bio passport is a farce

[Ninety5rpm]

So, I'm thinking the whole bio passport thing is a farce based on the absurd underlying idea that "doping" in general is not what is banned, but, rather, only being "outside of a priori defined parameters".

Imagine that murderers created a union, called the UMI, to which they paid dues so that the UMI could lobby for laws that did not make knowingly killing an innocent human in general illegal, but rather, only very specific acts would be illegal. So, for example, it would be illegal to give someone too much of certain potentially deadly substances, but if you give someone a combination, such that none of the amount of the individual substances exceed the parameters that made it alone known to be lethal (and thus murder), but the combination did happen to kill that person, that wouldn't be murder. Not illegal in any way. Sure, they could modify the rules and add new restrictions, including making certain combinations illegal, but unless and until a particular dosage or combination of doses was officially identified to be lethal and illegal to give to others, it wouldn't be murder to given that to others in order to kill them. What a great union that would be!

That, more or less, is what the UCI has done for cyclists in the name of "cleaning up" the sport. Dope all you want - just don't exceed "the bio passport parameters". It's a farce, a sham.

 

[LMaggitti]

As frustrating as it is to see comments by people who claim that lack of positives "proves" riders are clean (and I'm increasingly convinced that BPC is a troll who doesn't really believe that for a minute), and as much as there is reason to question the credibility of the UCI vis a vis doping, it's hard for me to see the bio passport as a negative thing. It's not as if any SERIOUS person claims that it (by itself) is a solution to the doping problem.

Obviously more is needed in terms of testing. What I don't know - and really NONE of us knows to anything close to a certainty - is whether the lack of more stringent controls is a result of the difficulty of the testers staying ahead of the dopers, combined with a legitimate effort to avoid false positives, or a result of a "bad" motive on the part of the UCI. Unlike many on this forum, I suspect the former rather than the latter is true, but I could be wrong.

Edit - assume for a moment that there is no current technological way to insure clean riding without risking WAY too many false positives. Then I'd much rather have a system which at least minimizes the doping & levels the playing field somewhat.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

As frustrating as it is to see comments by people who claim that lack of positives "proves" riders are clean (and I'm increasingly convinced that BPC is a troll who doesn't really believe that for a minute), and as much as there is reason to question the credibility of the UCI vis a vis doping, it's hard for me to see the bio passport as a negative thing. It's not as if any SERIOUS person claims that it (by itself) is a solution to the doping problem.

Obviously more is needed in terms of testing. What I don't know - and really NONE of us knows to anything close to a certainty - is whether the lack of more stringent controls is a result of the difficulty of the testers staying ahead of the dopers, combined with a legitimate effort to avoid false positives, or a result of a "bad" motive on the part of the UCI. Unlike many on this forum, I suspect the former rather than the latter is true, but I could be wrong.

Edit - assume for a moment that there is no current technological way to insure clean riding without risking WAY too many false positives. Then I'd much rather have a system which at least minimizes the doping & levels the playing field somewhat.

It depends on what percentage of all the potential methods of using PEDs are restricted by the passport. Based on this year's performances at the Tour, I think the evidence is pretty clear that quite a variety of methods that are within the parameters of the passport are quite effective and being used despite the passport system and the testing.

That doesn't mean it's negative - just that it's effectively neutral with respect to cleaning the sport - has no significant effect. That's what makes it a farce. And to the extent that people believe it is effective, I would say it is a negative in that respect.

But my main point is the farce of the touting of the passport system as being effective by the UCI and the cycling industry. They know better.

 

[Mellow Velo]

For passport read safety net.

 

[the truth.]

soo much potential

it could be amazing. but who knows

the results are hidden all $14 million dollars and 19 months of them

it is a scandal and a farse. UCI mis managed an element of a possible solution until it is now a shadow.

no rider has been caught on it. NONE,
conventional testing and rumour following still rocks and is improving.

 

[fatandfast]

So the same data that they have compiled for 10+ years are used to come up with a passport values for an "average pro". Lance had one ball and nothing came up, Vino is caught 2 years ago after his eyebrows are growing over the lids. Di Luca wins with a pink ring on his wrist for earthquakes, I guess he left his passport at the hotel. It's funny(not) all the 9/11 high jackers had legal visas/passports to be in the US. We need to start over with this passport idea. We should stop including pro cyclists in the Olympics that solves most problems. Stop testing them, when they fall ,treat them like any good race horse with a broken leg. Change the name to Top Fuel or F-1 bike racing like it should have been so long ago.

 

[Cobblestones]

I think we should step back and look at the big picture. The passport was basically born from the idea that detecting all kinds of new, improved and altered PEDs is a lost race, and therefore, a better approach would be to set hard limits on certain physiological parameters.

As an example, it is impossible to test for all kinds of EPO-type products, transfusions and whatnot, but it is very simple to set a limit on, say "crit" and "off score".

Now the problems with this approach are clear. First of all, it does not prevent doping. As it is implemented today, the exact same limits apply to all riders, never mind what their natural levels are. This means that (i) the limits have to be set very high in order to include any natural outlier and freak of nature, and (ii) the passport can be abused to judge up to which level a rider can juice (just ask Kohl).

What would help the passport (and I think that was part of the point when it was invented) would be to set individual limits for each rider based on their natural levels. This has never been implemented. Imagine the juridical nightmare of having different limits for different riders, although it would make sense scientifically. Also, it isn't clear to me how one could obtain a true 'natural' level for any rider. Anyway, this has to be addressed in order to make the passport a true success. Implementation of such a policy will decide whether the passport is worth the effort or not.

Now, although this last, most important piece is missing, the people overseeing the passport program are not stupid. Of course they see that certain levels drop and rise in ways which are unnatural, even if they never come close to the (very generous) limits. What they can do then is targeted testing. Now, at that point, you're basically back at square one: the old race between drug and test development. However, at least you can spend the resources for testing more effectively. So maybe, there's a little gain.

All in all, a small, partial success with potential for vast improvement.

 

[cromagnon]

With the bio passport you are actually making a more direct measure of unfair performance enhancement. If you think about it detection of a drug is not detection of performance enhancement scientifically speaking it is merely detection of a drug that you assume will boost certain parameters.

By measuring those parameters directly you are well, measuring the parameters directly for unnatural levels. I've yet to hear a call for the bio passport to replace doping controls, it seems a two pronged attack.

It's fun to roleplay the uber-cynic, it's a good way to generate a following of fans too but some of you guys on here remind me of the UFO coverup types in the 90's and early days of mass interweb usage.

 

[Cobblestones]

With the bio passport you are actually making a more direct measure of unfair performance enhancement. If you think about it detection of a drug is not detection of performance enhancement scientifically speaking it is merely detection of a drug that you assume will boost certain parameters.

By measuring those parameters directly you are well, measuring the parameters directly for unnatural levels. I've yet to hear a call for the bio passport to replace doping controls, it seems a two pronged attack.

It's fun to roleplay the uber-cynic, it's a good way to generate a following of fans too but some of you guys on here remind me of the UFO coverup types in the 90's and early days of mass interweb usage.

You're not correct. First of all, the passport was envisioned to be a better anti-doping tool than current testing is. Maybe it wasn't thought to replace testing, but it was advertised as superior because of what you're saying: you measure the actual physiological changes, not try to detect the drugs which induce them.

What I'm saying is that in the current incarnation, the passport is not delivering. So what do you do when you see a rider's crit go up from say 39 to 47 and the off score from 80 to 120? Both are within the limits, but with such changes there can't be any doubt about doping. The best you can do in such a situation is targeted testing. The irony is that the passport scientifically could do a good job in detecting doping, but the legal framework of individual limits etc. is not in place for it to be effective.

 

[usedtobefast]

You're not correct. First of all, the passport was envisioned to be a better anti-doping tool than current testing is. Maybe it wasn't thought to replace testing, but it was advertised as superior because of what you're saying: you measure the actual physiological changes, not try to detect the drugs which induce them.

What I'm saying is that in the current incarnation, the passport is not delivering. So what do you do when you see a rider's crit go up from say 39 to 47 and the off score from 80 to 120? Both are within the limits, but with such changes there can't be any doubt about doping. The best you can do in such a situation is targeted testing. The irony is that the passport scientifically could do a good job in detecting doping, but the legal framework of individual limits etc. is not in place for it to be effective.

so what is the answer then? more intrusion into riders lives? i am not a medical professional, so i defer to the experts on medical issues.
i do feel the passport with the given flaws keeps things under control.
i think rider health should be the first emphasis. the passport seems to
address that. whether values rise or fall within the guidelines, may indicate
manipulation of said values. if the values stay in the legal limit is that wrong?

 

[Cobber]

You're not correct. First of all, the passport was envisioned to be a better anti-doping tool than current testing is. Maybe it wasn't thought to replace testing, but it was advertised as superior because of what you're saying: you measure the actual physiological changes, not try to detect the drugs which induce them.

What I'm saying is that in the current incarnation, the passport is not delivering. So what do you do when you see a rider's crit go up from say 39 to 47 and the off score from 80 to 120? Both are within the limits, but with such changes there can't be any doubt about doping. The best you can do in such a situation is targeted testing. The irony is that the passport scientifically could do a good job in detecting doping, but the legal framework of individual limits etc. is not in place for it to be effective.

+1..... I think the problem a lot of people have with the passport is that it is too easy to beat, as evidenced by the number of athletes that have been caught doping outside of the passport (ie. Kohl etc). Micro-dosing EPO is still cheating. It is still giving an advantage that an undoped athlete would not have. I can see why the passport limits need to be high, so as to prevent false positives. Maybe what is needed is some kind of limit on variation between tests?

Oh.. and good to see you back around here Cobblestones.

 

[Cobblestones]

so what is the answer then? more intrusion into riders lives? i am not a medical professional, so i defer to the experts on medical issues.
i do feel the passport with the given flaws keeps things under control.
i think rider health should be the first emphasis. the passport seems to
address that. whether values rise or fall within the guidelines, may indicate
manipulation of said values. if the values stay in the legal limit is that wrong?

Dude, I just wrote twice what I think should be done (and what I think was the plan all along): Individual limits.

That is to say, when your normal crit is x, any increase by more than, say 4 points should get you kicked out (maybe one should put a provision for altitude training in there). If your normal off score is y, any increase by, let's say 25%, should stop you from racing. And so on, and so on.

Sure it sucks when your natural crit is 40 and your colleague's is 46 so you would get kicked out at 44 while the other guy can still ride at 49. But the point is, a "natural 40" cannot get up to 49 without doping (I don't know how much altitude training could do, but surely not that much).

Now, of course, there's still the problem of establishing a baseline. With the year-round doping regime of some riders, that's going to be hard. Maybe one should extent the passport down to 21 or even 18 year olds with the hope that they at least in the off season might be clean. So altogether one would need to wait a few more years for all that to take effect.

 

[Cobblestones]

+
Oh.. and good to see you back around here Cobblestones.

I took my summer vacation.

 

[usedtobefast]

Dude, I just wrote twice what I think should be done (and what I think was the plan all along): Individual limits.

That is to say, when your normal crit is x, any increase by more than, say 4 points should get you kicked out (maybe one should put a provision for altitude training in there). If your normal off score is y, any increase by, let's say 25%, should stop you from racing. And so on, and so on.

Sure it sucks when your natural crit is 40 and your colleague's is 46 so you would get kicked out at 44 while the other guy can still ride at 49. But the point is, a "natural 40" cannot get up to 49 without doping (I don't know how much altitude training could do, but surely not that much).

Now, of course, there's still the problem of establishing a baseline. With the year-round doping regime of some riders, that's going to be hard. Maybe one should extent the passport down to 21 or even 18 year olds with the hope that they at least in the off season might be clean. So altogether one would need to wait a few more years for all that to take effect.

sorry i missed your individual limits part. (my bad eyes.)

 

[sars1981]

so what is the answer then? more intrusion into riders lives? i am not a medical professional, so i defer to the experts on medical issues.
i do feel the passport with the given flaws keeps things under control.
i think rider health should be the first emphasis. the passport seems to
address that. whether values rise or fall within the guidelines, may indicate
manipulation of said values. if the values stay in the legal limit is that wrong?

Why can't every team be supervised every moment throughout the tour? No alone time! Escorts to the bathroom! K.O. doping!

 

[VeloFidelis]

Why can't every team be supervised every moment throughout the tour? No alone time! Escorts to the bathroom! K.O. doping!

Because we are talking about sport, not prison.

The real farce here is the notion that there has ever been, or is ever going to be "clean" (read drug free) competition in cycling, swimming, track & and field, team sports, gymnastics, wrestling, boxing, knitting... you name it. If people are competing then competitors are cheating. It has always been, and it will always be.

Defining acceptable parameters with a Blood Passport system is an acceptable solution. Believing that doping can ever be eliminated is both naive and foolish.

 

[Anonymous]

Because we are talking about sport, not prison.

The real farce here is the notion that there has ever been, or is ever going to be "clean" (read drug free) competition in cycling, swimming, track & and field, team sports, gymnastics, wrestling, boxing, knitting... you name it. If people are competing then competitors are cheating. It has always been, and it will always be.

Defining acceptable parameters with a Blood Passport system is an acceptable solution. Believing that doping can ever be eliminated is both naive and foolish.

"I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."
Lance Armstrong

 

[blackcat]

Because we are talking about sport, not prison.

The real farce here is the notion that there has ever been, or is ever going to be "clean" (read drug free) competition in cycling, swimming, track & and field, team sports, gymnastics, wrestling, boxing, knitting... you name it. If people are competing then competitors are cheating. It has always been, and it will always be.

Defining acceptable parameters with a Blood Passport system is an acceptable solution. Believing that doping can ever be eliminated is both naive and foolish.

its not a prison. Riders in a GT think about recovery 24-7. They are not needing time to go read a politcal manifesto at the local library, or stream high speed graphic porn.

 

[Hugh Januss]

"I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."
Lance Armstrong

OK That is funny!

 

[sars1981]

Because we are talking about sport, not prison.

True. But a lot of these riders are making enough money to make a short "prison camp" for a coupe of weeks a year well worth while. Either we are serious about making the sport clean or we're not. Since the riders have proven they cant be trusted, I say all privleges are revoked. I bet the clean riders who's names will never be remembed in cycling history would submit to the "prison" conditions with open hearts.

 

[badboyberty]

True. But a lot of these riders are making enough money to make a short "prison camp" for a coupe of weeks a year well worth while. Either we are serious about making the sport clean or we're not. Since the riders have proven they cant be trusted, I say all privleges are revoked. I bet the clean riders who's names will never be remembed in cycling history would submit to the "prison" conditions with open hearts.

One, most doping happens out of competition, so your short 'prison' term would have to be for 52 weeks a year. Even if was only 'in' competition, have you heard of the spring classics, the Worlds, Giro de Lombardia or il Giro d'Italia and la Veulta Espana? The pro-cycling season runs from January to October, that's a lot of time to have someone shadow 200 odd athletes who primarily train by going for long rides in the countryside. Or is cycling only le Tour to you?

Right now the bio-passport with targeted testing is the best solution that's been applied so far, but without a major international treaty (at the government level) that takes national federations out of the equation, everything will always be a bit hit and miss. If you can't watch sport without locking people up for extended periods, maybe you should find other hobbies like macramé and knitting.

 

[sars1981]

One, most doping happens out of competition, so your short 'prison' term would have to be for 52 weeks a year. Even if was only 'in' competition, have you heard of the spring classics, the Worlds, Giro de Lombardia or il Giro d'Italia and la Veulta Espana? The pro-cycling season runs from January to October, that's a lot of time to have someone shadow 200 odd athletes who primarily train by going for long rides in the countryside. Or is cycling only le Tour to you?

Right now the bio-passport with targeted testing is the best solution that's been applied so far, but without a major international treaty (at the government level) that takes national federations out of the equation, everything will always be a bit hit and miss. If you can't watch sport without locking people up for extended periods, maybe you should find other hobbies like macramé and knitting.

Cycling is mostly about the big two tours for me. No shame in admitiing that. But I also take an interest in doping in all sports. You could say my passion is the science of doping in sports. As for the biopass being the best answer, that might be true. But is is also wholey inadequate. Personally, I think there is no way that the testing method of control can ever make an impact against doping. The only way to get rid of it is a supervision method of control. Supervision during the major tours would be take care of blood doping.

I do understand that such a proposal is ridiculous. But profession cycling has become ridiculous anyway.

 

[VeloFidelis]

I do understand that such a proposal is ridiculous. But profession cycling has become ridiculous anyway.

Thanks for the admission that the proposal is, while short of ridiculous, unable to be realistically implemented.

We have to remember that athlete's have the same rights that we do. They are not surrendered as a price of competition. It is unreasonable to hold athlete's to a standard of supervision that we would not accept in our own daily lives.

The Blood Passport system is only a farce to those who feel that the elimination of doping in sport is a realistic possibility. For those of us who accept that as an impossibility, controlling it through realistic and measurable parameters is an acceptable solution.

Accepting that there has never been a race in the history of cycling is which there has not been some manner of cheating is the first step towards understanding why reasonable controls are preferable to striving for absolute controls

 

[sars1981]

Thanks for the admission that the proposal is, while short of ridiculous, unable to be realistically implemented.

We have to remember that athlete's have the same rights that we do. They are not surrendered as a price of competition. It is unreasonable to hold athlete's to a standard of supervision that we would not accept in our own daily lives.

The Blood Passport system is only a farce to those who feel that the elimination of doping in sport is a realistic possibility. For those of us who accept that as an impossibility, controlling it through realistic and measurable parameters is an acceptable solution.

Accepting that there has never been a race in the history of cycling is which there has not been some manner of cheating is the first step towards understanding why reasonable controls are preferable to striving for absolute controls

Points taken. However, there is already existing a strong distinction between what is an acceptable level of intrusion into ones life when one is talking about professional athletes as opposed to Joe Citizens. For example, if a police officer asked me for a urine sample, I would contact civil liberties. For athletes, though, it is not considered intrusive. Current thinking says that surprise blood tests by "vampires" are not an unacceptable level of intrusion (which is quite surprising really), either. So the question really isnt wheather it is ethical to subject riders to gross invasions of privacy, because we all seem to consider that part of the job description, it is only about the degree.
Personally, I don't see supervising riders around the clock to be far more zealous that what currently happens. But it would be far more effective. WOuldn get rid of doping entirely but it would get rid of all the blood doping and micro doping during Tours. That in itself would be a huge advancement.

 

[blackcat]

Thanks for the admission that the proposal is, while short of ridiculous, unable to be realistically implemented.

We have to remember that athlete's have the same rights that we do. They are not surrendered as a price of competition. It is unreasonable to hold athlete's to a standard of supervision that we would not accept in our own daily lives.

flawed thesis, no one is compelled to be a professional cyclist, there is no compulsory draft. In the Japan keirin racing, riders are quarantined for a carnival. They are not prisoners, or imprisoned, it is merely the price they must consent to, to ride in a lucrative professional race series, underpinned by gambling dollars.

No doping, or restricted doping, and a better reputation and perception in the public's eyes, the sport will be far richer.

Armstrong is an artificial boost to the economy, that leaves with him, it is not sustainable. The UCI and race promoters like the ASO should be working towards a sustainable future, and restrict doping.

The civil liberty arguments are best left to debate on Guantanamo and the Patriot Act.

Surely for every contention that the doping supervision compromises ones civil liberties, there are counter arguments on clean athletes having an equal right to enforce a clean sport. No individual is compelled to buy in to the supervision and testing. If you are against it, take up carpentry.