I started writing a sports blog last week, here's my thoughts about doping:
Great start for your blog August! I tried to respond with a long comment in the blog, but when I tried to enter it, I lost my whole comment. Oh well.
I'm too tired to write it again.
I'll sum up my position briefly. Until the various sport organizations are out of the management of drug testing business, I have zero
confidence in their testing integrity. It is blatantly obvious an inherent conflict of interest will exist in this situation when the organizations responsible for marketing, promoting, and organizing the sport are also in charge of management of drug testing. Too much money, prestige, and notoriety is at stake to believe they would take down a top player.
If I were in charge of the UCI or ITF or whatever, I would refuse to accept responsibility for management of testing as it would be natural for anyone to question my and my organization's integrity, right or wrong. The responsibility should be given to an independent agency.
The way testing in tennis is being managed today is a joke. Only an idiot would be caught. Most serious doping is done off season or when they are Out Of Competition for whatever reason, but guess what? In tennis that is when the fewest tests are done, only 15% (334 urine and blood OOC out of 2135 in 2012, only 63 Out Of Competition blood tests in 2012, only 21 in 2011), with many top players not tested at all OOC, such as Serena Williams in 2010-2011. Micro-dosing of synthetic testosterone (a steroid hormone) can also be used in-competition and fall under the levels required to be caught, because of the testing methods used (T/E ratio instead of CIR).
Even if an independent agency were doing all the right things it would be difficult to catch the sophisticated doper immediately, because many times they are using the latest designer drug for which no test exists. But if the samples are being taken, they can be stored for later testing, and as long as retesting on old samples would be done periodically, then there is always a chance that a test will be developed which will catch the doper later.
As we've seen with Armstrong and his cohorts, UCI testing was ineffective, but other means of investigation (USADA) proved more fruitful.