• 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 Process For Dummies

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
DirtyWorks

DirtyWorks

Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Visit site
Inner Ring has an excellent explanation with graphics of how the anti-doping process works.

http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

What's not explicit is the sports federation is the one ordering WADA to do stuff. If the sports federation doesn't make the requests (and pay for it) it doesn't get done.

Positive results can go unprocessed in the APMU as they did with Armstrong's 2009 red-hot samples with no consequences to anyone. WADA frequently discusses the problem of sports federations hiding positives. Not processing positive results in the APMU is just one way to hide positives.
 
Benotti69

Benotti69

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Inner Ring has an excellent explanation with graphics of how the anti-doping process works.

http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

What's not explicit is the sports federation is the one ordering WADA to do stuff. If the sports federation doesn't make the requests (and pay for it) it doesn't get done.

Positive results can go unprocessed in the APMU as they did with Armstrong's 2009 red-hot samples with no consequences to anyone. WADA frequently discusses the problem of sports federations hiding positives. Not processing positive results in the APMU is just one way to hide positives.
Click to expand...

Who is surprised :rolleyes:

This is precisely the reason Tennis wants to introduce BP, because they can use it to show tennis is clean.
 
S

sniper

Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
interesting.
so wrt JTL at least three wada specialists agree that
“it is highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method had been used and unlikely that it is the result of any other cause”.
that's more serious than i thought.
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Inner Ring has an excellent explanation with graphics of how the anti-doping process works.

http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

What's not explicit is the sports federation is the one ordering WADA to do stuff. If the sports federation doesn't make the requests (and pay for it) it doesn't get done.

Positive results can go unprocessed in the APMU as they did with Armstrong's 2009 red-hot samples with no consequences to anyone. WADA frequently discusses the problem of sports federations hiding positives. Not processing positive results in the APMU is just one way to hide positives.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain that.
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Inner Ring has an excellent explanation with graphics of how the anti-doping process works.

http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

What's not explicit is the sports federation is the one ordering WADA to do stuff. If the sports federation doesn't make the requests (and pay for it) it doesn't get done.

Positive results can go unprocessed in the APMU as they did with Armstrong's 2009 red-hot samples with no consequences to anyone. WADA frequently discusses the problem of sports federations hiding positives. Not processing positive results in the APMU is just one way to hide positives.
Click to expand...

Interesting to me is the rider has an opportunity to "explain" their irregular profile before a case is actually opened.

Badzhilla anyone?
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Visit site
Netserk said:
No no Walsh has told us that a Sky doc has told him that the Badzilla hasn't caused any (significant) changes in the Bio Passport. So it must be true.
Click to expand...

Which is odd.

As supposedly it was the "reverse of taking EPO" - "attacking red blood cells".

Those statements don't add up to the actual disease but also doesn't add up to his blood profile which Freeman has said has been consistent.

To the bio process itself there's a huge margin to game the system. It's virtually useless apart from the fact it gives the UCI a very good database of blood profiles.

What would be better would be rider vs rider comparisons on the blood profiles. Correlate that with races and training and you'd fairly quickly find the answer to who's doping and who is not.
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Visit site
thehog said:
Interesting to me is the rider has an opportunity to "explain" their irregular profile before a case is actually opened.

Badzhilla anyone?
Click to expand...

The other point of note was you can "explain" irregularities if you were at "altitude".

My understanding is the first test for the bio when you are at altitude is removed from any analysis. Which makes gaming the system for Team Tiede very easy.

With the reduced number of tests, altitude, opportunity to explain means its virtually impossible to sanctioned for the passport.

You'd have to be a lower ranked rider, Pro Conti or just stupid to be caught by it.
 
King Boonen

King Boonen

Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,965
25,680
Visit site
sniper said:
interesting.
so wrt JTL at least three wada specialists agree that
“it is highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method had been used and unlikely that it is the result of any other cause”.
that's more serious than i thought.
Click to expand...

More serious than that. They've reviewed the data twice and thought it was still serious.

But the point that we don't know how many are called to explain these things must be taken into account too.

Either way, the headlines aren't good.
 
S

sniper

Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
King Boonen said:
More serious than that. They've reviewed the data twice and thought it was still serious.

But the point that we don't know how many are called to explain these things must be taken into account too.

Either way, the headlines aren't good.
Click to expand...

one of the other things that strike me is the amount of money needed to get things rolling.
if you look at all the specialists required to get a BP case on track and think about the fact that these specialists all need to be paid by the hour, and then you realize the futile amounts of money the governing bodies are actually willing to spend on anti-doping... not a bright prospect.
 
King Boonen

King Boonen

Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,965
25,680
Visit site
sniper said:
one of the other things that strike me is the amount of money needed to get things rolling.
if you look at all the specialists required to get a BP case on track and think about the fact that these specialists all need to be paid by the hour, and then you realize the futile amounts of money the governing bodies are actually willing to spend on anti-doping... not a bright prospect.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does seem a lot. It would depend on how "expert" they really are though. I'm an expert in my field, but I couldn't charge half what my boss could.

It may also be that some/all of them do it for free. Without full details of the procedure there may be problems with paying them. For instance, if they all agree that it is suspicious then the file is brought together and they have to review it again. This would mean another paycheck and so could be seen as an incentive to bring cases, particularly as there would then be more paydays if they had to come and explain their reasoning.

The couple of people I know who sit on WADA boards do it for free. There are, of course, huge benefits to them, their research and funding because of this, but they are people who are at the top of their field and so they should be getting the funding anyway.
 
V

Von Mises

Aug 5, 2009
836
0
9,980
Visit site
One thing I do not understand - how can UCI "hide" positives in this process? If information in this article is correct, then WADA funded APMU makes a dossier, sends it to UCI, who then sends aforementioned dossier to athlete and also to WADA.
 
King Boonen

King Boonen

Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,965
25,680
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
Freeman's "theory", as expounded by David Walsh. No changes in blood parameters, so Froome's performance upgrade was done completely legit.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1349563&postcount=807
Click to expand...

Thanks. Bilharzia feeds on haemoglobin but judging by what they are saying it appears that the changes are small. I think there was a paper quoted somewhere showing this as well. It would be good to know what kind of variation they consider consistent.

As your post says, too little info for anyone who wants to actually query it.
 
King Boonen

King Boonen

Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,965
25,680
Visit site
Von Mises said:
One thing I do not understand - how can UCI "hide" positives in this process? If information in this article is correct, then WADA funded APMU makes a dossier, sends it to UCI, who then sends aforementioned dossier to athlete and also to WADA.
Click to expand...

The UCI decide if there is a case to bring. I'm unsure if, at this point, WADA can appeal their decision or even have the resources to.
 
Dear Wiggo

Dear Wiggo

Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Von Mises said:
One thing I do not understand - how can UCI "hide" positives in this process? If information in this article is correct, then WADA funded APMU makes a dossier, sends it to UCI, who then sends aforementioned dossier to athlete and also to WADA.
Click to expand...

:?

There was a case this year where McQuaid claimed Ashenden had seen Armstrong's post-comeback BP profile, and ok'd it.

When Ashenden proved that they had only presented some of Armstrong's values from the BP it became immediately apparent how the UCI can hide positives in the process. Positives being BP anomalies.
 
V

Von Mises

Aug 5, 2009
836
0
9,980
Visit site
King Boonen said:
The UCI decide if there is a case to bring. I'm unsure if, at this point, WADA can appeal their decision or even have the resources to.
Click to expand...

True. But how plausible is scenario where AMPU sends out dossier after dossier and at the end UCI decides not to bring a case. I guess it can happen once or twice, but if this becomes a pattern, experts of APMU start to wonder, WADA starts to wonder...
 
V

Von Mises

Aug 5, 2009
836
0
9,980
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
:?

There was a case this year where McQuaid claimed Ashenden had seen Armstrong's post-comeback BP profile, and ok'd it.

When Ashenden proved that they had only presented some of Armstrong's values from the BP it became immediately apparent how the UCI can hide positives in the process. Positives being BP anomalies.
Click to expand...

It is not the same and it does not show how can UCI hide positives.
 
S

sniper

Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Von Mises said:
It is not the same and it does not show how can UCI hide positives.
Click to expand...

as the OP also mentions, the article linked in the OP is not explicit on the role of the UCI in the BP process, so that article is not very helpful in this respect.

Your question is of course legit and it would be great to have a clearer picture.
In any case, as e.g. the case of Ashenden/Lance shows, there are plenty of points in the process where UCI can choose not to pursue or withhold data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom