Bio passport compromised by micro-dosing

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
harryh said:
sniper said:
don't know what harryh is saying.
In the VO2 max test, an average improvement of 6.1% was recorded.
while an average gain of 2.1% was reported in the 14km static bike time trial. In the 3,000-metres run, there was an average improvement of 2.8%.
In cycling, the relationship between change in speed and the power required to do so is roughly to the third power. So a 2.1% reduction in time trial time requires 6 to 10% more power. That's a lot!
Yeah, that's the case when air resistance is present or if one rides on a (good) fluid resistance trainer. However, comparing the mentioned improvements in static bike time trial and 3000 metres run, I would say that they have use a static bike in which the power need grows linearly with the speed.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Re:

sir fly said:
I see the bio passport just like a more complex extension of the 50% rule... a more sophisticated prevention tool. A prevention from harmful consequences, not the doping, apparently.
Exactly, as UCI realized the "wild west" era (90s + Uniballer's crusade) was not good for their business in the end - they don't care much about riders' health nor the clean image as long as the show goes on, but at some point it was simply too much. So in order to avoid ridiculous things happening and unbelievable performances occuring every second day, they decided that from now, the gains can only be marginal, not "galactical". But this (passport) happened more or less by chance - it could be anything else that worked to level the field a bit (say, some mechanical stuff "braking" with the fourth power of velocity).
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Vaughters silence on this is deafening. But not unsurprising. When a team spends money (half a million) on internal testing it is not to ensure riders are not doping, but to ensure the 'program' is working and undetecable.
I keep on wondering what is at the route of Ted King's retirement. Seems like he's riding into his prime to me and he's now stopped.

Tired of dealing with doping and Vaughters? I wonder.
 
Re: Re:

rhodescl said:
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.
This is not how a double blind study works at all. There is no such thing as a "double-blind control group". If it's a known control group it's not even blind. You're either really struggling to get a coherent point across here, or you really don't know what you are talking about and just parroting the "double-blind" mantra that seems to have become pervasive in common science discussions without the proponents actually knowing what it is and when it's applicable.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

rhodescl said:
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.
actually, Ash was the first to deconstruct the ABP. He has already done his experiments on EPO's effects on the biopp
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

doperhopper said:
Exactly, as UCI realized the "wild west" era (90s + Uniballer's crusade) was not good for their business in the end - they don't care much about riders' health nor the clean image as long as the show goes on, but at some point it was simply too much. So in order to avoid ridiculous things happening and unbelievable performances occuring every second day, they decided that from now, the gains can only be marginal, not "galactical". But this (passport) happened more or less by chance - it could be anything else that worked to level the field a bit (say, some mechanical stuff "braking" with the fourth power of velocity).
no, they will double down soon, it is like the wall street banker, interim profits and recording quarterly commissions on growing profits, but in the long run, when the risk is correctly assessed, never was a profit, so the doping will go back to SSDD, because all the incentives are accrued to the individual and their motivation to dope, and the UCI then cannot pull down the top dog, and the arms race ensues. until the next bust ~10 yrs away. By which time, Virenque has profited more than Bassons, Andreau was the outast and Lance rich in UBS Warburg anon trust account
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-05/wada-statement-on-france-televisions-abp-documentary


WADA is now aware of the five complete profiles produced by the study. Of those five, two would have been considered “positive” cases under the ABP model if properly used, and three would have been “suspicious” cases leading to targeted testing.

WADA accepts that the documentary did raise questions over the ability of athletes to dope by taking minimal amounts of performance enhancing substances without testing positive. We are very alert to ‘micro-dosing’; it is an issue that we are exploring in great detail with experts from across the anti-doping community, including in particular those responsible for enhancing the passport.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

TailWindHome said:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-05/wada-statement-on-france-televisions-abp-documentary


WADA is now aware of the five complete profiles produced by the study. Of those five, two would have been considered “positive” cases under the ABP model if properly used, and three would have been “suspicious” cases leading to targeted testing.

WADA accepts that the documentary did raise questions over the ability of athletes to dope by taking minimal amounts of performance enhancing substances without testing positive. We are very alert to ‘micro-dosing’; it is an issue that we are exploring in great detail with experts from across the anti-doping community, including in particular those responsible for enhancing the passport.
#wow, what a surprise reaction
#chasing the facts
#damage control
#reedie sell out
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS