339 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & POLICY, VOL. 39 NO. 3, DECEMBER 2009 Interacting with WADA, IOC, UCI and ASADA: A Cycling Australia Perspective Graham Fredricks 1 , Shayne Bannan 2 , David T. Martin 3 1 CEO, Cycling Australia 2 High Performance Director, Cycling Australia 3 Sport Science Coordinator, Cycling Australia 3 Sport Scientist, Australian Institute of Sport Ten years ago the World Anti Doping Association (WADA) was formed. Under the leadership of Dick Pound this organisation aggressively formed collaborations with national anti-doping agencies such as the Australian Sports Anti-doping Authority (ASADA) and International Sport Organisations such as the Union Cyclist Internationale (UCI). Of critical importance was the direct link between WADA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) which led to financial support and leverage when interacting with many popular Olympic sports. WADA rapidly become a world-wide agency with 35 analytic laboratories located in 32 different countries. Some have estimated that in addition to important athlete education programs, WADA have been responsible for more than 1.2 million blood and urine tests of sportsmen and women over the past 5 years. WADA also pours millions of dollars into scientific research every year in their ongoing attempt to deter athletes from using illegal ergogenic aids. So how should a relatively small, national sporting organisation like Cycling Australia support international efforts to prevent competitive cyclists from doping? Cycling Australia operates as a tight knit unit, passionate and philosophically committed to “clean cycling”. However, when compared to WADA and ASADA, Cycling Australia does not possess the financial resources or expertise to actively pursue internal testing programs, doping detection research or have the human resources to consistently implement national anti-doping education programs. Even if financial resources did allow for Australian National Team Cyclists to participate in novel monitoring programs the message the participation of National Team Athletes would send to WADA, the IOC and ASADA is not clear. Whereas professional cycling teams such as CSC and Columbia have gone to extraordinary lengths to increase the comprehensive nature of monitoring programs by contracting private groups to implement new surveillance programs, some cyclists and the public have felt that this approach signifies that “current testing protocols are not good enough”. And indeed recent high profile cases such as Silver Medallist David Rebellin’s positive test for CERA at the Olympic Games in Beijing indicates that elite athletes will continue to push the boundaries. A small national sporting organisation like Cycling Australia can quickly find itself in an awkward position where the major doping detecting organisations appear to be saying – “hold the course and wait for our lead” whereas the public, including licensed competitors, (especially after a publicised doping scandal) are saying – “move quickly and do something more to