Today in my newspaper I read an article about upcoming stricter rules to prevent doping during the Beijing Olympics. Athletes are obliged to inform the anti-doping authorities (in advance, AFAIK) of their whereabouts 24 hours a day in blocks of 2 hours. Furthermore; missing an unannounced check means a positive test. That means that if for some reason you can't get to the location you said you'd be you are labeled a doping-user. The upcoming rules allow for no possibility to be contacted by cell-phone to inform you that you are missing an unannounced doping-test and to ask you where you are and to order you to get tested.

I see problems.

For instance: You are a basketballplayer and are playing a game. Some technical problem occurs; let's say the clocks don't work for half an hour or the electricity fails. Because of that the game is a bit delayed till rush-hour. Because of that traffic is horrendous and you'll lose even more time because of that. You don't make the timeframe you've said you'd be back in the hotel. Let's say you've missed it by 2 hours.

Another example: you are a javelin-thrower and you have -unexpectedly- won a medal. That means you'll be in the stadium longer than anticipated. Let's say you've stated that you'd be in your hotel by 3pm. You are delighted with your medal and celebrate in the stadium with your friends and family. You have to go to the medal-winners doping test, but are too excited to pee so you're in the stadium even longer. You have to do interviews to the media. In all; you'll be back in your hotel say around 5:30 pm.

A third example. You are competing in some event and get injured so badly that you are brought to hospital. Instead of being where you've stated you'd be you have to stay in hospital undergoing surgery.

All 3 athletes were not where they'd stated where they'd be and if they'd happened to get an unannounced doping-test all 3 were officially tested positive for doping use.

Is this the way the "war on doping" needs to be fought ?

Absolutely not.

While a need for increased credibility is needed in many sports these days, this is more of a witch hunt than an anti-doping campaign.

And I'm sure it takes less than two hours for a doctor to inject something into you anyway.

Actually, this isn't so stupid. The two hours thing isn't about preventing injection - it,s about avoiding test-dodgers. You know, people who make themselves scarce at the slightest whiff of anti-doping officials and do everything they can to avoid dope-testing.

Except, of course, caveats for the sort of issue Rik outlined should be built in. One would assume the IOC will either do so or lose what little credibility they have left in many countries.

Actually, this isn't so stupid. The two hours thing isn't about preventing injection - it,s about avoiding test-dodgers. You know, people who make themselves scarce at the slightest whiff of anti-doping officials and do everything they can to avoid dope-testing.

Except, of course, caveats for the sort of issue Rik outlined should be built in. One would assume the IOC will either do so or lose what little credibility they have left in many countries.The suggestions to the IOC about using better systems, like GPS-chips or cell-phone locations instead of letting the officials know in advance where you'll be, have been made, but so far the IOC-anti-doping committee haven't responded positively to them. I absolutely agree that anti-doping-measures are in principle good, if they are enforced correctly. The measures desribed in the OP are IMHO targetted at the incorrect part of doping-testing and are obstacles for atheltes to perform their job.
Noone has anything to gain when athletes who should be 100% focussed on performing are instead forced to focus on these things as well. If the anti-doping committee wants to perform unannounced tests (which I agree with) they will have to do that in a way that doesn't hinder athletes. At least not as much as the suggested measures will hinder them.

Noone has anything to gain when athletes who should be 100% focussed on performing are instead forced to focus on these things as well. If the anti-doping committee wants to perform unannounced tests (which I agree with) they will have to do that in a way that doesn't hinder athletes. At least not as much as the suggested measures will hinder them.

I know very little about doping regulations, but are frequent random unannounced tests a part of the process already?