields? It sort of sounds like
the only thing that changes is that MABRA and USAC had 3k each and now
USADA has 6k plus what ever random cyclist decides that USADA needs
more money. Isn't USADA taxpayer financed? What problem does this
solve?

Fred

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MABRA-USCF" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mabra...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> mabra-uscf-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/mabra-uscf?hl=en
> For general MABRA information, go to http://www.mabra.org

[Chris Mayhew]

Yes, I suppose it would take $3 out of someone's pocket instead of
everyone personally owning $3k wheels themselves.

--
Chris Mayhew
www.jbvcoaching.com
http://www.bikereg.com/events/default.asp?ns=jbv&search.x=19&search.y=13

[Astorian]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:54:29 PM UTC-5, Fred wrote:

 What problem does this solve?
Fred 

Problems Addressed (I wont comment on whether it solves them or not): 

1. Local associations and individuals (and promoters) were pressuring USAC for ways to donate to increase testing
   
2. They were also asking for ways to earmark their donations to their region
   
3. There is no way to somehow pay more taxes to support USADA (or donate specifically to USAC testing programs)
4. A number of associations (and promoters and clubs) nationally were setting up their own funds, with a lot of overhead both in volunteer time, contracts directly with USADA, and a lot of contentious politics. This streamlines that and removes inconsistencies. 
5. So, overall, there was a demand (the desire to donate to increase testing) that USAC chose to satisfy

Again. MABRA can chose to not participate, which would mean that riders in this region would not have the opportunity to donate to a regional fund online. The only option at their disposal would be to donate to the national fund, which may be preferable to some people. 

[Fred Grim]

So the problem was some people feel there isn't enough testing and
this money is going to lead to marginally more testing. And I mean
marginal. 6k think about that. In MABRA Cyclocross alone there has
got to be 30 races + a season. You figure ~10 fields per race and
testing the top three per field plus random selectees. Never mind out
of competition testing. That is alot more then 6k plus whatever
sucker wants to make sure local pros aren't cheating other local pros.

If the end goal is a cleaner sport then this is a totally pointless
waste of time and money. It's pretty clear that even a far stronger
testing regime is pretty easy to beat. See Tyler Hamilton's book.
And the last people you want policing bike racers are race
organizers/promotors. The lack of clean cycling at the professional
level of the sport is indicative of institutional problems in the
sport. The lack of it at the amateur level (and I'll bet that maybe
its far less then people suspect) is just that people cheat even for
totally ridiculous prizes. And then there are all the privacy issues
this raises. You know who gets my urine? My doctor and only my
doctor. Not my employer, not my insurer, and certainly not some
grubby dude in an office park crit. Are there controls to protect the
privacy of amateur racers WHO ARE PAYING TO BE THERE. Do I have to
file Therapeutic Use Exemptions if I have cancer (a legitimate use of
EPO)? Does my employer get to know about that via USAC?

And all this so someone can claim somehow amateur cycling is cleaner?
Please. Bike racing is fun. None of us are pros. Lets just have
fun. You want cleaner pro cycling then I say great but thats got to
start with serious institutional change. Right now USAC is part of
the problem. 6k ain't a solution. Its just security theater, like
the TSA but dumber and more low rent.

F

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Astorian <johnp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:54:29 PM UTC-5, Fred wrote:
>>
>> What problem does this solve?
>> Fred
>
>
> Problems Addressed (I wont comment on whether it solves them or not):
>

> Local associations and individuals (and promoters) were pressurin g USAC for

> ways to donate to increase testing
> They were also asking for ways to earmark their donations to their region
> There is no way to somehow pay more taxes to support USADA (or donate
> specifically to USAC testing programs)
> A number of associations (and promoters and clubs) nationally were setting
> up their own funds, with a lot of overhead both in volunteer time, contracts
> directly with USADA, and a lot of contentious politics. This streamlines
> that and removes inconsistencies.
> So, overall, there was a demand (the desire to donate to increase testing)
> that USAC chose to satisfy
>
> Again. MABRA can chose to not participate, which would mean that riders in
> this region would not have the opportunity to donate to a regional fund
> online. The only option at their disposal would be to donate to the national
> fund, which may be preferable to some people.
>

[Faber]

don't worry, no one will be checking your urine.

[Fred Grim]

> A) you have a USAC license which is a binding contract that states if USADA
> asks for your urine or blood, in or out of competition, as long as you hold
> that license. This fund doesn't create a new rule, but instead enforces
> already written rules.

it raises the probability that I will be tested in or out of
competition from 0 to .0000000000000000024.

>
> B) the enforcement of aforementioned rule creates the possibility of testing
> and a deterrent to possible persons who are considering or already doping. A
> deterrent that is currently not present. Its not about catching the dopers,
> but creating an environment where they don't want to dope for fear of
> getting caught.

It is pretty clear, at this point, that the possibility of testing is
not an effective deterrent. Dear god man the last ten years of
professional bike racing have seen the single most spectacular
sporting fraud ever. And its not like they were doing anything
particularly sophisticated, intraveneous EPO injections...there are
heroin addicts who manage that. People willing to spend the thousands
of dollars a month you have to spend to dope at the amateur
level....they are going to get around the tests. I guess it'll deter
people from taking amphetamines and doing it Tom Simpson style.

What we are debating here aren't the rules. We are debating the
wisdom of spending 3k on "clean cycling". There is no definition of
what constitutes clean cycling beyond maybe less positive tests but
how many? Are there any mechanisms to tell if this money has been
well spent or just given to someones brother's Dope TestoMart. And it
isn't 3k its 3k per annum into infinity. Thats real money for some
people.

Like I said this is money wasted. Particularly at the amateur level.

F

>
> Frank
> ________________________________
> From: Fred Grim
> Sent: ‎11/‎29/‎2012 6:30 AM
> To: mabra-uscf
> Subject: Re: [MABRA-USCF] USAC stepping up to the plate: offering
> localassociations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub

[Fred Grim]

Damn. That would be so pro. Some sweaty guy in mid-July pulling me
into a portajohn in West Virginia and asking me to drop trou.

F

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:30:31 AM UTC-5, Fred wrote:

And the last people you want policing bike racers are race organizers/promotors.

Agreed. Bike race organizers and promoters have nothing to do with testing. They are removed from the process. USADA handles it. 

  

 Are there controls to protect the privacy of amateur racers WHO ARE PAYING TO BE THERE.  

Yes. USADA has numerous controls to protect the privacy of amateur races. Read up on the process. 

 

Do I have to file Therapeutic Use Exemptions if I have cancer (a legitimate use of EPO)?

If you have a legitimate medical use to use a banned substance, then yes you file a TUE. 

 

Does my employer get to know about that via USAC?

No. 

 

Right now USAC is part of the problem.  6k ain't a solution.

Correct. The amont of the fund will be significantly more, because many associations are participating, and there will be direct donations to the national fund.  Also, USAC is being proactive, and is taking action to address the requests of its constituents. Write them a letter if you feel differently. 

 

Its just security theater, like the TSA but dumber and more low rent. 

Perhaps. We'll see. USADA through USAC will be better funded next year, and more testing nationally will occur on the amateur level. You've always agreed to the rules by getting your license. At every race you attend there has always been possibility that testing may occur. So nothing changes. The amount of testing goes up from a 1 to a 2 on a scale of 1-10. 

[Astorian]

Are there any mechanisms to tell if this money has been 

well spent or just given to someones brother's Dope TestoMart.

Yes. 

 

And it isn't 3k its 3k per annum into infinity.

No one mentioned a per annum commitment. 

 

Like I said this is money wasted.  Particularly at the amateur level. 

Write a letter to USAC. I'm just letting people know that the offer has been extended to MABRA. And that it will impact whether they can donate regionally while renewing their license. Whether or not MABRA participates there will be more testing next year. Use the channels available to you as a USAC constituent to voice your concerns. 

 

[OH]

I'm exhausted by your dismissive attitude towards those who disagree with you, especially with this "you signed up for these rules" argument.

The key to any rule/law anywhere, is its enforcement. Up till now, over many years of racing, I have not laid eyes on a single anti-doping official at any event I have participated in. Read: despite the rule, there has never been an inkling of enforcement, or that enforcement of anti-doping rules was on the table.

This is just like speeding, everyone knows that the rule is to drive 55 on the highway, but no one really pays attention to that unless they see a cop. So I don't buy this argument about "the rule has always been there."

The bottom line, for me, is that I've never bothered to get a TUE for medication prescribed by my doctor, because there was never any expectation whatsoever of having needed one. And I'm not particularly inclined, being an amateur hobbyist, to submit my medical records proving that I need a particular medication to the national anti-doping agency because, as a hobbyist, I view that as a gross invasion of my privacy.

Don't spout this, "it's the rule thing." You know full well that the law is only the law when someone is watching, and what you are proposing is a fundamental change in the nature of this hobby.

[Jared Nieters]

I'm confused by this one, Owen. 

Is it okay to cheat on the local level because they don't enforce on the local level?  Sweet. See you all at Jeff Cup. 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[hanso...@aol.com]

I find the comments interesting, so I'll throw out this little example...

 

About 10 years ago, a local coach for a high school team placed in the money at the Pittsburg Marathon.  Since they were going to host the Olympic Trials the next year, drug testing was done.  And guess what?  That coach got popped on the drug test.  And if I remember right,  he got a ban, the high school found out and I do believe he lost his job.   He screamed and hollered that the drug testing should not apply to him, since he was not a "professional runner". 

 

My opinion... he should have lost his job.   He is a coach of KIDS.   And all of us when we participate in a sport agree to abide by the rules.  If we dont agree with the rules, we shouldnt play. Period.

 

Maybe $6000 is a drop in the bucket.  It sure wouldnt test all the riders. Maybe though, if done at the right race, it might catch someone, make an example of them, which might prevent some kid from trying something out. Maybe. I am always amazed at the amateurs who do steroids and EPO, and how they dont think its a problem.  Until they get caught, and then its "not fair" that they got popped since they were amateurs.         

-----Original Message-----
From: Astorian <johnp...@gmail.com>
To: mabra-uscf <mabra...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 29, 2012 9:20 am
Subject: Re: [MABRA-USCF] USAC stepping up to the plate: offering localassociations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub

[nathan goates]

It seems to me that precisely _because_ of our amateurism (that this is a hobby and not a job) we have more of a responsibility to comply with the rules.  This is an opt-in, opt-out organization.  If you want in, you play by the rules.

--

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:22:50 AM UTC-5, OH wrote:

I'm exhausted by your dismissive attitude towards those who disagree with you, especially with this "you signed up for these rules" argument.

I'm trying not to be dismissive at all. Even a small increase in the amount of testing will seem infinite. I respect that. 

 

The key to any rule/law anywhere, is its enforcement. Up till now, over many years of racing, I have not laid eyes on a single anti-doping official at any event I have participated in.

USADA has been present at a couple events I have participated in. And I can't say I was surprised. I figured that was what they do. It was actually somewhat reassuring. When I signed up for my license I read all the links, and learned what I needed to do, so I was always a little confused when nothing ever happened. 

So I don't buy this argument about "the rule has always been there."

I only mention that to make people -- who are suddenly surprised by what is happening -- aware that could have always happened. That they agreed to it. I respect that it is considerable change. 

as a hobbyist, I view that as a gross invasion of my privacy.

Again. I'm just the messenger here. I got tired of people complaining about doping, and noticed that USAC had no way for people to enact whatever change they saw fit. And now they have a way to do that. I'm happy. That is the limit of my advocacy. 

 

 and what you are proposing is a fundamental change in the nature of this hobby.

I'm not proposing it. It is happening. And luckily for me, it didn't happen BECAUSE of me, or people would really hate. MABRA just needs to decide what it wants to do. If they agree, then we can all donate to regional efforts when we renew our license. 

[Tony2]

Given today's reports about Viagra use in the NFL, can we be assured
that all racers with large penises will be banned by USADA ?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/28/marshall-suggests-some-nflers-use-viagra-to-gain-an-edge-on-the-field/

[Fred Grim]

>
>>
>> And it isn't 3k its 3k per annum into infinity.
>
>
> No one mentioned a per annum commitment.

So if it isn't for a consistent testing regime then why not wait until
next year to dope? So basically we should pay 3k for one year for a
little extra testing to get other people to pay for a little extra
testing? How is that a plan?

> Write a letter to USAC. I'm just letting people know that the offer has been
> extended to MABRA. And that it will impact whether they can donate
> regionally while renewing their license. Whether or not MABRA participates
> there will be more testing next year. Use the channels available to you as a
> USAC constituent to voice your concerns.

I have. repeatedly. USAC doesn't have a plan to address. MABRA
shouldn't participate because this is a big nothingburger.

F

[M. Kemal Tuncer]

Fred -

For the love of all that is holy, please get a position in MABRA if you
don't already have one. Then get a position in USAC. Be constructive! Act on
your convictions! Fight the good fight! Share you plan with everyone!

Now let's go ride.

Kemal

-----Original Message-----
From: mabra...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mabra...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Fred Grim
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:47 AM
To: mabra-uscf
Subject: Re: [MABRA-USCF] USAC stepping up to the plate: offering
localassociations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub

>
>>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2629/5426 - Release Date: 11/29/12

[Astorian]

So if it isn't for a consistent testing regime then why not wait until
next year to dope?

That would mean that you didn't dope this year. Not great, but not terrible. 

[Ryan Delaney]

I think he's speaking directly to TEUs, and not doping...it might not be the best analogy, but the point stands. If you've been racing and taking asthma (or anemia or whatever) medicine for ten years, and have never been asked to disclose your medication and apply for a TEU, despite what the rules may state, an increase in amateur testing is a distinct change from the status quo. One that might be enough of a hassle to put you off the sport...as Owen said, if back when he started racing he would've been required to jump through all these hoops before taking his first start, he'd probably be running 10ks or something instead.

 

The last thing we want increased testing to do is drive away clean participants, you know? I'm all for increased amateur testing, but let's try to target it where it'll do the most good...elite races and the U23/junior crowds, where people are either role models for up and coming racers or have shots to make it to the big show themselves. 

 

The random cat 4 dude is probably not influencing the next generation of pro racers all that much, and increasing enforcement on that guy's inhaler seems like a silly way to spend our extremely limited anti-doping resources.

--
Ryan Delaney

M.S. Environmental Science

American University 2011

[Fred Grim]

Look. At it's core doping isn't really the issue. Fraud in cycling
is the issue. Doping is just one way to defraud races, fans and
racers. To address fraud you need a system. You need security
mechanisms. You need to define the scope of the problem. What
solving the problem looks like, and what steps get you to your end
goal. Finally you need to ask if the costs of solving the problem are
worth the benefits.

None of that is happening here. All that is happening is a half-assed
plan to throw some money at some ill defined problem that may impose
large costs on some of us. Thats not fair. And it doesn't even get
anyone any closer to achieving the goals they claim to want to
achieve.

So the proper response to USAC when they float a dumb idea like this
is "Here is a quarter call someone who cares". When they come back
with a comprehensive plan to solve the professional side of the sport
that is clearly riddled with fraud (not to mention serious work's
rights issues) then I am willing to entertain any notions they have
about amateur cycling. And by entertain I mean support by my local
governing bodies in spending money to implement their plans.

F

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:09:54 AM UTC-5, Ryan wrote:

The random cat 4 dude is probably not influencing the next generation of pro racers all that much, and increasing enforcement on that guy's inhaler seems like a silly way to spend our extremely limited anti-doping resources.

I agree, and so does USADA. They aren't really in the business of wasting the very limited resources at their disposal to test people who are not likely intentionally cheating. And nor is USAC. While perhaps changing the frequency of testing, I don't see these efforts as changing -- at all -- how the tests are conducted, or which athletes are selected. I could be wrong. If you were a betting person, would your best bet be on the Cat 4 master? As for use of inhalers: 

Do inhaled asthma medications need to be declared?
As of January 1, 2011, references to Declarations have been removed from the WADA 2011 Prohibited List. This includes the inhaled beta-2 agonists Albuterol and Salmeterol, and Glucocorticosteroids such as Fluticasone and Budesonide. These medications no longer need to be declared to USADA or the International Federation prior to use. The medications should still be listed (declared) on the DCOR at the time of testing.

[Kyle Yost]

Good grief.  So, if a problem can't be solved perfectly then nothing at all should be done to address it even minimally?

Just the possibility that USADA will be at an event will have a deterrence impact.  Look at the jokers who got busted at GFNY last year.  They got caught by surprise because they assumed that they would never be tested ever, a pretty good assumption.  And suddenly they were the laughingstock of the internet.  Look at Kevin Moats in triathlon.  Ridiculed.  Just knowing that there will actually be some testing out there, infrequent and imperfect though it may be, will deter some idiots who now feel unstoppable ordering from their Mexican EPO suppliers.

Use your inhaler.  Don't get a TUE.  No one is going to care.  If you happen to get busted for it, big deal.  No one will bat an eye and no one cares about your asthma, USADA included.  But, get busted for EPO or CERA, and you will be ridiculed.  And the threat of being ridiculed will deter.

Or, do nothing at all and let some small percentage of your competition inject away without a fear in the world of being tested.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Fred Grim <frederi...@gmail.com> wrote:

just

[hanso...@aol.com]

TUE's... and as someone who actually got one while I was racing, for my asthma inhaler... its actually not that big a deal.  Its a piece of paper, filled out and faxed in.  Your Dr signs it.  A couple weeks later you get your exemption.

 

Someone once mentioned to me that taking my asthma meds gave me an edge.  They did.  Without them I had a nasty habit of collapsing in a weasing mass of goo and requiring oxygen, with them, I almost had the lung capacity of a pack a day smoker. But the getting the  TUE was no problem.   

[Tony2]

I'm sorry, but I just can't take this issue seriously, mainly because
after three years of energetic MABRA racing I've never had the
remotest suspicion that anyone around me was doping. Last year I raced
Cat 4 Ride Sally Ride. I finished 55th ! It was a great day. Huge pack
finish, I got buried on the last lap (as usual). Are you seriously
suggesting that at next year's race some guy with a plastic cup might
be waiting for me at the finish ? And if I decline to pee, I'll be
banned from racing for two years ?

Yes, I know I already consented to be tested when I joined USAC. But
come on, guys, really. Have any of you ever seen a USADA tester at a
Cat 4 crit ? Why on earth should they bother ? So we can show the
world we're clean ? Of course we're sodding clean. We're not trying to
win the Tour de France, here. We're the kind of guys who can derive
enormous pleasure from finishing 55th in a race. OK, maybe a couple of
you might have gone overboard on the performance-enhancing front. So
we have to threaten everybody because a couple of idiots are juiced ?

I believe you can make a case for random testing of podium finishers
in Pro/1/2 races. Anything else is the cycling equivalent of drug-
testing Little Leaguers because Barry Bonds was a cheat.

[Matt E Doyle]

I received written confirmation from the Battenkill promotors that they will be testing amateurs this year.  Plan accordingly and feel free to tip off of the promotors.

Matt

[Corey D.]

So is USADA also going to start providing educational resources, links, etc to all of us "hobby riders" who now have to fill out paperwork, pee in cups, check boxes, and declare all used medications at the testing station?

Or are we going to get dinged for not filling out a form right, and "I didn't know I've never done this before" isn't an excuse?

See you all in two years.

[Owen Hassig]

Jared,

Forgive me, it seems that my analogy fell short of its intended mark. I in no way advocate doping because no one is there to catch you; that's a reprehensible way to think.

I chose my words because I wanted to illustrate that enforcement does change the environment. In this case, a fantastic change in the environment will be less/no doping at our local races. I don't think there are many out there that would say this is a bad thing.

But, it opens several other cans of worms. And from where I sit, those cans are cans that I don't know that I'm comfortable with opening. That was the point I intended to make, and I'm sorry if you or any others were confused by my choice of words.

Best,
Owen

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jared Nieters <jaredn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:34:27 AM UTC-5, Corey D. wrote:

So is USADA also going to start providing educational resources, links, etc to all of us "hobby riders" 

They already do. 

USADA's Drug Reference Line provides athletes, parents, coaches, etc., a personal resource to understanding prohibited substances based on the WADA Prohibited List. A pharmacist is available to answer questions athletes may have about the status of a substance; whether a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is needed; and how that process can be started or carried out. The resource is available Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. MST. The number is (800) 233-0393 within the United States and (719) 785- 2020 outside the country.

http://www.usada.org/tue-faq/

http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/

http://www.usada.org/supplement411

 

[Astorian]

Yes, I know I already consented to be tested when I joined USAC. But 
come on, guys, really. Have any of you ever seen a USADA tester at a
Cat 4 crit ?

Crits typically aren't just Cat 4 crits. There are fields from all categories, including elites. Again, if you were USADA and you had a limited number of tests, would you pick the person finishing 55th in a Cat 4 race?

 

We're not trying to win the Tour de France, here.

Yes we spend money to ride the same bikes that TDF riders ride. 

 

I believe you can make a case for random testing of podium finishers
in Pro/1/2 races. Anything else is the cycling equivalent of drug-
testing Little Leaguers because Barry Bonds was a cheat.

This is valid, and I think you should let USAC know how you feel about this (as I have).  

[Fred Grim]

>
> Just the possibility that USADA will be at an event will have a deterrence
> impact. Look at the jokers who got busted at GFNY last year. They got

It doesn't have a deterrence effect. It just doesn't. It's trivial
to beat. Just because the stupid get caught
doesn't mean it works. If you are spending thousands on doping a
month, honestly to my mind
you are way too committed to cat 4 racing. But you are also spending
money on figuring out how to beat
the tests.

Costs versus benefits. I ain't asking for the perfect. People at the
top of the sport blame the fans
for the doping problem. But there aren't even any fans at cat 4 races
except my wife and 2.5 year
old daughter. There is not even an understanding of what anyone wants
to achieve. And 3k is a ton of
cash.

F

> caught by surprise because they assumed that they would never be tested
> ever, a pretty good assumption. And suddenly they were the laughingstock of
> the internet. Look at Kevin Moats in triathlon. Ridiculed. Just knowing
> that there will actually be some testing out there, infrequent and imperfect
> though it may be, will deter some idiots who now feel unstoppable ordering
> from their Mexican EPO suppliers.



>
> Use your inhaler. Don't get a TUE. No one is going to care. If you happen
> to get busted for it, big deal. No one will bat an eye and no one cares
> about your asthma, USADA included. But, get busted for EPO or CERA, and you
> will be ridiculed. And the threat of being ridiculed will deter.
>
> Or, do nothing at all and let some small percentage of your competition
> inject away without a fear in the world of being tested.
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Fred Grim <frederi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> just
>
>

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:34:35 AM UTC-5, OH wrote:

But, it opens several other cans of worms. And from where I sit, those cans are cans that I don't know that I'm comfortable with opening. That was the point I intended to make, and I'm sorry if you or any others were confused by my choice of words.

Personally, I very much agree with this. If USADA and USAC intend to more regularly test amateurs they will need to stay very aware of what is happening, and be on top of negative consequences. To me this is more like someone punching a small hole in the can and seeing what happens. I'd be the first to say that if after a year of attempting this all USAC can show for its efforts are a bunch of positives for Cat 4/5 pot users, then it will be a failure, and I would gladly not contribute. I'm just not ready to let my cynicism and fear stop progress altogether. 

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:47:46 AM UTC-5, Fred wrote:

And 3k is a ton of cash.

$3k is the cost of a carbon bicycle (maybe even a frame, sometimes given as a prize at a race). At a somewhat out of town race with 300 participants, you are talking $12,000 just in gas. $9,000 in race entry fees, $6,000 for the unfortunate folks who insist on riding expensive wheels and have them crack and $1500 for the crash replacement for someone's bike. You are talking $3000 for the Sheetz visits to buy frosted donuts and a caffeinated beverage to make it home. You are talking $225 in the powder people put in their water bottles. Prizes. Hours of investment by the promoters. And a crap load more. $3,000 is a DROP IN THE BUCKET. Multiply everything above by 30 for a season. 

These promoters need to walk into rooms filled with locals and explain why the municipality should let them do the race this year. And all the people know in the room is that cycling is dirty. Which is all the girlfriend of the new rider knows when he says he is going off to the local bike store, or the running store. If this happens, those promoters can say that the local bike racing association was proactive, and hopefully the local municipality wont crush plans for this years race. . And the new rider can check the USADA help page just like I did when I started. 

This SEEMS like a big deal, but it isn't, by any measure. Regardless of whether MABRA decides to take advantage of the matching funds -- and certainly we could do a fund raiser to raise the $3k if we wanted -- there will be an option to donate to a national fund. Yes, this is somewhat symbolic. Yes, it is sorta giving people who care an outlet to feel like they're helping. Yes, a bit more testing will occur. No, it isn't perfect. But ask people -- and there are lots -- that actually play by the rules, get their TUEs, and just stay generally aware of what they put in their bodies, and like the person above you'll here them say "no big deal".

It is easy being a desk-chair skeptic in this town. Perhaps that is what most get paid to be/do. I am just the messenger here, and someone who happens to want to give a couple bucks to an effort like this. All I really wanted to do when I got interested in this was take my credit card out, give USAC $40, and hope that I'd see a little more testing. 

 

[Fred Grim]

The median income in the United States is 50k

3k is a ton of cash to most people. There are juniors and younger
riders around here who don't have fancy wheels. There are people to
whom minimizing the value of 3k is deeply insulting. Wasting it on
something pointless and possibly privacy invading is wasting it. I am
not shooting the messenger here. I am pointing how how dumb what the
USAC is offering us here.

"Oh you are concerned about the image of the sport. Here is a little
fig leaf to get you people off our backs."

Maybe the USAC needs to stop hiring Thom Weisel cronies to run stuff.
Just sayin'

F

[mogliajay]

Well said. There are perceptions realities and actualities. Do something or do nothing. It is complex.

Though not perfect the template has been thoroughly researched and thought out pointing in a sensible positive direction. The perceived inconveniences stated have been addressed in a variety of ways over and over.

For the potential benefit and foundation for the future of the sport we all love it seems like a small effort to at the very least attempt.

Sent via Blackberry

---

From: Astorian <johnp...@gmail.com>

Sender: mabra...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:08:23 -0800 (PST)

To: <mabra...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: johnp...@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [MABRA-USCF] USAC stepping up to the plate: offering localassociations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub

--

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:19:06 AM UTC-5, Fred wrote:

There are people to whom minimizing the value of 3k is deeply insulting.

I'm not minimizing it whatsoever. I'm maximizing the value of it! For the 200 people who actively race locally it probably represents .5% of the actual amount cumulatively spent on cycling annually. 

I probably share some of your opinions of USAC, though I think this is a good deal smarter than letting 20 renegade, vigilante, witch-hunting organizations spring up around the country. That would super crappy. 

[DJ Brew]

I can't wait to see how all the smot pokers handle this next season! I'm guessing 4/20 day celebrations will be non-existent. 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Tony Abate]

All,

In the hopes that this conversation can be thoughtful and respectful (bucking the MABRA listserv trend), I would like to propose some very serious concerns, and ultimately ask the question: Why would we be so quick to welcome and encourage an unprecedented, unproven drug testing program in its first year of operation, with potentially huge risks to the sport involved, especially when we don't have the fine print from USAC and USADA? Why don't we see how the nationally-funded program goes, as long as it appears its inevitable, and then make an informed decision on whether to spend our own money to encourage even more testing in MABRA?

I speak for myself, but many on my team are in agreement.

This shouldn’t even need to be said, but if it does: yes, of course we’re all anti-doping. We’re just as much against doping as anyone, and no, we’re not delusional about the fact that some amateurs dope. We would love for them to be caught red-handed, to be dismissed, and for the tests to catch them to be a positive influence on our local sport, but there good reasons to think that wouldn’t be the case. The law of unintended consequences reigns supreme.

1. We’re not convinced we have any power to dictate the terms of the testing. We already know that recreational drugs like THC and therapeutic drugs are a major sticking point. What makes anyone think USADA would make a custom test to fit our unique, amateur needs, and wouldn’t any such test be arbitrary and compromised?

2. Beyond what USADA tests for, what makes anyone think we can dictate who they test? Again, the consensus seems to be that this testing should really only happen to those on the podium of a P/1/2 race, or for Masters, if anyone. Why would we ever waste valuable resources on testing Cat 4s, and can anyone point to a guarantee that USADA wouldn’t?

3. The fallout of a false positive would be incalculable. In our sport, people with doping results are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, and innocence is never truly returned to those who deserve it. Is anyone really prepared to gamble on another rider’s personal and professional life being ruined for a false positive, or a true positive for something like THC, or trace amounts of some unpronounceable ingredient in a GNC protein powder, all on the infinitesimally small chance you catch one of the very few people actually doping as amateurs?

4. Racing at our level, at the level you’re talking about bringing in needles and blood labs and public result reports, is supposed to be a fun, amateur hobby. End of story. It’s already expensive, risky, and taken too seriously enough as it is. How do you think this whole world of testing will affect the culture throughout every rank, but especially in the novices? Why would they ever take the risk of being falsely accused of doping all for the fun of a few weekends racing? Why would they ever take the time to assemble all their TUE’s, and not just go for a bike ride instead? Or worse, not ride at all and take up another hobby that isn’t going to invade their medical privacy, something that’s unheard of in any other amateur sport? How do clubs and teams recruit and survive in that environment?

5. We shouldn’t be so quick to trade in our honor system. It’s at the heart of our sense of community in the racing scene. Bringing in USADA could only heighten suspicions of others, not cast them away. Under our current honor system, people can skip a race without seeming to avoid a drug test, and if someone arrives to a race parking lot, only to have to head home for a “family emergency,” we think nothing of it. But let’s say there’s drug testing that day. The whispers would be endless, and every action would be scrutinized for ulterior motives. Reputations of riders, of entire teams, could be ruined, all for nothing.

This proposal smacks of an overarching theme (I say problem) in amateur cycling. As a group, we think what’s good for the professionals of our sport is just as good for us. We go to great lengths to identify as closely as we can with the pros, with their equipment, with their training techniques, even though our worlds couldn’t be more different. You might respond, “yes, and now people are using the same drugs as them, so we need the same testing,” but I’m not so convinced that’s the case (and I’m aware our Level 2 athlete testing isn’t exactly what the pros have, but it’s close enough). The evidence of only a small handful of amateur dopers caught, roughly 10, ever in history, over thousands of administered tests seems to back that up.

I ask again, why would be so quick to welcome an unproven program? Why would we make ourselves subject to a risky experiment where people’s desire to race, not to mention their livelihoods, could be on the line? John describes the proposal as taking the current testing level from a 1 to a 2 on a scale of 10. I would say it’s more like from a 0 to 1, and that the change in our racing community’s culture could similarly be infinite.

If you want to support the USAC-administered program, there’s the option to donate to the national fund when you renew your license. But to suggest that MABRA should pool a large amount of money, sight unseen, and in some cases to attack people who raise concerns as somehow ok with doping and cheating, is a step too far. Let’s make an informed decision.

One final note: We need clear direction from the MABRA board on how decisions will be made, how member clubs should express their concerns (the MABRA google group is unacceptable), and some assurances that our opinions will be considered. We need to know if there’s any chance MABRA will use its own funds to trigger the USAC matching funds and regional designation, and we need to know whether they would accept outside funds from a voluntary donation account, if it were offered.

Tony Abate
Team President, District Velocity Racing

[Astorian]

Just relaying what I know Tony ... 

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:48:22 AM UTC-5, Tony Abate wrote:

Why would we be so quick to welcome and encourage an unprecedented, unproven drug testing program in its first year of operation

The testing program is not in its first year of operation. Testing has occurred, those less frequently, for a long period of time. 

 

especially when we don't have the fine print from USAC and USADA?

The fine print has always been there. Again, nothing changes about how the test are performed. 

 

Why don't we see how the nationally-funded program goes

A perfectly good option. That is what I will do personally if MABRA is not proactive.  

1. We’re not convinced we have any power to dictate the terms of the testing.

You don't directly. Though you could advocate for changes if you wanted.  

2. what makes anyone think we can dictate who they test?

You can't. USADA decides that. Their goal is to catch intentional cheaters. 

 

2. can anyone point to a guarantee that USADA wouldn’t?

No.

 

4. How do clubs and teams recruit and survive in that environment?

I would counter ... how do clubs and teams recruit when the image of bike racing has been so thoroughly doused in excrement? Different clubs draw people with different pitches. 

5. Bringing in USADA could only heighten suspicions of others, not cast them away.

Perhaps. Or it could dispel suspicions.  

As a group, we think what’s good for the professionals of our sport is just as good for us.

This is a far cry from what professionals have to do with regards to testing. 

 

I ask again, why would be so quick to welcome an unproven program?

Again. I wouldn't call it unproven, or even a program. It is a more frequent application of what has always happend (though obviously less frequently)

 

in some cases to attack people who raise concerns as somehow ok with doping and cheating, is a step too far. Let’s make an informed decision.

That is dumb. Everyone should feel free to raise concerns.  

One final note: We need clear direction from the MABRA board on how decisions will be made, how member clubs should express their concerns (the MABRA google group is unacceptable)

Agreed. This was explained to our board members who attended the annual meeting for LAs, and somehow no one ever heard about it locally. That is a problem. 

 

and some assurances that our opinions will be considered. We need to know if there’s any chance MABRA will use its own funds to trigger the USAC matching funds and regional designation, and we need to know whether they would accept outside funds from a voluntary donation account, if it were offered.

True. Different local associations are choosing different methods to raise the funds. Some are using their USAC rebate, and then doing a voluntary account. Some are doing race day charges.  MABRA could agree to make the commitment  but only on the premise that people would volunteer the $3k. They could set an aggressive timeframe, and I'm pretty sure we'd raise the funds. 

Tony Abate
Team President, District Velocity Racing

Very good feedback, and a good encapsulation of concerns.  

[Tony Abate]

It appears we disagree defining this a new program. To me, if we all agree that historically we had no reason to expect testing, and now we're talking about much more testing, and a checkbox to donate personal money to a national fund, AND local associations being asked to donate at least $3,000 to trigger matching funds from USAC and individual region-based designation of personal money, then we have a very new program indeed.

These are rules that were never enforced. That in itself warrants very close inspection of whether they weren't enforced for good reason.

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:32:36 PM UTC-5, Tony Abate wrote:

then we have a very new program indeed.

The mechanisms for USAC to fund its testing efforts have certainly changed. True. The program will be better funded. 

These are rules that were never enforced.

As discussed, at the couple events I attended where there was testing I can't say I was very surprised.  Most who have done any type of amateur national championships has witnessed some level of testing.  So to say they were never enforced is inaccurate.

 

That in itself warrants very close inspection of whether they weren't enforced for good reason.

Why? Budget and likelihood of catching intentional cheaters. The budget is only marginally larger now, so I think things remain status quo-ish actually. But just my opinion. 

[Tony Abate]

On the one hand, the demand for increased testing was said to be very high, that individuals and local associations were knocking down USAC and USADA's door, trying to throw money at them to do more testing. Hence the creation of individual donations and matching funds.

But now you're saying the "The budget is only marginally larger now, so I think things remain status quo-ish actually." But that's very much uncertain. We don't know how much individuals and associations will give, and we don't know its effect. Which is exactly my point, why should we be so quick to give?

And to say that testing already existed in our minds, on the local level, because the 0.01% of all racers who go to Nats experience testing, simply doesn't hold water. What might work for Nats is no justification for something operating on our level.

[CoCo]

Testing at Nationals and NRC races should be expected.

Testing at Greenbelt is ridiculous.

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:59:38 PM UTC-5, Tony Abate wrote:

But now you're saying the "The budget is only marginally larger now

Yes. Your are assuming USAC was investing no money in this prior to opening it up for public donations. So the increase due to public donations will ostensibly only have a marginal impact on that budget. 

 

why should we be so quick to give?

The wait and see approach is valid. I'm not discounting it. 

And to say that testing already existed in our minds, on the local level, because the 0.01% of all racers who go to Nats experience testing, simply doesn't hold water. What might work for Nats is no justification for something operating on our level.

There has also been infrequent testing on our level. Perhaps because I've traveled a good deal for races I've noticed it. You need to keep in mind, that not everyone just presses "I agree" when they get their license, nor to they glaze over the many resources available telling you what you should and shouldn't do. 

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:03:17 PM UTC-5, CoCo wrote:

Testing at Nationals and NRC races should be expected.

Testing at Greenbelt is ridiculous.

If you worked for USADA would you test at Greenbelt unless you had received tips to the hotline? Would it be worth dragging equipment, chaperones, a tent, bathrooms, and a trailer ? Probably not unless you had high suspicion riders there were doping. 

Luckily -- though I love GB -- we have races where USADA would better spend their resources. But hey ... maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea now that you mention it. Surprise is good. 

[Astorian]

The irony is that behind the scenes we're having a productive debate. There ARE issues that become more interesting / threatening / worrisome with the possibility of more frequent testing. This is not to be discounted. Tony's feedback is very thoughtful, and him and I have spoken personally about this. 

As mentioned, I simply asked the question a couple months ago why I couldn't give USAC money to test more, and preferably more in the region where I live. 

The timeframe for MABRA to make a decision on making a commitment and getting matching funds is tight. There is the option of letting individual riders donate voluntarily to MABRA to help make this possible. I have created a petition here if you are interested in letting the MABRA board know you support this initiative, and to specify whether you think there should be a voluntary donation aspect to this. Thanks. 

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mabra-commitment-for-usac-matching-funds/

[Harry Fang]

My comments below and  in red inline to Tony's email. . These are my own personal opinions and are not a reflection of my team, club other individuals. 

Even though I think that most of MABRA races clean, it would be good to prove that fact.

Things of concern:  The existing USADA program of testing. I believe the  announcing results may need to be examined further for "amateur athletes"  and also the testing itself.   I'm sure it's because I'm ignorant about the whole process.  However, in Pro cycling, it almost seems too lengthy for the 2nd test to be performed and that the announcement or release of information is before the 2nd test is performed.   How instant is the test results?   

Harry Fang

Master 45+ recently upgraded CAT2 racer 

---

From: Tony Abate <tony...@gmail.com>
To: mabra...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:48 AM

Subject: Re: [MABRA-USCF] USAC stepping up to the plate: offering localassociations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub

All,

In the hopes that this conversation can be thoughtful and respectful (bucking the MABRA listserv trend), I would like to propose some very serious concerns, and ultimately ask the question:

First of all, thank you Tony for your positive, constructive, thoughtful and respectful contribution to this touchy subject. There are some good points brought up by a few so far and hopefully, someone, can archive them and post them up somewhere so that people can read the information and find the questions already answered so that we won't have redundant questions asked on this listserv.

Secondly, I, would like to thank John Cutler for being the lead on this grassroots effort for MABRA. It's a thankless job.

Why would we be so quick to welcome and encourage an unprecedented, unproven drug testing program in its first year of operation, with potentially huge risks to the sport involved, especially when we don't have the fine print from USAC and USADA? Why don't we see how the nationally-funded program goes, as long as it appears its inevitable, and then make an informed decision on whether to spend our own money to encourage even more testing in MABRA?

I personally welcome and encourage a drug testing program (whether it is Nationally funded or locally funded), just because I'm fed up with hearing about all of the doping announcements in the press, not only by the pros but by amateurs. I race in the masters categories, every once in a while in the CAT123 races. I and some of my fellow racers have had suspicions on a few riders, who I may have competed against or just seeing their jaw dropping performance. More readily available drug testing should clear some of these suspicions.

Remember, this is just a start and an initial attempt to get rid of doping/cheaters. We need to start somewhere. I like the fact that we will have more available testing as in my opinion it will be more of a deterrent. Habitual dopers will be caught as they are like addicts. I also believe that a drug testing program will make individuals think twice before trying to dope.

The money invested in this project is minimal and I think though John's efforts as well as others around the country put this topic forefront on USAC's tasks of things they needed to address. I'm pretty sure that managing a more widespread program will actually cost much more. Managing TUE's will become a big issue.

  

I speak for myself, but many on my team are in agreement.

This shouldn’t even need to be said, but if it does: yes, of course we’re all anti-doping. We’re just as much against doping as anyone, and no, we’re not delusional about the fact that some amateurs dope. We would love for them to be caught red-handed, to be dismissed, and for the tests to catch them to be a positive influence on our local sport, but there good reasons to think that wouldn’t be the case. The law of unintended consequences reigns supreme.

1. We’re not convinced we have any power to dictate the terms of the testing. We already know that recreational drugs like THC and therapeutic drugs are a major sticking point. What makes anyone think USADA would make a custom test to fit our unique, amateur needs, and wouldn’t any such test be arbitrary and compromised?

What the hell is THC? just joking, however, we should be saying no to drugs anyway, shouldn't we? For those who want to race with drugs.. well maybe we should have a category where those who  want to dope or use recreational drugs can still race in that open category. 

2. Beyond what USADA tests for, what makes anyone think we can dictate who they test? Again, the consensus seems to be that this testing should really only happen to those on the podium of a P/1/2 race, or for Masters, if anyone. Why would we ever waste valuable resources on testing Cat 4s, and can anyone point to a guarantee that USADA wouldn’t?

Why not test CAT4's? Some of these guys go from CAT4 to CAT2 within a year and I'm not saying they dope, but it would give them a clean slate to progress further and not have a cloud over their heads. 

3. The fallout of a false positive would be incalculable. In our sport, people with doping results are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, and innocence is never truly returned to those who deserve it. Is anyone really prepared to gamble on another rider’s personal and professional life being ruined for a false positive, or a true positive for something like THC, or trace amounts of some unpronounceable ingredient in a GNC protein powder, all on the infinitesimally small chance you catch one of the very few people actually doping as amateurs?

False positives are a reality and you'll have to go through the proper procedure to protest.   I don't know how many real false positives there really are, but I would think very few.  If you are worried about the GNC protien power, or other nutritional supplement, well, you probably shouldn't take them anyway. It's just a slippery slope. Water, food bars,  energy drinks/gels, to recovery drinks, to other supplements which are not banned, to dope.  Why? Just so you can win a amateur race and support a hundred billion dollar industry. Is it really good for you after all???  And just to be in the top 10 of your amateur race? 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2011/10/16/a-bad-week-for-the-nutritional-supplements-industry/

4. Racing at our level, at the level you’re talking about bringing in needles and blood labs and public result reports, is supposed to be a fun, amateur hobby. End of story. It’s already expensive, risky, and taken too seriously enough as it is. How do you think this whole world of testing will affect the culture throughout every rank, but especially in the novices? Why would they ever take the risk of being falsely accused of doping all for the fun of a few weekends racing? Why would they ever take the time to assemble all their TUE’s, and not just go for a bike ride instead? Or worse, not ride at all and take up another hobby that isn’t going to invade their medical privacy, something that’s unheard of in any other amateur sport? How do clubs and teams recruit and survive in that environment?

Maybe we should bring cycling back to just a ride. I have lots of fun riding anyway and getting a beat down often occurs on these rides.  Fighting doping is not just happening in cycling.  Swimming, Track and Field, and in other sports is happening, so finding another sport which doesn't "invade medical privacy" is not good leg to stand on as most sports are implementing drug controls at the top amateur levels.

5. We shouldn’t be so quick to trade in our honor system. It’s at the heart of our sense of community in the racing scene. Bringing in USADA could only heighten suspicions of others, not cast them away. Under our current honor system, people can skip a race without seeming to avoid a drug test, and if someone arrives to a race parking lot, only to have to head home for a “family emergency,” we think nothing of it. But let’s say there’s drug testing that day. The whispers would be endless, and every action would be scrutinized for ulterior motives. Reputations of riders, of entire teams, could be ruined, all for nothing.

The honor system is already broken. That is why people want this drug testing. I can only hope that my fellow racers aren't doping.  By making drug testing awareness more in the  public eye, this gives the new athletes/juniors a good strong reason to stay clean and compete on a fair level. 

This proposal smacks of an overarching theme (I say problem) in amateur cycling. As a group, we think what’s good for the professionals of our sport is just as good for us. We go to great lengths to identify as closely as we can with the pros, with their equipment, with their training techniques, even though our worlds couldn’t be more different. You might respond, “yes, and now people are using the same drugs as them, so we need the same testing,” but I’m not so convinced that’s the case (and I’m aware our Level 2 athlete testing isn’t exactly what the pros have, but it’s close enough). The evidence of only a small handful of amateur dopers caught, roughly 10, ever in history, over thousands of administered tests seems to back that up.

I ask again, why would be so quick to welcome an unproven program? Why would we make ourselves subject to a risky experiment where people’s desire to race, not to mention their livelihoods, could be on the line? John describes the proposal as taking the current testing level from a 1 to a 2 on a scale of 10. I would say it’s more like from a 0 to 1, and that the change in our racing community’s culture could similarly be infinite.

If you want to support the USAC-administered program, there’s the option to donate to the national fund when you renew your license. But to suggest that MABRA should pool a large amount of money, sight unseen, and in some cases to attack people who raise concerns as somehow ok with doping and cheating, is a step too far. Let’s make an informed decision.

One final note: We need clear direction from the MABRA board on how decisions will be made, how member clubs should express their concerns (the MABRA google group is unacceptable), and some assurances that our opinions will be considered. We need to know if there’s any chance MABRA will use its own funds to trigger the USAC matching funds and regional designation, and we need to know whether they would accept outside funds from a voluntary donation account, if it were offered.

Tony Abate
Team President, District Velocity Racing

[marc frazer]

Will I ,er.... uh... MABRA be notified well in advance of when the vampires are coming . And if not , will MABRA provide a PA. association race schedule ? If urine samples are required , will the girls that watch you pee be hot ? and if the girls are hot , is it permissible to  provide them with shoes and lingerie of equal hottness ? --- On Thu, 11/29/12, Tony2 <tam...@verizon.net> wrote: From: Tony2 <tam...@verizon.net> Subject: [MABRA-USCF] Re: USAC stepping up to the plate: offering local associations matching funds, and online test fund donation hub To: "MABRA-USCF" <mabra...@googlegroups.com> Date: Thursday, November 29, 2012, 9:37 AM Given today's reports about Viagra use in the NFL, can we be assured that all racers with large penises will be banned by USADA ? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/28/marshall-suggests-some-nflers-use-viagra-to-gain-an-edge-on-the-field/ On Nov 29, 9:33 am, nathan goates <nathan.goa...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me that precisely _because_ of our amateurism (that this is a > hobby and not a job) we have more of a responsibility to comply with the > rules.  This is an opt-in, opt-out organization.  If you want in, you play > by the rules.

> >> amount of testing goes up from a 1 to a 2 on a scale of 1-10.

[Astorian]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:03:40 PM UTC-5, marc frazer wrote:

Will I ,er.... uh... MABRA be notified well in advance of when the vampires are coming .

No. USAC has made a point of keeping regional people out of the loop, to avoid the inevitable conflicts of interest that would occur. 

 

And if not , will MABRA provide a PA. association race schedule ?

No. The PA association has its own plans. I believe it is attempting to raise the commitment through a mandatory per registration surcharge. 

[James McNeely]

I've been thinking hard about this and decided that because homicides are still being committed, we should stop investigating homicides and jailing people for them. What if your life was ruined by being implicated in one of these rarely-successful investigations?  What about the costs?  What if your employer found out you'd been "popped" by the FBI for a homicide?  And there's no proof that you can eliminate homicides, even if you had an infinite amount of money.  Besides, nobody I know would ever be involved in a homicide situation as either a criminal or a victim.  Can't happen here...

Therefore it's better to do nothing about them, and just accept the fact that sometimes people wax, grease, eliminate, terminate, and "take care of" each other from time to time, and not worry about it. 

 

Jim M

-satirized for your protection

 

Ps.  We can't do drug testing around here because Frazer will sexually harass whoever it is that USADA sends to do the testing.

 

 

 

 

 

--

[marc frazer]

so the shoe and lingerie are cool ?.....sweeeeet !!  --- On Thu, 11/29/12, Astorian <johnp...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Fred Grim]

To follow this murder analogy increasing drug testing amateur racers because of the sins of few is like randomly selecting  people walking into a department store and installing cameras in their home to make sure they aren't murdering.  It isn't likely to catch murderers, invades random peoples privacy, and makes no one visit that store.

So thats a solution I guess.

F

[Joseph Jefferson]

On one side I think that there is merit to conducting drug test at our level but I also have an alternative opinion.  If a rider at our level wishes to put some high octane fuel in his engine just so he or she can score a couple bucks and be big man or women in the region so be it.  If you make things hard on your engine.......... --- On Thu, 11/29/12, marc frazer <marc....@yahoo.com> wrote:

[wcus...@aol.com]

Honestly, I mostly don't care. What I do worry about, by way of example, in a nutshell, is this -- I am very allergic to poison ivy, and I keep a stash of prescription topical steroidal creme. I am not going to bother with a TUE, including because it's like a four year old prescription. The shit is way expired, but it still works. If I rub some of this on, do I risk being banned for two years?

Bill Cusmano
William M. Cusmano, P.C.
2000 N 14th St., Ste 210
Arlington, VA 22201

703-527-1775

[Astorian]

Well Bill, I decided to take my own advice. 

1. I called the hotline 1 800 233 0393
2. I told them I was having an allergic reaction to Poisoned Ivy and that I was using a topical pill
3. I tolt the nice woman that I was taking Diprolene AF a popular prescription cream for poisoned ivy reactions
4. She immediately said "if it is not a testosterone gell you are probably in luck, but let me check on that"
5. Typing on computer
6. She says, "right, it is a sp? glucose-cortisol steroid, not prohibited if you only use it topically"
7. "You don't need a TUE"
8. Then she volunteered information. "The only time you would need to worry is if your poisoned ivy got so bad that you needed to take a pill or an injection. Then you would likely need a TUE. However, ... ALWAYS receive medical care immediately. Do not hesitate. 
9. Then "The oral pills are only banned in-competition. So if you have an attack and need an injection or pill within a couple days of an event, get care first, then submit for the TUE"

I timed the conversation, and including the hold time, and the discussion it took 6:48 seconds. 

[Astorian]

I could have also visited GlobalDro and searched by the drug name

http://www.globaldro.com/us-en/search/BrandStatus.aspx?brandid=30042&countryid=3&sportid=32&exact=0&searchid=852667&userid=1&show=All&search=Diprolene%20AF&newSearch=false

[One Trick Pony]

Hmmm this seems to be where all the cool kids are.  I apologize if the following was already mentioned/covered.

There seem to be two prevailing issues here:

1.       Testing for prescribed drug users or drugs we don’t give a krunk about (e.g. asthma meds/allegro/ganja).

2.       Why would we think increasing chances of testing from .00000001 to .0000002 would be any less of a deterrent to the would-be-cheat?

 

For the first, all I can say that hopefully ample discretion would be used when reading amateur drug test (e.g.don’t waste time with inhaler/allegro/weed positives).

The second is a valid concern.  As I think we could all agree if we could test 100% of racers at minimal costs we would.  But of course we can’t and the thought of spending $3K at a random drug test selected with minimal or no discretion behind it is, well not exactly appealing.  Instead how about deferring (or at least heavily leaning toward) recommendations for drug test to LA “elders?” These “elders” would be responsible for recognizing anomalies in a racer’s performance regardless of category and could easily spot the consummate year-after-year bottom 2/3^rd finisher who is suddenly finishing top 10.  Yes I know this a bit McCarthyesque but it’s all I got.  The threat of a potential drug test to the would-be-doper would have more relevance if they knew that the result of their ill-begotten efforts would directly lead to their getting tested in the first place.

Hmm….never thought I’d be advocating for profiling….

Jason

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:53:37 PM UTC-5, Astorian wrote:

In response to overwhelming interest from local associations, promoters, clubs, and riders from across the country, USAC has stepped up to the plate to offer a streamlined way for local associations like MABRA to be proactive and support clean cycling on both a national and regional level.

Its a great example of USAC listening to its constituency, and being proactive to eliminate bureaucracy, and redundancy. Instead of 20 nationwide acronyms for "clean ride" funds, and 20 bands of "vigilante scythe wielding weirdos" (trust me, I've been called lots of things), there is a centralized mechanism for making everything fair and work. This is what I wanted to happen from the beginning. It rocks. And I hate hateful emails. 

1. USAC has offered all local associations (e.g. MABRA) to match payments to a regional test fund up to $6000 (in increments of $3000). Therefore, committing $3000 to the fund would earn a match of $3000 from USAC. Many LAs have already committed. Its "buy one, get one free". 
   
2. USAC has agreed not to charge any administration fees which means that these funds will pass through to USADA, and be used solely for testing. 
   
3. USAC has also allowed local associations to contribute with a deduction from their USAC rebate. It is at the LAs discretion how to fund the donation. Some associations are implementing a per race-entry fee. Others are simply using the rebate. Others are setting up voluntary donation funds. 
4. USAC will also offer an optional checkbox donation option while renewing your license. If a local association (e.g. MABRA) participates in the matching offer above, then riders from this region will have the option of donating directly to the regional fund (with no matching, unfortunately). So in the fund you'll have the seed funding from the local association, and then all donations from local riders. 
   
5. If MABRA were not to participate, regional riders would still have the option of donating to a national fund.
   
6. The testing that would be performed using this regional fund would be no different than the testing (both in and out of competition) that currently occurs. No member of the local community would be required to volunteer, or would be notified about the testing. All rules -- the rules we agree to when we get licenses -- would remain the same. MABRA would make public our race calendar and bar standings, which we already do. So,... nothing changes. Everything stays exactly as it is today. All MABRA races -- as they've always been -- will be in the pool of events. 

The catch? The MABRA board has to act quickly and decisively and commit a minimum of $3000 to the effort. This will give all regional riders the option to donate regionally while renewing their licenses. It would also qualify us for the USAC match. At the moment this is not about whether testing will or will not occur more frequently next year -- because by popular demand nationally USAC has made sure that will happen -- but whether our local association will be leaders, or will miss the boat. 

And that's the update ... 

Cheers

John

[ma...@cox.net]

I'm worry about having to loose my coffe.
gp

> > 1. USAC has offered all local associations (e.g. MABRA) to *match
> > payments* to a regional test fund up to $6000 (in increments of

> > $3000). Therefore, committing $3000 to the fund would earn a match of $3000
> > from USAC. Many LAs have already committed. Its "buy one, get one free".

> > 2. USAC has agreed *not to charge any administration fees* which means

> > that these funds will pass through to USADA, and be used solely for
> > testing.

> > 3. USAC has also allowed local associations to contribute with *a
> > deduction from their USAC rebate*. It is at the LAs discretion how to

> > fund the donation. Some associations are implementing a per race-entry fee.
> > Others are simply using the rebate. Others are setting up voluntary
> > donation funds.

> > 4. USAC will also offer an optional checkbox donation option while

> > renewing your license. If a local association (e.g. MABRA) participates in

> > the matching offer above, then riders from this region will have the *option
> > of donating directly to the regional fund* (with no matching,

> > unfortunately). So in the fund you'll have the seed funding from the local
> > association, and then all donations from local riders.

> > 5. If MABRA were not to participate, regional riders would still have

> > the option of donating to a national fund.

> > 6. The testing that would be performed using this regional fund would
> > be *no different than the testing (both in and out of competition)
> > that currently occur*s. No member of the local community would be

> > required to volunteer, or would be notified about the testing. All rules --
> > the rules we agree to when we get licenses -- would remain the same. MABRA
> > would make public our race calendar and bar standings, which we already do.

> > So,... nothing changes. *Everything stays exactly as it is today. All

> > MABRA races -- as they've always been -- will be in the pool of events.

> > *

> >
> > The catch? The MABRA board has to act quickly and decisively and commit a
> > minimum of $3000 to the effort. This will give all regional riders the
> > option to donate regionally while renewing their licenses. It would also
> > qualify us for the USAC match. At the moment this is not about whether
> > testing will or will not occur more frequently next year -- because by
> > popular demand nationally USAC has made sure that will happen -- but
> > whether our local association will be leaders, or will miss the boat.
> >
> > And that's the update ...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>