Bio passport compromised by micro-dosing

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Re: Re:

mrhender said:
Lyon said:
Which probably means that it is both more expensive and (at least) more logistically challenging than before. No more opportunistic upstarts, which is probably how the bigger teams in the peloton wants it.
Good point...

Also might be one of the reasons why the UCI thinks the ABP is a wonderful tool...
absolutely - as it fits perfectly with the self-perceived UCI mandate to ensure the showbusiness of cycling goes on, and if the masses need this stupid clean image (not seen in many sports), we'll give them some placebo so that they watch happily and sponsors pay
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re:

blackcat said:
less miles in offseason, = less plasma. ceterus paribus the 'crit should be raised by a few points. ask JV, his last test he tweeted where he had to get the MD assessment, they had his pegged at 52 or 53.

some skeptical souls on this board may not axiomatically trust JV, those Clinic12 mob are a cynical lot innit
He actually wrote 54. For me, it would have felt more real if he had have posted a quick phone pic of similar. I can write anything in a tweet, takes a lot more effort to fake a health insurance form. And I make it a rule to not trust snakes.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

He actually wrote 54. For me, it would have felt more real if he had have posted a quick phone pic of similar. I can write anything in a tweet, takes a lot more effort to fake a health insurance form. And I make it a rule to not trust snakes.[/quote]

ofcourse i was facetious
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
even after being accused of lying about his HCT by this John guy JV still couldn't figure out how to use his photocamera and post a pic of that 54HCT.
Do a Jan Ulrich on that one.

We know he was lying about the calibration issues in 1999.
Yet took recourse to the same story in 2009 and 2012 when his clean riders stormed onto GT podiums.

J 'pathological liar and doping enabler' V, i think that much is sure by now.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

neineinei said:
great link, worked just fine for me.
impressive bit of journalism, truth be told.

didn't see nobody going backwards there. quite the opposite.
Nice to see that one guy getting quote euphoric unquote from the extra power he got from those PEDs.
And all that in the space of one single month's time.

One of the biggest fairytales we've been sold over the past few years is that of athletes quitting PEDs out of some sort of ethical conscience bestowed upon them, or, even better, because it made them go backwards.
 
That's so depressing. If Wada is now corrupt like that sport has little hope. With *** Pound we always had someone genuinely anti doping speaking out.

I would like to hear what Pound would have to say upon hearing crap like that from the current President.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
It's fascinating that WADA aren't actually interested in clean sports. Remember how he has swept the whole russian lab scandal under the carpet and how he declared chinese sports 100% clean since they haven't tested positive in a while.

If you don't take it too seriously, it's actually really hillarious that the president of WADA is basically nothing more than a PR puppet designed to pretend sports are clean.
 
May 15, 2009
5
0
0
Sadly, it appears to me that this was not actually a scientific study (which would have had a control group and been double-blind), but a propaganda production with a defined outcome. Imagine that you're an amateur athlete going into this study and knowing what it's about. Wouldn't you be unconsciously (if not consciously) predisposed to sand-bag early on and really push to improve knowing that you were being given the "good stuff" which everyone "knows" to be a huge advantage? Unless I'm reading this wrong, they missed a good opportunity for a true scientific study and have now muddied the waters for any future true scientific study. I'm not saying that microdosing isn't a huge advantage. I'm saying that we don't know that it is based on this "study," unfortunately.
 
Re:

rhodescl said:
Sadly, it appears to me that this was not actually a scientific study (which would have had a control group and been double-blind), but a propaganda production with a defined outcome. Imagine that you're an amateur athlete going into this study and knowing what it's about. Wouldn't you be unconsciously (if not consciously) predisposed to sand-bag early on and really push to improve knowing that you were being given the "good stuff" which everyone "knows" to be a huge advantage? Unless I'm reading this wrong, they missed a good opportunity for a true scientific study and have now muddied the waters for any future true scientific study. I'm not saying that microdosing isn't a huge advantage. I'm saying that we don't know that it is based on this "study," unfortunately.
No. You don't need a double-blind experiment to show that doping while compromising the biopassport is possible. The study is certainly valid to reach that conclusion.
Insofar as measuring performance gains, I agree that a double-blind experiment is preferred, though I don't agree with your assumption that participants would subconsciously manipulate the test in favor of a positive outcome any more than they would do it in favor of a negative outcome.
 
May 15, 2009
5
0
0
Re: Re:

Moose McKnuckles said:
rhodescl said:
Sadly, it appears to me that this was not actually a scientific study (which would have had a control group and been double-blind), but a propaganda production with a defined outcome. Imagine that you're an amateur athlete going into this study and knowing what it's about. Wouldn't you be unconsciously (if not consciously) predisposed to sand-bag early on and really push to improve knowing that you were being given the "good stuff" which everyone "knows" to be a huge advantage? Unless I'm reading this wrong, they missed a good opportunity for a true scientific study and have now muddied the waters for any future true scientific study. I'm not saying that microdosing isn't a huge advantage. I'm saying that we don't know that it is based on this "study," unfortunately.
No. You don't need a double-blind experiment to show that doping while compromising the biopassport is possible. The study is certainly valid to reach that conclusion.
Insofar as measuring performance gains, I agree that a double-blind experiment is preferred, though I don't agree with your assumption that participants would subconsciously manipulate the test in favor of a positive outcome any more than they would do it in favor of a negative outcome.
I didn't mean to say that the report show that didn't microdosing isn't caught in the biological passport. Proving that wouldn't have required athletes or any performance testing. You could just inject couch potatoes with micro-doses and see if it could be identified in the blood tests. What I'm saying is that the "study" doesn't show how much true advantage is provided by the tested micro-dosing. Certainly there's some level where microdosing would have zero or near zero affect (and, of course, be undetectable at the same time). If you don't scientifically document a performance enhancement and undetectability with the same dosage in the same study, you've wasted your efforts and proven nothing useful.

As for not subconsciously manipulating the outcome of a study, you have heard of the placebo affect, certainly. Have you not?
 
Re: Re:

rhodescl said:
Moose McKnuckles said:
rhodescl said:
Sadly, it appears to me that this was not actually a scientific study (which would have had a control group and been double-blind), but a propaganda production with a defined outcome. Imagine that you're an amateur athlete going into this study and knowing what it's about. Wouldn't you be unconsciously (if not consciously) predisposed to sand-bag early on and really push to improve knowing that you were being given the "good stuff" which everyone "knows" to be a huge advantage? Unless I'm reading this wrong, they missed a good opportunity for a true scientific study and have now muddied the waters for any future true scientific study. I'm not saying that microdosing isn't a huge advantage. I'm saying that we don't know that it is based on this "study," unfortunately.
No. You don't need a double-blind experiment to show that doping while compromising the biopassport is possible. The study is certainly valid to reach that conclusion.
Insofar as measuring performance gains, I agree that a double-blind experiment is preferred, though I don't agree with your assumption that participants would subconsciously manipulate the test in favor of a positive outcome any more than they would do it in favor of a negative outcome.
I didn't mean to say that the report didn't microdosing isn't caught in the biological passport. Proving that wouldn't have require athletes or any performance testing. You could just inject couch potatoes with micro-doses and see if it could be identified in the blood tests. What I'm saying is that the "study" doesn't show how much true advantage is provided by the tested micro-dosing. Certainly there's some level where microdosing would have zero or near zero affect (and, of course, be undetectable at the same time). If you don't scientifically document a performance enhancement and undetectability with the same dosage in the same study, you've wasted your efforts and proven nothing useful.

As for not subconsciously manipulating the outcome of a study, you have heard of the placebo affect, certainly. Have you not?
I've heard of the placebo "effect". Learn to spell it if you're going to be snarky. What you don't seem to understand is that athletes can just as easily sandbag at the end of the study as they can at the beginning.

I've already explained to you that I agree that a double-blind test would have been preferred. However, the effects of micro-dosing have been well discussed and well documented for years. See below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26micro.html

It is already well-known that microdosing can significant increase performance. The more interesting question is whether it can be done while avoiding detection. This study shows that it can.
 
May 15, 2009
5
0
0
Re:

IndianCyclist said:
I think several athletes/teams have already conducted their own research on this and are already masters of microdosing
That's why it would be great if this were an actual scientific study which showed that a given amount of microdosing was undetectable AND produced measurable and significant performance enhancement. The scientific method to demonstrate such things is very well known. The fact that it was seemingly not followed in this case can only mean that the "study" was done with a different purpose in mind.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
neineinei said:
Analysis of the blood profiles of the eight athletes who took part in the experiment demonstrated that they would not have fallen foul of the biological passport’s parameters. As France 2’s report concluded, the experiment demonstrates that “a clean passport is not necessarily the passport of a clean athlete.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport
Less than 3% improvement in performance in a month. So, one needs much better methods if one wants to transform from an average rider to a GT-contender overnight (or in a couple of weeks).
 
Re: Re:

rhodescl said:
IndianCyclist said:
I think several athletes/teams have already conducted their own research on this and are already masters of microdosing
That's why it would be great if this were an actual scientific study which showed that a given amount of microdosing was undetectable AND produced measurable and significant performance enhancement. The scientific method to demonstrate such things is very well known. The fact that it was seemingly not followed in this case can only mean that the "study" was done with a different purpose in mind.
I don't recall that the study was presented as a "scientific" study that follows the necessary protocols, for publishing in a scientific journal for example.

I assume that one reason the sample was relatively small is that given the nature of the project (giving banned doping products to active athletes) would preclude easy access to a larger group. This would also make it difficult to use a "control" group. It was discussed in the report that it wasn't easy to put the study group together.

After watching the report, it appears that the conditions were very controlled and the methods were as "scientific" as possible.

If you don't appreciate this approach, then tough on you. For as long as I have been on these forums it has been said that we don't really know what the actual effects of doping are. Now we have an idea. If you don't like that, and if you believe there was an ulterieur motive to the study, that is your problem.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
So how many years behind are Stade2? 7 or 8?

Didn't Thomas Frei admit to micro-dosing when he got caught. Did he admit to how many years he was at it?

This is not news to the clinic. But it does put into perspective the idea that some people believe clean riders could beat micro-dosing ones.

This year has seen a lot of wins by convicted dopers.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re: Re:

rhodescl said:
That's why it would be great if this were an actual scientific study which showed that a given amount of microdosing was undetectable AND produced measurable and significant performance enhancement. The scientific method to demonstrate such things is very well known. The fact that it was seemingly not followed in this case can only mean that the "study" was done with a different purpose in mind.
Just so it is crystal clear -Could you enlighten us as to what purpose that is?

I'd much rather have questions about efficiency of anti-doping systems raised in the media then not...

Maybe someone will be inspired to do a more thorough and updated study, would that not be a good thing?

And this is not the first time questions are raised in regards to the ABP's potential shortcomings..
Ashenden et al did a study in 2011 in which EPO microdosing did not flag the passport..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951

You can always critizize the methods and conclusions and I do think most people would have preferred an unquestionable clear slam dunk (whichever way conclusions were) case..
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re:

harryh said:
Less than 3% improvement in performance in a month. So, one needs much better methods if one wants to transform from an average rider to a GT-contender overnight (or in a couple of weeks).
Are you nuts? 3% in a month is huge. Depending on how long you can improve gains will be immense. And that's without supposing there will be people who respond a lot better.

That said, it certainly is a shame there was no double blind testing as the placebo effect has indeed been shown in these tests. I'm also certain these riders will have unconciously trained a bit harder. It's extremely unlikely they will have sandbagged during the test, especially not with the scrutiny of the project they were part of. That would just go straight against usual behavior during these things.

The result is people will and can deny the outcome and they are not completely wrong.

Note that I think the outcome is not only correct, I think you can push the limits even more, especially with fully monitored athletes... but this test is just very vulnerable for justified attacks.
 
Re: Re:

rhodescl said:
IndianCyclist said:
I think several athletes/teams have already conducted their own research on this and are already masters of microdosing
That's why it would be great if this were an actual scientific study which showed that a given amount of microdosing was undetectable AND produced measurable and significant performance enhancement. The scientific method to demonstrate such things is very well known. The fact that it was seemingly not followed in this case can only mean that the "study" was done with a different purpose in mind.
Thing is though, the fact that microdosing is undetectable and provides a benefit, is already well known. We already know that.

We know because Michael Ashenden said so.
 
May 15, 2009
5
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
rhodescl said:
IndianCyclist said:
I think several athletes/teams have already conducted their own research on this and are already masters of microdosing
That's why it would be great if this were an actual scientific study which showed that a given amount of microdosing was undetectable AND produced measurable and significant performance enhancement. The scientific method to demonstrate such things is very well known. The fact that it was seemingly not followed in this case can only mean that the "study" was done with a different purpose in mind.
Thing is though, the fact that microdosing is undetectable and provides a benefit, is already well known. We already know that.

We know because Michael Ashenden said so.
Now that sounds very scientific indeed. An opinion poll of one person is even more convincing than testing of 8 which is, in turn, more convincing than testing 4-6 with 2-4 set aside as a double-blind control group.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY