Winston Thomas of Britain is that rare masters leader — a world-class athlete as well as international official. Among other things, he’s heavily involved in making sure that the 2005 World Masters Athletics Championships in Spain come off well from a technical standpoint.

On the track, he’s a 400 man. He took fourth at the 1999 Gateshead world meet in the M55 group. But he also has strong (and savvy) views off the track.
Here is another in my series of interviews with masters observers on doping:
1. It’s well-known that only a few international masters events do drug-testing, along with a few nationals in Europe. But even these dope tests are skimpy — usually fewer than 50 in a field of 5,000. Is drug-testing of masters fair under these conditions? Is it worth doing?
Winston Thomas: There are several points to all of this, and I would say no in part for the International events testing, as there are test in all WMA and as far as I know regional events and yes for the National events testing, as most of these do not have tests. I have to agree regarding the amount of tests that are done in the International events, this varies but it is accepted that there are not enough tests and something more has to be done, (and it is who pays for them all). I have to say that we in Europe are looking at ways to increase these tests.
For the National events, it has to be recognised that many of the masters associations are not part of the national IAAF bodies and thus cannot afford the costs of tests, and where they are a part of the national body generally tests are done, and we have seen some positive results from the test that have taken place, so it shows that it is worth doing and must be increased worldwide, and as for being fair and doing, yes it is fair because it shows that we are all Nationally and Internationally aware of the situations and are not prepared to have our sport blighted by those that want to cheat, but we can only do so much at the present time, and should the national associations do more then it would make it even more worthwhile.
2. What would it cost to drug-test a majority of masters at WMA world meets or USATF nationals?
When you say a majority, we have to be specific as to what constitutes a majority. A WMA (meet) and possibly (USATF) is similar to the Olympics when you look at the amount of events and athletes, so to test the majority of athletes is not feasible, but the possibility of at least two tests per event male and female should be a minimum start.
This is the major problem and the thing that we have to work on, the cost of testing to a standard that I (my opinion) would like to see at a WMA championship would be around $31,200 — 100 tests at a minimum, and we need to try and do this in the future.
3. Do the waiver rules in WMA work? How many athletes avail themselves of the waiver to compete while taking “banned” drugs?
The waiver rules on WMA do work and I think they will now work even better in the future as we are more aligned to and with IAAF and WADA, and it always has to be remembered that having a WMA waiver has never meant that an athlete could not be found guilty on a positive test, so it should not be read that the waiver gave, or gives, any immunity, and it is the athletes that cheat by taking things outside of their prescribed medications, that need to be rooted out — not people that have genuine reasons for taking type of medication.
And when it can be seen that the IAAF-WADA cannot keep up with the athletes and their new “cocktails” it will be the same for the masters. Yes, there are always some that may compete whilst taking “banned substances” but not because of the waiver.
4. WMA supposedly has an appeals process for drug-testing. Has this process ever been used? If so, what were the upshots?
As to this question, I can only give an answer from the personal point and what I have observed; yes, WMA have an appeals process, we all in the movement know this. Yes, the process has been tested and again we have seen this in the past. As to the upshot, then this I have to say depends from which view one is looking at and what they are looking for, without going through the cases so only from what I have known, and also not being privy to all information and details, I would only say that for me we have had a positive upshots.
5. If a vote were taken on whether masters organizations should do extensive drug-testing — and add a surcharge to meet entry fees — how would the vote go?
Well, this is one that I think that we should test within the next year both in WMA and our regional association, as I feel that that this has to be part of the way forward to get the amount of money to help pay for more tests. I think that the vote would be a positive one as long as it is put to the athletes correctly, and all the burden for this was not on them, so that the organisers would also be paying a part, and the amount towards the athlete was not a substantial amount, as I feel that we already pay towards testing presently within our entries.
6. Since suspensions last only two years usually, banned athletes can still resume competition in another age group down the line. So suspensions have little bite. Should drug rules be stiffened for masters?
Now, what is the difference between a masters athlete cheating and an open athlete cheating? They are both cheats, but one proberly was getting a lot more reward, so why make the punishment any different? And this has to be a matter for the various national bodies to follow their own sports guidelines, as many do differ; otherwise we have to follow the IAAF rulings.
The bite that we do see is the fact that they are out of the competition for the period of time, and it deters others from following their paths, particularly seeing that should they return to competition other athletes are not … so much friendly towards them as before.