Whereabouts: What's the inside verdict?
A month into my experiment of living under the UK Anti-Doping whereabouts system, I've learned many things - that athletes need to install very loud doorbells, that trips to your Mum's for Sunday lunch can lead to missed tests and that urinating in front of a complete stranger isn't quite as hard as you think it might be.
On Tuesday, I told the tale of it all on a special edition of 5live Sport's London Calling, alongside some key individuals from inside the system - those who run it, those who live it on a daily basis as professional athletes and those who feel it is seriously flawed.
Former Great Britain swimmer Karen Pickering was once a multiple World and Commonwealth medallist. She's now chair of the British Athletes' Commission, the body that represents the interests of elite Olympians in the UK, and has grave concerns about what her members are being asked to do.
"I've issues with the whereabouts system from the beginning, because of so many athletes being caught out," she says.
"You were finding that athletes were being caught for making a mistake with the system, rather than cheating, and I think that's a flaw in the system. I just question how much of a deterrent it is for the athletes who are going to cheat.
"I'm uncomfortable with the fact that so many athletes have got strikes against their names because they didn't fill the forms in properly or were not where they thought they would be. I would hate to see an athlete see their career ruined for being unorganised."
Chambers was banned for two years after being found guilty of taking an anabolic steroid. Photo: Getty
Sprinter Emily Freeman is as conscientious an athlete as there is; in her spare time she volunteers on UKAD's athlete committee.
But despite being organised enough to even log her whereabouts on the biggest day of her life ("I wrote IT'S MY WEDDING on the form, so they couldn't miss it"), she recently found herself enduring her worst nightmare: a missed test.
"I've been struggling with an injury for the last couple of months, so I've been here, there and everywhere getting treatment," she says.
"It was one of those days when I made a last-minute decision to stay at my training base in Loughborough, but I had my hour set at my home in Sheffield.
"I woke up to 40 missed calls from my husband telling me the drug testers had been to my house. It felt terrible, especially in the 18 months leading up to the Olympics.
"I've never missed a test before, but this was just scary - I felt quite teary, and like I'd let myself down, and everyone down. You feel like people are going to be suspicious, even though you've done nothing wrong."
Is the system too "draconian", as Andy Murray has claimed, or have the effect - as Rafa Nadal says - of making an innocent athlete "feel like a criminal"?
"I think the balance is about right. Yes it is arduous, yes it is invasive, but I would argue it's proportionate to the threat of doping," says Andy Parkinson, UKAD's chief executive.
"The system we have at the moment seems to me to be the best compromise between asking athletes where they're going to be 24 hours a day, to us never knowing where they're going to be and so having to take pot luck about finding people."
UKAD doesn't like to say how many out-of-competition tests an athlete is likely to receive each year, saying it would undermine the unpredictability of the programme. But, in track and field alone, there were 307 in-competition and 433 out-of-competition tests in 2010 - a clear indication of where UKAD believe the anti-doping war is best fought.
"It's a system we have to have in place, because if you're going to take something to improve your performance you're going to do it out of competition," says Parkinson. "We have to have a system that allows us to know where athletes are going to be."
Over the month that I've been on Adams (the Anti-Doping Administration and Management system) I've been impressed by how easy it is to update your whereabouts information.
While the Adams online programme is a little antiquated and sometimes tricky to find your way around, the text service - realise you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, text a number with your new details, receive an instant return message confirming the change - works beautifully.
"I do think they've made big strides forward in making sure athletes are able to correct their whereabouts as easily as possible," says Pickering.
"What I'm questioning is whether you need an athlete to say where they're going to be, or whether you just do out of competition testing.
"I want a clean sport all the way. Out of competition testing is absolutely vital. But is filling out a whereabouts form the way forward? We educate our athletes as much as possible to say, this is how it is, you cannot afford to fall foul of it.
"When I first did it we had to fill in a paper form by hand and then post it off, so we've come a long way. But I'm not sure that relying on this system is the best way to catch those who cheat."
Are the disorganised and naive more likely to get caught out rather than the cheats?
"We're very aware of that, which is why we pay an awful lot of attention to the educational support we offer athletes," says Parkinson.
"We understand that the interface is a little clunky, and we've been working hard with Wada (World Anti-Doping Agency) on a new, improved version which will hopefully be ready by the end of the year.
"We understand that it's hard for athletes, and that there should be a better way of doing it - but at the moment we haven't come up with one.
"Our systems have improved continuously over the past few years; we now have links with serious organised crime-fighting agencies, we have links with Interpol. We believe we have to track upstream."
UKAD's out-of-competition testing strategy is not entirely random. 36% of its drugs tests last year were targeted - aimed at specific athletes whose profile has aroused interest.
Is it proving effective?
Are there fewer drugs cheats in British Olympic sport than there were before the current system came in at the start of 2009?
"It is working," believes Parkinson. "We've got proof in terms of the statistics testing positive in the UK, and we've got anecdotal proof from athletes about the deterrent effect. To me that's the most important thing.
"Our job is not about catching cheats; our job is about preventing people from cheating. It would be harder for Dwain Chambers to cheat now like he did in 2003.
"Everything we do is about finding the balance between protecting the rights of the clean athletes, and making it harder for the cheats to cheat. We'll never get the balance completely right, but we're almost there, and we have to keep finessing it."