• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

bio passport is a farce

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
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.

Yes it is.

As if the dopers aren't running the same tests to make sure they stay in bounds...
 
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
Visit site
This may not be quite the right thread, there's a number on the passport, but....

If everyone (technical/doctors/WADA etc) is coming out now saying its obvious Lance was doping in the 2009/10 tours because of his passport data.....where were they in 2009/10 calling him out? Some of these guys making comment now I believe were in positions of power in the testing community back then, but we heard nothing.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
I don't see the issue so much as being the methodology and I don't see the need to go all draconian. It just needs to be applied with absolute rigour and integrity by an organisation fully dedicated to enforcing the rules. Needless to say that is not the UCI which seems to have the morals of acolombian drug cartel.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
I think we should step back and look at the big picture....

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

Agree with cobblestones. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The biopassport is not perfect. But it's better than anything else out there. Anti-doping enforcement would be massively improved if the bio passport were to be strengthened by doing more tests, as well as doing retrospective tests. And heavier penalties for drug offences. And take testing away from UCI entirely, too much conflict of interest.
 
Aug 15, 2012
38
0
0
Visit site
Actually, the biopassport has a huge, fatal flaw. It is the elephant in the room, and the reason that the BP results themselves cannot be used for sanctions.

the BP does not generate objective results, it generates an expert's opinion. Without specific, statistical parameters strictly defining a "failed test", the BP is, at best, incomplete.

Specific values, like the 50% Hct limit, are too simplistic, since a "one size fits all" limit - any such limit - does not fit most in a fair way.

The BP attempts to address this disparity in personal blood values. This is progress indeed. But it leaves us relying on the opinions of those in charge.

You can see where that kind of thinking has gotten us...
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
4
0
Visit site
the biopassport works veyr well, for number of reasons but one of the most important ones is that it makes doctors and riders very scared to dope. just look at what ferrari has said and changed in doping policys in recent years because of it.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Visit site
The BP is not working and has not worked for some time.

If it was working then Armstrong would have been pulled up in 2009 and 2010 and been sanctioned. People saying that cycling is cleaner are simply putting a spin on PR exercise, there is no factual evidence to substantiate that cycling is actually cleaner. What cycling has are some impressive rules but rules which are not enforced. If they were being enforced then USADA wouldnt have had to take matters into their own hands.

Watching the main stream TV channels the past few days the reporting completely misses the point with all the athletes extolling the virtues of newer stricter testing regimes. The fact is that the regimes are no different to when Armstrong abused the system in 2009-2010 but its easier to fob joe public off with this explanation of the facts.

What people should be asking now is:

How many other riders have been allowed to carry on riding despite adverse findings on their blood profiles

Judging by the deafening silence in the past few days by many riders probably quite a few know that their names could come up should national federations request samples from the UCI and have them re-examined as USADA did. A lot of very worried riders at the moment keeping stum for fear of incriminating themselves by bad mouthing the UCI.

Its unbelievable just how much s**t they all must have on each other! Whats also unbelievable is that Radioshack have only sacked Bruyneel when there are probably a handful of other staff who must have witnessed what went on at previous teams and that Brailsford hasnt sacked Yates over motoman. What a joke - clean cycling teams? Nothing will change.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
B_Ugli said:
The BP is not working and has not worked for some time.

If it was working then Armstrong would have been pulled up in 2009 and 2010 and been sanctioned. People saying that cycling is cleaner are simply putting a spin on PR exercise, there is no factual evidence to substantiate that cycling is actually cleaner. What cycling has are some impressive rules but rules which are not enforced. If they were being enforced then USADA wouldnt have had to take matters into their own hands.

His numbers were flagged, but UCI ignored it!

B_Ugli said:
Watching the main stream TV channels the past few days the reporting completely misses the point with all the athletes extolling the virtues of newer stricter testing regimes. The fact is that the regimes are no different to when Armstrong abused the system in 2009-2010 but its easier to fob joe public off with this explanation of the facts.

What people should be asking now is:

How many other riders have been allowed to carry on riding despite adverse findings on their blood profiles

Judging by the deafening silence in the past few days by many riders probably quite a few know that their names could come up should national federations request samples from the UCI and have them re-examined as USADA did. A lot of very worried riders at the moment keeping stum for fear of incriminating themselves by bad mouthing the UCI.

Its unbelievable just how much s**t they all must have on each other! Whats also unbelievable is that Radioshack have only sacked Bruyneel when there are probably a handful of other staff who must have witnessed what went on at previous teams and that Brailsford hasnt sacked Yates over motoman. What a joke - clean cycling teams? Nothing will change.

Biopassport is a failed test against doping as it doesn't produce a positive/negative and someone like a Contador, Armstrong could find a way around it with the best doctors or if they get flagged the best lawyers.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
Not read the whole thread, but I propose:

1. Throw money at the premier experts/doping doctors to get access to their knowledge.

2. Design a programme of intelligent, targeted testing, even if it's more intrusive.

3. Make a racing license dependent on subscribing to that programme.

Agree that it's unrealistic to expect cycling to ever be clean, but it's also unrealistic to abandon controls: you just want the best testing available at the time. I'm actually not adverse to lifetime bans either, they would shorten the pain of the likes of Ricco.