tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/usada-4131/articlesUSADA – The Conversation2018-07-30T06:39:18Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1005852018-07-30T06:39:18Z2018-07-30T06:39:18ZThe evidence suggests Serena Williams is not being discriminated against by drug testers<p>Serena Williams is a well-known advocate for “clean sport”. For any athlete to be effective in such a role, it is important to comprehend how anti-doping programs work. Misunderstandings of the drug-testing process can lead to misperceptions about fairness between different athletes or across sports.</p>
<p>Williams has been a part of this complex and evolving anti-doping process since turning professional back in 1995. Earlier this year, however, she became frustrated with what she regards as inequities in the system. Just before the French Open in May, Williams informed her Twitter followers: </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"998640535609987073"}"></div></p>
<p>At the time, Williams had recently returned to tennis after having a baby and suffering <a href="https://www.si.com/tennis/2018/01/10/serena-williams-post-birth-complications-blood-clots">post-birth health complications</a>. Her low ranking did not reflect a decline in ability – rather, she had been out of the game. In other words, Williams was hardly a typical low-ranked player.</p>
<p>Then, just before the start of Wimbledon in late June, an article in Deadspin revealed that Williams had been tested five times by the <a href="https://www.usada.org/">US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) </a> in 2018, which was <a href="https://deadspin.com/an-anti-doping-agent-occupied-serena-williams-s-propert-1826993294">more than twice that of other top American women players</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/higher-faster-cleaner-doping-and-the-winter-olympics-22742">Higher, faster ... cleaner? Doping and the Winter Olympics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Williams responded to the report at Wimbledon by saying that she didn’t know she had been tested “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/sports/tennis-doping.html">three times more — in some cases five times more — than everyone else”</a>, but emphasised she was fine with this amount of testing as long as the system was being equitably applied. A spokesperson later <a href="https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/tennis/comment-serena-williams-soiling-her-legacy-by-slamming-drug-testers-37070031.html">released a statement</a> that made clear she felt she was being unfairly singled out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…there is absolutely no reason for this kind of invasive and targeted treatment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Then came another USADA drug test in late July and a further tweet by Williams, this time suggesting discrimination:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1021925651815845888"}"></div></p>
<p>A few minutes later she posted an addendum to that message: </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1021927293827080193"}"></div></p>
<h2>Targeted, rather than random</h2>
<p>A key instrument in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s monitoring arsenal is longitudinal data provided through the <a href="https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/guidelines_abp_v61_2018_jul_en.pdf">Athlete Biological Passport</a>, which began in 2009. This provides an analytical framework to detect unexpected changes in blood or steroid profiles among athletes. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, drug testing of individual athletes remains core to anti-doping efforts, but there is now a more targeted approach to monitoring, with much less emphasis on random collecting of urine or blood samples. </p>
<p>It is indeed difficult to comprehend how drug-testing is carried out in tennis these days and why testing certain athletes is prioritised over others. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-so-many-tennis-players-go-pro-even-though-few-make-it-88243">Why so many tennis players go pro even though few 'make it'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>By definition, a decision to target someone for a drug test is discriminatory. The key question is whether it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. In other words, what are the criteria by which drug testers are more likely to seek a urine or blood sample from one athlete over another? And when is it legitimate to discriminate in this way?</p>
<p>In its 121-page <a href="https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-30_-_isti_final_january_2017.pdf">“Testing and Investigations”</a>guide (2017), WADA advises athletes that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Target Testing is a priority because random Testing, or even weighted random Testing, does not ensure that all of the appropriate Athletes will be tested enough.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, target testing is, in part, a strategy to allocate resources where they are most needed. Importantly, though, WADA insists that a focus on particular athletes is not intended to cast suspicion on anyone individually. These athletes just happen to be in a pool of competitors that WADA considers a priority to “target test” based on one or more criteria. </p>
<p>The WADA guide lists various factors that may influence target testing by national agencies like USADA. Several appear to apply to Williams: athletes at the highest level of a sport (23 Grand Slam singles titles), athletes recovering from injury (shoulder issue), athletes in the later stages of their career (36 years old), and athletes returning to active participation after retirement (in this case, an extended break related to maternity leave).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229769/original/file-20180730-106511-10a0gbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Serena and Venus after the 2017 Australian Open final, which the younger Williams won while pregnant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Evidence suggests that testing frequency is reasonable</h2>
<p>These factors suggest that USADA was target testing Williams in accordance with WADA standards. </p>
<p>While Williams has been <a href="https://www.usada.org/testing/results/athlete-test-history/">tested more</a> in 2018 than other top female players, including her sister Venus Williams (twice), Madison Keys (twice), and Sloane Stephens (once), a look back at the testing numbers in previous years is useful.</p>
<p>If we focus specifically on the Williams sisters, they were barely tested by USADA from 2001 (when records were provided to the public) to 2012, but that was also true for the majority of US tennis players. From 2013 onward, USADA became much more active in drug testing tennis players: over the next five years, Serena was tested 31 times and Venus 34 times. </p>
<p>Drug testing is not only the preserve of USADA. According to <a href="https://www.itftennis.com/media/281704/281704.pdf">drug-testing data</a> from the International Tennis Federation, Williams was tested 1-3 times in-competition (IC) and 1-3 times out-of-competition (OOC) through the ITF’s anti-doping program last year. This modest volume reflects the fact that she played just two tournaments and then took time off to have a baby. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-doping-wrong-anyway-63057">Why is doping wrong anyway?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The year 2016 <a href="https://www.itftennis.com/media/255005/255005.pdf">provides</a> a more reliable gauge: in that year, the ITF program tested Williams 4-6 times IC and 7+ times OOC, the same ratio as her sister. Among other highly ranked US players, Keys and CoCo Vandeweghe were tested 7+ times IC and 7+ times OOC, while Stephens was tested 4-6 times IC and 7+ times OOC.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.itftennis.com/media/222641/222641.pdf">The 2015 ITF testing numbers</a> and <a href="https://www.itftennis.com/media/199333/199333.pdf">2014 numbers</a> are much the same.</p>
<p>There is, in short, no evidence that Williams is being unfairly targeted by drug testers. Her perception that she is being discriminated against appears to stem from a lack of awareness about publicly available information on who has been tested by different anti-doping organisations. </p>
<p>This misunderstanding is unfortunate, because Williams has used her enormous public profile to clumsily question the integrity of those tasked with the role of monitoring “clean sport”. </p>
<p>Drug testing is hardly a panacea for doping in sports, but if athletes wish to question why they have been targeted for biological samples, social media is hardly conducive to generating expert responses.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daryl Adair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By using her public profile to suggest bias in drug-testing, Williams is calling into question the integrity of those tasked with the role of monitoring ‘clean sport’.Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116122013-01-15T19:57:55Z2013-01-15T19:57:55ZWhat Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah means for Livestrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19233/original/t4mkvzj6-1358229189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Oprah Winfrey in Sydney in 2010 and Lance Armstrong on his way to win his seventh Tour de France title in 2005.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy & EPA/Gero Breloer</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How Lance Armstrong handles his <a href="http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahs-next-chapter/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter">soon-to-be aired interview</a> with Oprah will impact on the fate of Livestrong, which he founded in happier days. That’s because organisations, including non-profits such as Livestrong, live and die based on how those in the market assess their brand.</p>
<p>Organisations with positive brand images are seen to effectively deliver higher value. In the case of non-profits, this results in increased donations from the community, as well as being in demand as a partner by other non-profits, governments and businesses. </p>
<p>Indeed, protecting their brand may even be more important for non-profits than other brands because their brand encompasses all their activities, including charitable works. And brands that are formed around individuals, as well those that extensively link themselves with spokespersons or celebrities, are potentially at risk when the celebrity or founder falls from grace and their personal brand becomes tarnished. </p>
<p>The value of having celebrity spokespersons is that the organisation gains market credibility because the celebrity has expertise, trustworthiness, or they’re attractive. In this way, the celebrity becomes the voice of experience that stakeholders (donors, those being helped and partner organisations) can relate to. </p>
<p>Having a sports hero as a spokesperson is beneficial because sportspeople exude confidence, technical proficiency and expertise in their chosen area. These characteristics are then transferred to the brands that they’re representing.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising that there are many examples of firms cutting their ties with celebrities who have fallen from grace as the result of inappropriate individual behaviour. In these cases, the celebrity brand loses its shine and organisations become concerned that the celebrities’ negative image will be transferred to them. The firms that Tiger Woods was sponsored by <a href="http://faculty.gsm.ucdavis.edu/%7Evstango/tiger004.pdf">lost substantial share value</a> after the Tiger Woods scandal, at least in the short term. </p>
<p>So it wasn’t surprising when Lance Armstrong resigned from the board of Livestrong after the <a href="http://www.usantidoping.org/">US Anti-Doping Agency</a> (USADA) implicated him in doping. This was clearly his attempt to distance himself from organisation and protect Livestrong’s brand. But given the close link between Livestrong and Armstrong, it’s unclear whether donors and organisations working with the non-profit will make any distinction between them.</p>
<p>The problem is that, for years, and despite rumours elsewhere in the sport, Armstrong vehemently argued that his performance was a testament to his dedication and effort – and that it was unaided by performance-enhancing drugs. He lambasted “drug cheats” claiming that they tarnished the cycling profession. And he used his “drug-free performance” to position his life and Livestrong, promoting the idea that people could overcome cancer and succeed in life’s challenges. </p>
<p>So, not only was he the spokesperson for Livestrong, Armstrong was the “poster boy” for all the positive values that it represented. He was a shining example to all cancer sufferers that there was life after cancer and showed that they too could be highly successful if they put in hard work and dedication.</p>
<p>Armstrong’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/lance-armstrong">fall from grace</a> was significant. His silence on the US report into drug abuse in cycling was unfortunately seen as a sign of his guilt, especially when he <a href="https://theconversation.com/lance-armstrong-drops-his-doping-fight-with-usada-what-now-9055">refused to dispute its claims</a> or fight to stop the stripping of his seven Tour de France titles. </p>
<p>Armstrong’s recent “no-holds barred” <a href="http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahs-next-chapter/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter">interview with Oprah Winfrey</a> (to be aired at 4:30pm AEST on <a href="http://www.oprah.com/index.html">oprah.com</a>) is supposed to clear the air and is thought to feature his admission that he took performance-enhancing drugs. On the same day the interview was taped, he [met with Livestrong staff](http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/cycling-lance-armstrong-doping-livestron-idINDEE90D0GQ20130114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FINtopNews+(News+%2F+IN+%2F+Top+News) and apologised for “any stress that they’ve suffered over the course of the last few years as a result of the media attention.”</p>
<p>But how this controversy and Armstrong’s apology impact Livestrong partly depends on what he says in his interview and how it is received. If he gives an apology that comes across as insincere or incomplete (not a full and frank admission of events), then it’s highly likely that people will have a negative reaction and potentially transfer this negative credibility onto Livestrong. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if the interview seems credible, heartfelt and sincere, there may be a positive impact on Livestrong. That is, people may feel sympathetic toward Armstrong and want to show their support through the Livestrong cause.</p>
<p>The fate of Livestrong is, at least in the short term, clearly linked to Armstrong and how he handles the interview is critical. It’s possible that the only way he can minimise any negative backlash to Livestrong is to apologise and seek forgiveness humbly and with contrition. </p>
<p>Doing this frankly would support the values that made Armstrong such an iconic celebrity. It would show him, once again, standing up for what is right and showing that surviving cancer, like surviving life, is difficult, but something we can all succeed at.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Polonsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How Lance Armstrong handles his soon-to-be aired interview with Oprah will impact on the fate of Livestrong, which he founded in happier days. That’s because organisations, including non-profits such as…Michael Polonsky, Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair In Marketing, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/102532012-10-22T23:21:55Z2012-10-22T23:21:55ZThe Lance Armstrong paradox: how saving lives can be wrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16780/original/sywtwvx5-1350945209.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lance Armstong listens to the national anthem on the podium after winning the 2005 Tour de France.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/SRDJAN SUKI</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.uci.ch/Templates/UCI/UCI8/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1">Union Cycliste Internationale</a> (UCI) has <a href="http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODgzNA&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=%2FTemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI8%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuID%3DMTYzMDQ%26LangId%3D1">officially upended</a> the Elysian podium that held Lance Armstrong aloft as victor of seven Tours de France. Its ruling comes in the wake of the damning judgement of the <a href="http://www.usantidoping.org/">US Anti-Doping Agency</a> (USADA). Crashing down, the podium has obliterated perhaps the greatest ever sporting achievement, taking with it the vicarious elation of millions. </p>
<p>But this skydive from grace is extraordinary for another reason. Armstrong’s drug-fuelled dominance saved thousands from cancer and, if his charitable foundation <a href="http://www.livestrong.org/">Livestrong</a> survives the cataclysm, could deliver many more. </p>
<p>Why shouldn’t we, then, embrace Armstong as the Maria Theresa of the mountain stage, rather than shun him as the pariah of the prologue? If it’s okay to take drugs to cure cancer, what’s wrong with taking drugs to win bike races to cure cancer?</p>
<p>Indeed, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lance-armstrong-charged-with-blood-doping-and-epo-use-so-how-do-they-work-7666">effects of EPO</a>, the principal agent in Armstrong’s alleged pharmaceutical arsenal, are achievable through a host of legal means. EPO increases the red blood cell count, aiding oxygen delivery to the out-sized leg muscles that propel elite cyclists over towering peaks. </p>
<p>Similar shifts come from training at altitude, sleeping in a low-oxygen air tent, or being born with the genetic variant that saw Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta win two gold medals at the 1964 Olympics. If EPO simply mimics the body’s normal physiology, don’t we have further reason to forgive Lance?</p>
<p>The reality is that most will concur with the UCI’s edict. We will not exonerate him despite the downstream good that has flowed from his misdemeanours. And our reasoning can be traced to values and, in particular, our finicky propensity to distinguish between means and ends. </p>
<p>In medicine, we tend to care a lot about getting better and not so much about the route there. In 2001 surgeon Jacques Marescaux, in New York, used remote-controlled robotics to remove a patient’s gallbladder in Strasbourg, France. But we didn’t hear cries of “cheat” resound through the operating suite. Rather, the innovation was extolled as creative genius. </p>
<p>By contrast, when four riders took “training” to a new level in the 1906 Tour de France, and caught a locomotive to gain competitive advantage, official and public umbrage took swift effect.</p>
<p>In sport, it seems we have a taste for doing it the hard way. We can overlook the genetic lottery that confers the giant’s monopoly on basketball, or the African’s command over endurance events. But they must struggle for their victories, face down imposing hurdles over years, and overcome them through brute determination and obstinacy. </p>
<p>We need our sporting heroes to undergo excoriating trials before we baptise them as gods because it fuels hope in our own lives. The legacy of athletic nobility is to show us commoners what’s possible, if not in our weekend outings with the Lycra brigade, in our mundane grappling with daily adversity.</p>
<p>Ironically, it’s our need of hope that prevents us finding inspiration in the team doctors of pro cycling who deftly administered a dazzling array of enhancers. If those same doctors wielded syringes to banish diabetes, heart disease or indeed cancer, we would embrace their dexterity with tearful gratitude. </p>
<p>In medicine, pharmaceutical expertise gives succour. In the peloton it erases the dreams that ease spectators through their quotidian struggle.</p>
<p>In Lance Armstrong, fallen cycling deity, and Livestrong, cancer charity extraordinaire, we saw an unprecedented conflation of the sporting and medical ends of pharmaceutical use. And it’s ever so tempting to see the sporting infraction justifying the ends of therapeutic success. But unless we disentangle these twin goals we risk bringing each to its knees. </p>
<p>Professional doping, regardless of lives spared, alienates fans and sponsors, jeopardising the future of the affected discipline. And benevolent foundations that nail their colours to a tainted sporting mast risk their brand becoming repugnant to other donors.</p>
<p>The lessons are complex but compelling. The public is merciless when betrayed by the guardians of their athletic aspirations. And organisations that rely on brand leverage from celebrity sportspeople face perilous times when the anointed stars misbehave. Even more so when they owe their very birthright to the star himself. </p>
<p>When those companies are dedicated to medical research, and not the bottom line, the stakes are high indeed. As Armstrong cedes chairmanship for a background boardroom seat, Livestrong attests to the pitfalls of aligning divergent institutional and sporting goals.</p>
<p>In the wash up, it must be made clear that sport is about bringing personal resolve to bear on anatomy under physical challenge. For the time being, the doggedness of some athletes who submit to chronic drug use and its side effects doesn’t count. But things may change. After all, our values may be entrenched, but they are not carved in stone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10253/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Biegler receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a keen cyclist and was the principal investigator on the Monash Alfred Cyclist Crash Study.</span></em></p>The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has officially upended the Elysian podium that held Lance Armstrong aloft as victor of seven Tours de France. Its ruling comes in the wake of the damning judgement…Paul Biegler, Adjunct Research Fellow in Bioethics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.