How do you fix the doping problem?

[merlinextraligh]

I'm not sure you can, but my ramblings on you might improve it:

1)enforce existing confidentiality procedures, so we don't have public farces, like the curent one, until the entire procedure is complete and the final results certified.


2)punish teams, director sportifs, trainers and physicians. These guys are in the position to know and police who's doping. But in the current structure they have little incentive to do so, and an incentive to encourage, or at least tolerate, doping.

3)test deeper. In the TDF its only Yellow jersey, stage winner, and 2 randoms. Make it 10 or 20 randoms every day to increase the odds of detection.

4) Increase funding of drug testing research, and enforcement, from all the major stakeholders, TDF, UCI, Pro Tour teams, USOC, International Olympic Committe. Drugs in sports, have the potential to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and these guys have a vested interest in preventing that, or,

5) forget all the above, and go the SNL route.

[fixedfiend]

I think the doping is so engrained in cycling and even dates back to the time of Henri. It wasn't called doping or EPO but I'm sure the old timers were popping something to help them get through some stages.
It might take a very long, long, long time before it's resolved.

[EURO]

1)enforce existing confidentiality procedures, so we don't have public farces, like the curent one, until the entire procedure is complete and the final results certified.
Phonak announced it, because Folyd wasn't turning up for races.

[CosmicRocker]

I'm not sure exactly "how" to fix it, but I will say this about cycling & the UCI (the governing body of cycling). At least they have the guts to face the drug issue up front. Baseball, Bud Selig & professional sports in general in the USA just try to sweep everything under the rug as much as possible.

What would happen the night before the World Series if several of the stars tested positive for steroids? There would be no immediate punishment or suspension like cycling did to 2 of the biggest stars of their sport the night before their premier event. Most likely, the stars would play and there would be a "hearing" some weeks later. Then, if the players were found guilty, they would appeal, taking several more weeks. Then,if they were found guilty, they would be made to serve a suspension at the start of the following season. And they would get to keep their title. If Floyd Landis' second test does come back positive, he will be fired & stripped of his title.

Here is something I found that says it all:

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge has defended professional cycling in the wake of several big doping scandals that have rocked the sport this year. Quoted on Sporza, Rogge applauded cycling's aggressive approach towards tackling doping. "A sport is credible if there is full drug testing, both during and outside competition," he said. "Not only the athletes have to be punished, but also the people around them. And cycling does that."

Rogge realized that cycling is often singled out, while other sports have their drug problems swept under the carpet. "Doping is in all sports, but the cases in cycling are often in the media. So you get the impression that the problem is bigger there."

Props to UCI for tackling a tough issue ! ! MLB should take notice. All they do is dance on the fence.

[CyLowe97]

5) forget all the above, and go the SNL route.

Totally. Who cares how many drugs they take as long as we get a good race. Health of the athlete be damned.


Kevin Nealon: Dennis, getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmudov of the Soviet Union. His trainer has told me that he's taken antibolic steroids, Novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had a few cocktails within the last hour or so. All of this is, of course, perfectly legal at the All-Drug Olympics, in fact it's encouraged. Akmudov is getting set now, he's going for a cleaning jerk of over 1500 pounds, which would triple the existing world record. That's an awful lot of weight, Dennis, and here he goes.....
Oh! He pulled his arms off! He's pulled his arms off, that's gotta be disappointing to the big Russian! [ Sergei's trainer wraps a towel around him ] You know, you hate to see something like this happen, Dennis! He probably doesn't have that much pain right now, but I think tomorrow he's really gonna feel that, Dennis! Back to you!
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/pics/88aupdate3.jpg

[reef58]

Lifetime suspensions, and the riders have to pay back salary, and prize winnings. The lifetime suspension is bad, but there are worst things than being an outed millionaire ex-rider. You have millions and chicks still dig you. But being a broke ***** outed ex-rider sucks.

Richard

[EURO]

Most riders chose between poverty and being a pro anyway, so that wouldn't be much of a deterrent. Nevermind the fact that one in 200 pros is a millionaire.

[CosmicRocker]

I think EURO has got it right here. If I remember right from a Sports Illustrated article a couple of years ago, these riders who serve as the domistiques (sp) only make around $40,000 - $50,000 (US) per year. They're not millionaires. There are exceptions, like LA, but most of his money came from endorsements. The salary these guys make is nowhere near in comparison to "main stream" sports.

[donrhummy]

There's only one way to completely get performance-enhancing drugs out of cycling: change it from a competition sport to a recreational activity. C'mon. It's a business where the teams and riders who make the most money are the ones who win, you're always going to have people trying everything under the sun to win. It's the same in business. Why do you think so many companies engage in illegal, immoral and underhanded practices? Sure you can deter some from those practices, but you'll always have some trying to get around those rules. The only way to stop it would be the capability to catch and punish 100% of the transgressors - and that's impossible. (and actually that wouldn't stop the attempts, but merely the success of them)

[reef58]

Most riders chose between poverty and being a pro anyway, so that wouldn't be much of a deterrent. Nevermind the fact that one in 200 pros is a millionaire.

I Must disagree. The high profile dopers are doing well financially. If this topic was about the guy who finished 98th the discussion would not be very heated.

If you are a rider making 50k a year then the prospect of having all of your previous earnings taken away may give pause. I am sure there are many on this board in that salary range. Would you risk losing your job, being sued for past earnings and basically becoming bankrupt just to take No-Doze for instance? In this case the No-Doze is the performance enhancer for your job. I wouldn't.

Richard

[Trevor98]

I don't think it is a winnable battle- you will never rid sports of doping as long as humans are competitive. Instead of trying to get sports "clean" we need to do everything we can to make sports "cleaner." This small difference of attitude would be amazing.

[bbattle]

Lots more random testing; testing of riders year-around; all doctors and trainers are registered with the cycling authorities and they can be audited unannounced. Anyone associating with an unregistered doctor/trainer/health guru/whatever is banned for a year.

Lifetime ban for first offence.


The SNL scenario would kill riders every year as they would be encouraged to dope. And nobody would watch or stay interested because the only human element involved would be to see who can dope the most without dying during the race.

[Keith99]

I'm not sure you can, but my ramblings on you might improve it:

1)enforce existing confidentiality procedures, so we don't have public farces, like the curent one, until the entire procedure is complete and the final results certified.




Why not go the opposite route? Release the results of all testing. A lot of what has fueled this is speculation. Oh perhaps wait for b samples, but eventual and timely release of testing results could well start to change things. At the least we the 'why didn't he test positive before' would either really mean somethng of be shown to be garbage.

This would also make walking just barely the 'good' side of the line a dubious tactic for the top level endorsement rich riders. Consistently testing 'barely legal' would still damage the marketability of a rider and just might slowly clean up the sport. (Or if not show the fans do not care about drug use).

[Pat from CA]

Lifetime Ban is the only thing that realistically makes sense....top riders make money off endorsements, appearance money etc....then invest...you aren't going to make them poor by taking the race winnings...you aren't going to get the appreciation on their investments...so they may well be rich anyway if they made that much... the only real threat is a lifetime ban with tons of testing...

[tinrobot]

3)test deeper. In the TDF its only Yellow jersey, stage winner, and 2 randoms. Make it 10 or 20 randoms every day to increase the odds of detection.


I see a cheating strategy in those rules. Never finish a stage first and give away yellow when you don't need it.

Perhaps they need to test the top 5-10 GCs on every stage and add more randoms.

[ken cummings]

For myself alone I am going to stop paying attention to commercial racing.

[reef58]

Lifetime Ban is the only thing that realistically makes sense....top riders make money off endorsements, appearance money etc....then invest...you aren't going to make them poor by taking the race winnings...you aren't going to get the appreciation on their investments...so they may well be rich anyway if they made that much... the only real threat is a lifetime ban with tons of testing...

If you read both of my post you would see I also mentioned lifetime bans. But the bans alone don't seem to be working. I think both would apply a little more pressure, but some will still cheat.

Richard

[EURO]

I Must disagree. The high profile dopers are doing well financially. If this topic was about the guy who finished 98th the discussion would not be very heated.
The guys who win tours start doping well before they are finishing in 98th place.

If you are a rider making 50k a year then the prospect of having all of your previous earnings taken away may give pause. I am sure there are many on this board in that salary range. Would you risk losing your job, being sued for past earnings and basically becoming bankrupt just to take No-Doze for instance? In this case the No-Doze is the performance enhancer for your job. I wouldn't.
I think people certainly would if there was a chance they could jump to being a millionaire if they stayed on the performance enhancers, and if their boss, co-workers and everyone they knew in the industry was using it and compelling them to use it, and if they would be unable to do the job at he required standard without using.

[sunofsand]

How do you fix the doping problem?
From now on only allow Special Olympians to play for the big money and prizes.
When they start doping

Monkeys?

[Braveheart]

I'm not sure you can, but my ramblings on you might improve it:

1)enforce existing confidentiality procedures, so we don't have public farces, like the curent one, until the entire procedure is complete and the final results certified.


2)punish teams, director sportifs, trainers and physicians. These guys are in the position to know and police who's doping. But in the current structure they have little incentive to do so, and an incentive to encourage, or at least tolerate, doping.

3)test deeper. In the TDF its only Yellow jersey, stage winner, and 2 randoms. Make it 10 or 20 randoms every day to increase the odds of detection.

4) Increase funding of drug testing research, and enforcement, from all the major stakeholders, TDF, UCI, Pro Tour teams, USOC, International Olympic Committe. Drugs in sports, have the potential to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and these guys have a vested interest in preventing that, or,

5) forget all the above, and go the SNL route.

1) I totally agree - should be robust due process in fairness to riders and testers

2) Feels like a good answer, but could be problematic in its implementation - perhaps a lifetime ban for these individuals if up to three of their charges get banned for doping?

3) Seems to be a disagreement at what point riders start doping. Do the domestiques making 40k really have the money to embark on a doping program? I'm wondering if financial audits might be more effective than blood/urine testing at detecting drugs. Seems like the big busts this year (before FL) were of riders who never tested positive. Money is at the heart of this whole thing. You want to be on the protour, fine. All riders and teams have to have full disclosure of financial records and submit receipts. Follow the money....

4) You would think, but I'm not convinced there will ever be enough money, testing, or science to catch all the latest synthetic doping.

5) A possibility, but I wouldn't watch it. Would amount to a 23 day pharmaceutical infomercial.

In the final analysis, I think the market forces will decide on this thing. OLN's ratings were down by half this year just without Lance, Germany may not even air the race next year on television, sponsors are starting to look for the exits. The repurcussions of the Tour winner, not just an also ran, of testing positive, I think will result in a further erosion of broad international and sponsor support. Once the money starts to disappear, then maybe, just maybe, there will be a cleaner TDF. If this thing works out that FL was in fact using a banned substance, I know that I for one will not be wasting another July watching this thing.

[Juha]

Probably way, WAY off-topic, but what is SNL?

--J

[Braveheart]

Totally. Who cares how many drugs they take as long as we get a good race. Health of the athlete be damned.


Kevin Nealon: Dennis, getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmudov of the Soviet Union. His trainer has told me that he's taken antibolic steroids, Novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had a few cocktails within the last hour or so. All of this is, of course, perfectly legal at the All-Drug Olympics, in fact it's encouraged. Akmudov is getting set now, he's going for a cleaning jerk of over 1500 pounds, which would triple the existing world record. That's an awful lot of weight, Dennis, and here he goes.....
Oh! He pulled his arms off! He's pulled his arms off, that's gotta be disappointing to the big Russian! [ Sergei's trainer wraps a towel around him ] You know, you hate to see something like this happen, Dennis! He probably doesn't have that much pain right now, but I think tomorrow he's really gonna feel that, Dennis! Back to you!
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/pics/88aupdate3.jpg

Juha, SNL stands for Saturday Night Live - here is the script reference.

[CyLowe97]

Probably way, WAY off-topic, but what is SNL?

--J

Saturday Night Live. It's a long-running live sketch comedy television show based in New York.

See post 5 above. Back in 1988 they did a fake news story from the "All Drug Olympics," where all athletes were encouraged to take as much drugs as they wanted. The reporter was covering the weight lifter, who was going to lift 1500 pounds. The kicker was the lifter was so strong from the drugs that he pulled his own arms out of his sockets.

[smellygary]

Lots more random testing; testing of riders year-around; all doctors and trainers are registered with the cycling authorities and they can be audited unannounced. Anyone associating with an unregistered doctor/trainer/health guru/whatever is banned for a year.

Lifetime ban for first offence.


The SNL scenario would kill riders every year as they would be encouraged to dope. And nobody would watch or stay interested because the only human element involved would be to see who can dope the most without dying during the race.
I agree with the lifetime ban for first offence. All riders give specimens the morning of a ride. Police involvement with municipal offences for the rider and team doc.

And maybe take it out of the hands of the French, at least for the TdF. The WADA can't handle it because they are not being viewed as being honest or trustworthy. There really needs to be some neutral party to handle specimens (which was the point of WADA, but something happened along the way.)

It just comes down to enforcement.

Or--gasp!!--riders and teams could refuse to participate in events when they think those events are being conducted under suspicious circumstances. Its really up to the teams and corporate sponsorships to clean it up, or they will ut themselves out of business. And racing would return back to the fun and exciting sport that it is, without all the chatter from the sidelines.

[CyLowe97]

A lot of talk about lifetime bans for indiivdual riders here, but the problem will not go away until heavy penalities are enforced against team directors, owners, and sponsors.

They have had their heads in the sand, it seems. Why do they not know what their own employees are doing? Why, because what they don't know can't hurt them.

So far it seems only Liberty Seguros has figured this out by dropping their sponsorship after too much bad publicity.

[Juha]

Thanks CyLowe and Braveheart!

That reminds me of a study: aspiring athletes were asked hypothetically if they would take a drug that would guarantee them success in their sport but that would also kill them in a couple of years. Many of the athletes said yes.

--J

[Voodoo76]

A lot of talk about lifetime bans for indiivdual riders here, but the problem will not go away until heavy penalities are enforced against team directors, owners, and sponsors.

They have had their heads in the sand, it seems. Why do they not know what their own employees are doing? Why, because what they don't know can't hurt them.

So far it seems only Liberty Seguros has figured this out by dropping their sponsorship after too much bad publicity.

Thier heads are not in the sand! You think riders are seeking out and funding all of this on thier own? You think there is no pressure to "just take this, dont ask what it is"? Dont let the money and power running this sport off so easily!

[Braveheart]

Thanks CyLowe and Braveheart!

That reminds me of a study: aspiring athletes were asked hypothetically if they would take a drug that would guarantee them success in their sport but that would also kill them in a couple of years. Many of the athletes said yes.

--J

I recall reading something like that, too. The willigness to dope I think is symptomatic of many athletes putting their desire for personal glory ahead of what's right for the sport and the example they set for children. I don't generally watch organized sports any more because of this.

[CyLowe97]

Thier heads are not in the sand! You think riders are seeking out and funding all of this on thier own? You think there is no pressure to "just take this, dont ask what it is"? Dont let the money and power running this sport off so easily!

This was exactly my point. The teams, owners, sponsors let riders out in the wind to shrivel under the public spotlight, but they are not in turn punished.

Punish the directors, team owners, and sponsors. Financial penalties will make them rethink their willingness to assist riders by acting like they don't see the doping going on.

Put the responsibility of clean riders into the hands of the people who pay their salaries. Say something like, Teams are put on notice that if they have a rider convicted of doping, there is an $X Million fine, two UCI race suspension for the whole team, etc., for first offense. Second offense is exponentially bigger, and third offense is even bigger financial penalty, plus expultion of team and sponsor from UCI.

Once the money is big enough, the teams will straighten it out themselves (or, cynically, they will get even better doctors and run the risks...)

It's about the money.

[godspiral]

I think the current system is very good. It allows just a little cheating. The only good the SNL model would bring is make it impossible to target someone by spiking their drink, but then again, you can probably still affect their performance negatively by spiking their whiskey with a strong laxative or toxin instead of steroids.

In a way, mild drug enhancement programs offer a means to equalize blood chemistry among the athletes. So maybe a more open chemical management system for athletes (continued extensive testing) with milder penalties for test failure (1 month suspension for minor violations) could be something worth entertaining.

[merlinextraligh]

Cylowe, I think something along those lines has to be the answer. There would always be the risk of rogue riders doping on their own, without the teams knowledge. Thus there would need to be some slack for first offenses. But ultimately the team personnell is in the best position to control this. As Landis' director sportif said:
"Frankly speaking, if Floyd was doping, (Phonak) would have known it."

www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul31news2

[2592]

Lifetime ban from any sport. This is needed in every sport, not just bicycling.

[EURO]

Yeah - imagine that - a working class Belgian kid - desperate to make some money so he doesn't have to work in the matress factory. What's going to stop him doping? The fear that he'll not be able to compete as a pro golfer or tennis player.

[Helmet Head]

Don't forget, these are the guys who have said that they would be willing to take a pill, knowing that it would kill them within a year, if it would make them champions in their sport. A poll of pro athletes showed that half agreed with this.

For us normal folk, that kind of desperation for achievement is incomprehensible. But that's what we're dealing with.

When someone is willing to accept the ultimate sacrifice for his cause, there is no way to stop him. Lifetime ban? Heck, the threat of lifetime imprisonment and even torture would not dissuade these guys.

The only way to stop it is to keep catching them do it.

I don't know... 7/24 hour personal surveillance during the race and for a week prior to it? The race organization will provide communal surveillance for those willing to stay in a controlled environment. To leave, you have to pay extra to get a personal agent to stay with you at all times.

[WJ13US]

It just seems to me that the Jennie of performance enhancing substances is so far of the bottle I don’t think we can ever go back. It just seems to be one big cat and mouse game. New drugs and ways to get around tests, new tests, etc. I think this is true for most any sport, even, sadly high school sports. The money in sports is getting so ridiculous that the price to sell a soul gets met by many more each season.

It seems every time I open up the sports page these days its another doping story. I’m sure in due time fans will become fed up, then any only then will the money dry up and the problem be solved.

But I say why not speed up the process. Let all drugs become legal. Then all we’ll end up with is freaks like pro bodybuilders. Is pro bodybuilding still around? Does anyone in their right mind take that sport seriously?

Lets get to that point where all the juiced up athletes die off then start with a clean slate. Maybe we can once again watch athletes go head to head with nothing more than talent, heart, and the will to succeed.

Bill

[Keith99]

In the U.S. some of the Southern States now have programs of manditory testing of High School football players for steroids. The reason is because it was not just happening but common. I would not be surprised to see the same in cycling. At this point the problem is fighting a culture of not just drug use, but rather a culture of doing ANYTHING to win. This is not limited to cycling. It seems to exist in any sport at any level. On the specifics of drug use testing at lower levels makes sense. Stop the drug part before it starts and before the riders have the best doctors out there helping them fool the tests.

But in the long run it is the greater culture of anything to win that needs to be dealt with.

BTW anyone stop to think that perhaps the next step (if it is not already a past step) in anything to win is giving false leads to get other riders 'under investigation' at just the wrong time? I hope operation Poerto was clean, but it sure would not surprise me is at least someone decided to carefully time when they blew the whistle.

[pinkrobe]

#5 - SNL all the way. They're paid to win - it's their job. Most ProTour riders would cut off a nut to win the TdF even once.

[jazzy_cyclist]

Perhaps I'm naive about this, but I'm not impressed that cyclists by themselves would be particularly effective dopers. Can you really think of a rider who would know what drugs to use, what doses, how, when, and all of that without the help of a physician (especially to avoid detection)? I'm not saying that the riders are innocent victims, but most of the scandals I've heard about seem to revolve around a Ferrairi, Fuentes, etc. and if you really nailed those guys, the DS'es and maybe even sponsors, I wonder if it wouldn't at least cut down on the ubiquity of drugs. These cyclists seem to rely an awful lot on the enablers from what I can tell...

[dutret]

Punishing the teams seems reasonable but the sponsors? That is one of the worst ideas I can think of. It will immediately and dramatically cut the amount of funding available to the teams since it will prevent many companies from being sponsors. Even if the punishment is minimal the bad publicity of phonak or tmobile themselves being deemed responsible for doping will deter them from ever giving money in the first place. Its not as though they unlike the team are likely to have any direct involvement in the doping anyway.

[CyLowe97]

Punishing the teams seems reasonable but the sponsors? That is one of the worst ideas I can think of. It will immediately and dramatically cut the amount of funding available to the teams since it will prevent many companies from being sponsors. Even if the punishment is minimal the bad publicity of phonak or tmobile themselves being deemed responsible for doping will deter them from ever giving money in the first place. Its not as though they unlike the team are likely to have any direct involvement in the doping anyway.

Maybe that's the point. If teams and riders want the $$$ that comes from the T-Mobiles, Discoverys, and Phonaks of the corporate world, they should shape up.

The threat to the sponsor would put them directly in the line of fire, for sure, but would also encourage them to self-police their 'employees' to help insure a (more) level playing field. Employers could put into contracts that they have the right to drug test the riders at any time, as this helps to protect their clean image. If the rider doesn't want to sign such a contract, so be it.

Maybe salaries would come down in the interim, as corporations would be less willing to fund at current rates, but if the peloton proved itself, over time, the money would come back up.

It's just a thought, not a silver bullet to fix everything. I'm just against the punishment only going against the rider, who in most cases is not acting alone.

[iluvfreebeer]

:(
I'm tempted to advocate public stoning for the first offence, but I'm not sure if the stone supply is large enough.

[jslopez]

I think you can only levi heavy penalties if you have a trustworthy and 1005 reliable drug testing program.

Drug positives should not only have a sporiting ban but also a criminal consequence (but refer to one before passing out any judgements).

[dutret]

Maybe that's the point. If teams and riders want the $$$ that comes from the T-Mobiles, Discoverys, and Phonaks of the corporate world, they should shape up.



the problem is in the interim until cycling is clean. And its not just the phonaks and the discos either. It's the healthnets and the jittery joes all the way down to the to the aarons and the focals. Holding sponsors responsible would kill the sport of competetive cycling completely.

[webist]

What sports even pursues dopers aggressively besides the Olympics and Pro Cycling? Don't most sports fine the offender a buck or give them a day off for doping until their 95th offense? I think cycling has a positive reputation when it comes to doping; not necessarily the participants and their handlers, but the sport itself.

[iluvfreebeer]

What sports even pursues dopers aggressively besides the Olympics and Pro Cycling? Don't most sports fine the offender a buck or give them a day off for doping until their 95th offense? I think cycling has a positive reputation when it comes to doping; not necessarily the participants and their handlers, but the sport itself.


+1

[Keith99]

What sports even pursues dopers aggressively besides the Olympics and Pro Cycling? Don't most sports fine the offender a buck or give them a day off for doping until their 95th offense? I think cycling has a positive reputation when it comes to doping; not necessarily the participants and their handlers, but the sport itself.

Rugby seems to be much more aggressive than cycling. At least when it gets to the stage of actually passing sentance. Last year a player was suspended for a forbidden substance (I'm pretty sure Athsma meds) which is allowable with the proper paper work. He had just failed to check the right box on the latest set of paperwork. Previous paperwork had the correct information. It was a slam dunk that this was a real medical reason. The review board agreed that he had simply nmade a clerical error. The suspension (either 2 or 3 months) stood anyway. In cycling recent years have seen riders come up with the medical reason in a case like this after the fact, no previous documentation and suspensions have been reduced or overturned entirely.

[EURO]

Cycling has a tougher stance because Simpson died as a result of doping during the tour in '67.

[harlond]

Why does anyone think imposing a lifetime ban would work? We have the death penalty for murder, but people still do it. We have lengthy prison sentences for a million offenses and people still do them. Indeed, the police now have been after cyclists--e.g., Pantani--for some years and cyclists still dope. History and experience demonstrate that increasing the severity of punishment does not work to deter misconduct. If it's revenge you want, that's different, but if you really want to stop doping, what needs to be increased is not severity of punishment, but certainty of apprehension. That's not perfect, but it is a hundred times more effective than lifetime bans.

That said, I'm more in the SNL camp than anything else.

[dutret]

More then anything else better testing and stricter rules would help.

Some stricter rules:
-No IVs period. You need an IV cause you are so dehydrated you can't drink, you report it and are suspended for two weeks. You have a hole in your vein with no report, Doping suspension.
-Use every test available to prevent masking. For instance, there is no reason with the amount of money involved that the isotope test couldn't have been used initially for even if the rider doesn't get a positive with the T/E.
-All Drs associated with the riders are UCI certified. You need to see anyone else in a non-emergency situation, you get it approved. There is any suspicion a Dr is dirty, there goes his certification. You meet with Dr Ferrari in an empty parking lot, doping suspension.

What have you got?

[Braveheart]

Found this link on a different thread:

http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/11/18/steroids/print.html

Apparently "Roid" rage can affect others, not just the athlete. The SNL approach has to be treated as a joke, unless you're prepared to keep 'em all in a cage between races.