Beating the Auditors: Comparing Doping in Sport to Nuclear Proliferators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Berlinger Bottle (Figure 1, below) is the central part of the BEREG-Kit that has been used by anti-doping agencies worldwide for over 25 years. As documented in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s investigative report [Ref 1], in 2014, Russian state-level actors found ways to defeat these bottles and was able to secretly replace an athlete’s drug-laced urine with clean urine samples that had been collected earlier. This cheating scheme allowed rampant performance enhancing drug use by its athletes, and (before disqualifications) earned Russia 33 medals in the 2014 Sochi Olympics – more than double its haul of 15 medals at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. All this activity was conducted despite the watchful eye of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Similarly, Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Team infamously used performance enhancing drugs and blood transfusions to win 7 Tour de France titles (again, before disqualification) in a row, all under the supervision of L’Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and the US Anti Doping Agency. The inspection role of anti-doping agencies is similar in scope to the role of a Safeguards Inspector with the International Atomic Energy Agency: detect the misuse of facilities, and conduct scheduled and randomized testing to detect and deter would-be cheaters. This paper will explore the motivation, the means, and the mistakes which led to discovery – and will draw out commonalities between those who seek to cheat in sports, and those who seek to undermine international nuclear safeguards as Iraq tried in the 1980s.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".