Suggestion : an Anti-doping initiative

[jezzer]

Seeing as the Contador doping thread is running, I thought I'd air an idea I've had for a long time about reducing drug abuse in sport.

It's essentially just a contract.

So, I'm an elite level sprinter. I am good enough to race in the A-level IAAF meets. Before the first meet, I am given a contract to sign. The contract says:

1) I certify that I am not using, and have not in the last (eg) 24 months used banned performance-enhancing substances on the WADA list.
2) I sign up to the "I'm clean" charter and I wear a logo showing it
3) In return, I get 50% higher appearance fee and higher prize money. This extra money is held in escrow for X months/years. If I am subsequently found to have cheated, I forfeit this prize money.
4) If I am found to have cheated subsequently, I accept that I can be pursued in the courts by the tournament organisers for all appearance and prize money paid to me from the date of the positive test.
5) If I am found to have cheated subsequently, I will be banned for a term 50% higher than the normal term.
6) If I sign up, I will be promoted to potential sponsors as a clean athlete. The IAAF will work with "I'm clean" athletes and their sponsors to jointly promote them. If an "I'm clean" athlete is subsequently found to be doping, the participating sponsors must - at a minimum - reduce their sponsorship fees by 50%. Sponsors reserve the rights to pursure the athlete in the courts for all fees since the last positive test. Participating sponsors will get enhanced positioning rights at events and through media channels.
Edit: 7) I agree to only attend a member of a panel of IAAF/WADA approved doctors for any medical issue I have. OTC drugs should only be sourced from a panel of WADA-approved pharmacists.

I can choose not to sign this contract. I will receive 50% reduced fees and appearance money than "I'm clean" athletes.

Of course, part of the problem is that organisers don't want to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, but sports like athletics and cycling are struggling financially because of their tarnished images.

Thoughts?

[gfo]

1: Don't sign contract
2: Use performance enhancers and win
3: Make more money than your rivals, even including the differences in appearance fees because winners get way more interviews/sponsorship money than someone in 6th
4: Laugh

[Slipper1]

I think that by giving someone the choice, it condones doping, even by paying them less than the others. It is the complete opposite of what sport is attempting to do.

Also, would a sponsor want to be lined up with a doper (is that the term?), even if it is cheaper? - Eat Cornflakes, take drugs and you can win. They're never going to take a chance that someone who didn't sign the contract might win and they'll run away from the sport in their droves.

[jezzer]

1: Don't sign contract
2: Use performance enhancers and win
3: Make more money than your rivals, even including the differences in appearance fees because winners get way more interviews/sponsorship money than someone in 6th
4: Laugh

Have a look at the turmoil cycling is in at the moment - sponsors impossible to get, teams folding all the time, greatly reduced media coverage (e.g. German TV prob won't show the Tour de France next year over Contador and Mosquera positive results and only showed very brief highlights of this year's one). All because of their opposition to doping.

I think you underestimate the stigma and the financial crisis in sport

[gfo]

1: Don't sign contract
2: Use performance enhancers and win
3: Make more money than your rivals, even including the differences in appearance fees because winners get way more interviews/sponsorship money than someone in 6th
4: Laugh

Have a look at the turmoil cycling is in at the moment - sponsors impossible to get, teams folding all the time, greatly reduced media coverage (e.g. German TV prob won't show the Tour de France next year over Contador and Mosquera positive results and only showed very brief highlights of this year's one). All because of their opposition to doping.

I think you underestimate the stigma and the financial crisis in sport

Cycling is an exception, mainly because the chances of finding a drug-free cyclist is as likely as finding a 16 year old virgin in Finglas. For athletics in general, you'd make far more money from TV spots and shilling gear to make the contract worthwhile

Everyone knows who Usain Bolt is, but no one know who the worlds fifth fastest man in. The fame/money from winning will always be higher than the rewards for coming lower down the table

[fourthirtythree]

If you think cycling is the exception compared to track and field...

[Skinfull]

In theory a great idea but would never work in practice.
Mandatory testing before every race? Is this not feasible? I'm not fully up on the drug testing procedure but I think its portions of the athletes are tested no? Surely if every athlete has to provide samples before every event then positive results would be greatly reduced. I like the contract idea, though it should be signed by every athlete or maybe everyone who signs an endorsement deal. Punishable by court if broken.

[ronk]

In the above form I wouldn't have much interest in it. I would have a lot more interest in having a situation where Nike et al. forced all their athletes to sign a declaration that they're clean whereby getting implicated for doping would force them to refund their entire lifetime endorsements income. If enough sponsors signed up to that it would become almost impossible for athletes to snub such a system, especially if the same was introduced for salaries and bonuses.

Financial destitution might be an effective deterrent in some sports, it'd certainly make us feel better about it. Obviously, cases like the Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds ones show how far from perfect even that deterrent is.