Do more tests lead to cleaner Games?
There will be 5,000 drugs tests at the London 2012 Olympics - a 10% increase from Beijing 2008 and more than any previous Games.
Professor David Cowan, the man in charge of the new £10million state of the art lab in Harlow, Essex, says they will be able to test for the broadest possible range of banned substances.
But are more tests necessarily the answer in the battle for sporting integrity?
In Athens in 2004 there were 26 positive tests from 3,667 samples collected. Four years later the tests went up to 4,770 but the number of positives went down to 20.
During the world athletics championships in Daegu last summer every athlete was tested but - and this still seems incredible to me - there wasn't a single positive test returned.
Like crime statistics, does the trend for less positive tests during competition reflect how sport is getting cleaner? Or - and I suspect this is the right answer - is it evidence that athletes are getting smarter and not risking putting anything illegal in their systems during the big events?
Then there is the question of how you test for something like blood doping where athletes take out their own blood, store it and then inject it back into their bloodstream to boost their red blood cell count and, in turn, their body's oxygen carrying capacity.
This increases stamina and performance but if the only indicator is a raised level of red blood cells then how are the testers to know if anything illegal has been going on?
Dwain Chambers (right) could still compete at the London 2012 Olympics after his drugs ban. Photo: AP
Scientists like Prof Cowan say the only way is for more sports to join athletics, swimming, cycling and rowing by making athletes carry their own biometric passport. Then testers will know how to spot anything abnormal.
For the IOC president Jacques Rogge there is a lot at stake with the London Games. The IOC's defeat in the Lashawn Merritt case last year was a major blow in the fight against the cheats.
The IOC's rule 45 previously banned any athlete guilty of a serious drugs offence from the next Olympics - even if they had served their ban by the time of the Games. But the Court of Arbitration for Sport forced the IOC to scrap that rule allowing Merritt and others to compete in London.
The British Olympic Association's own lifetime ban for serious drugs offenders faces the same fate when its own case is heard by the same court in March.
If the BOA has to abandon its treasured bylaw then, once again, it will send a signal that the movement is going soft on drugs just on the eve of the Games.
And no matter how many tests you do, it might be difficult for organisers to shake that impression.