Other approaches agreed include tailoring the assessment
of doping risk to the demands of the individual sport.
Not exact matches
There are mainly 3 things that may however incite a sports org to invest more seriously in testing: 1) Pressure from the fans, 2) Pressure from athletes themselves, 3)
Risks of being eventually recognized as facilitating or being complicit with
doping, especially if athletes are at greater
risk of morbidity either during their careers, or even after.
If the samples are analyzed by Lab B, the
risk of doping detection is non-existent.
The implication — if applied to athletes — is that there is only a small «
risk»
of being tested positive for rHuEpo
doping while athletic performance is greatly enhanced.
[That extremely high concentrations
of homocysteine, such as are found in metabolic disorders or serious
doping use, do pose considerable
risk is not disputed by researchers — ed.]
That claim is, um... accurate (yeah, I
risked a year
of cabbage soup in Slovakian prison just to get you the straight
dope).
It may then be up to an athlete to demonstrate all the aspects
of their «
doping control regime», i.e. to show which precautionary meas - ures they took, how every - thing was documented, what nutrition they consumed, how qualified their support person - nel was, etc. — all
of this may create a significant adminis - trative burden, but it all serves as a general precautionary measure to mitigate
risks in possible proceedings.