Bio-Passport Process For Dummies

[Dear Wiggo]

Not necessarily. The WADA blood sample collection protocol includes the duration post exercise as well as the position of the person having the blood withdrawn so that they are seated, head straight, etc, or something like that.

For that very reason.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada-blood_sample_collection_guidelines-v3_0-en.pdf.pdf

 

[Dear Wiggo]

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/athlete-biological-passport

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

Not necessarily. The WADA blood sample collection protocol includes the duration post exercise as well as the position of the person having the blood withdrawn so that they are seated, head straight, etc, or something like that.

For that very reason.

Sure. That's why there is a standard.

My point is that it is a huge manipulation. I suppose it most affects the "never tested positive" and the "ABP minimized doping" arguments, but the beatability of the protocol should be cause for concern (not that we needed any more). And also the fact that it was "figured out" by the coach of the most successful athletes on the planet...

Forearm flexation for blood tests... I won't get into sphincter flexation for lie-detector tests.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's my totally inexpert opinion the collection of samples and testing is quite consistent and good. I'm lead to believe the actual testing procedures (sitting for 10 minutes, arm just so) are quite good.

Regarding Canova's comments, biopassport is looking for longitudinal changes to an extreme level of confidence such that Canova's complaints likely do not generate a warning.

Where the exploitation begins is at the sports federation. We don't know how widespread the sample swaps reported in the IAAF Russia scandal are.

 

[zigmeister]

Re:

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.

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

Badzhilla anyone?

Yes, JTL I assume many refer to on this one?

Hey, these values don't actually prove the existence of doping/actual drug, the "values" are really weird...explain this "guilty until prove your self innocent", or get banned for a few years!!!

WADA is also in the business, of business. Just like in the US/Canada/Intl starting a new third-party testing lab/system, to compete with WADA/USADA. There is either some known WADA/USADA suspicious activity/characters regarding results/testing...or there is $$$$ involved and money to make!

At $700/per test for a cyclist, yeah, somebody is trying to make a business/living/career out of this.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Leif Hoste has had his ABP fail tossed out by a Dutch court. link (Dutch)

Gnomish translation of key bit:

"The court in Ghent relied on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to acquit Hoste", reports Het Laatste Nieuws. "That article states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to convict someone based on abnormal blood values ​​is clearly not consistent with those rules." In short, an abnormal blood passport is not direct evidence of doping.

UCI can appeal.

Not clear if this is up there with the Pechstein case or down there with the Heras one. Either way, there's a ways for this to run before we know what's what.

 

[L'arriviste]

Re:

Leif Hoste has had his ABP fail tossed out by a Dutch court. link (Dutch)

Gnomish translation of key bit:

"The court in Ghent relied on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to acquit Hoste", reports Het Laatste Nieuws. "That article states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to convict someone based on abnormal blood values ​​is clearly not consistent with those rules." In short, an abnormal blood passport is not direct evidence of doping.

UCI can appeal.

Not clear if this is up there with the Pechstein case or down there with the Heras one. Either way, there's a ways for this to run before we know what's what.

For those who may be wondering, a national court does have jurisdiction in such matters (i.e. Human Rights), so nobody should be particularly surprised about how the decision came about. The only case I can think of that has relevance in this area is that of Carlos Golbano, who claimed (unsuccessfully) that the earliest incarnation of the UCI's whereabouts system infringed his right to privacy under Spanish constitutional law.

The court in the present case seems to have been persuaded by two key points in relation to Article 6:

The first point is about the accessibility of justice. Hoste argued that, although he had the possibility to appeal to the CAS, he would incur prohibitive costs if he did so. Presumably this would vary between individuals depending on the means at their disposal.

The second and most widely reported point is that in these matters it is for the national court to decide on the quality and validity of the evidence and here the judges clearly expected the "smoking gun" of a positive test confirmed by A- and B-samples.

So while the judgement hardly suggests that Hoste never doped, nor does it accept the ABP as proof he did. And is it unfair to call this judicial arrogance? After all, the judgement appears to ignore the opinion of the ABP panel. If such a highly-qualified quorum doesn't satisfy the balance of probabilities, what does?

I daresay WADA and the UCI will be forced to appeal given the resources and reputations that have been invested in the programme.

Even if that appeal failed, procedural changes could perhaps save the ABP if, say, a low-cost alternative to CAS or a better investigation process could be found (Hoste's penalties pre-date the establishment of the CADF) or that sanctions would only be applied after a case was closed. Or else it could return to its former supporting role as a means for planning targeted testing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

The court in the present case seems to have been persuaded by two key points in relation to Article 6:

The first point is about the accessibility of justice. Hoste argued that, although he had the possibility to appeal to the CAS, he would incur prohibitive costs if he did so. Presumably this would vary between individuals depending on the means at their disposal.

The second and most widely reported point is that in these matters it is for the national court to decide on the quality and validity of the evidence and here the judges clearly expected the "smoking gun" of a positive test confirmed by A- and B-samples.

The first point is very valid. At least in cycling, most of the time, they sanction riders that cannot afford a heavy defense. Every minute of the cost of appealing arbitration is on the athlete.

We also know the arbitration process lacks basic integrity or any kind of judicial discipline. In arbitration for example, your lawyer probably knows and works on sanction panels with the people on the panel deciding your case, who all happen to work for various IOC sports federations. Or the fact you have no access to your own samples. This has come up when athletes have been denied genetic testing to verify the sample belongs to them.

I'm not sure how many other countries would use the ruling, but, those are valid arguments.

 

[L'arriviste]

Re: Re:

The court in the present case seems to have been persuaded by two key points in relation to Article 6:

The first point is about the accessibility of justice. Hoste argued that, although he had the possibility to appeal to the CAS, he would incur prohibitive costs if he did so. Presumably this would vary between individuals depending on the means at their disposal.

The second and most widely reported point is that in these matters it is for the national court to decide on the quality and validity of the evidence and here the judges clearly expected the "smoking gun" of a positive test confirmed by A- and B-samples.

The first point is very valid. At least in cycling, most of the time, they sanction riders that cannot afford a heavy defense. Every minute of the cost of appealing arbitration is on the athlete.

We also know the arbitration process lacks basic integrity or any kind of judicial discipline. In arbitration for example, your lawyer probably knows and works on sanction panels with the people on the panel deciding your case, who all happen to work for various IOC sports federations. Or the fact you have no access to your own samples. This has come up when athletes have been denied genetic testing to verify the sample belongs to them.

I'm not sure how many other countries would use the ruling, but, those are valid arguments.

This is a really good summary of what's sort of disingenuous about this kind of arbitration whose definition is, normally at least, a process into which the parties voluntarily enter with the objective of negotiating a mutual agreement. Where is the negotiation and what exactly is mutually agreeable about the outcome of a doping proceeding?

And then, as you suggest, the business of CAS (for a business it surely is) does seem pretty odd, a club of lawyers presiding over quasi-legal, pay-to-play hearings involving sometimes highly technical evidence.

Such is the closed shop and possibly one of the less overt reasons why the UCI, ever the anti-doping pioneer, decided to establish the CADF.

All of which is why Art. 6 can be reassuring to citizens in its own way: whatever happens, only a properly invested court can have the final say.

 

[Escarabajo]

???? About the Hoste case.

If that is the case why have the Bio system. And what kind of explanation is that one?
If we could use those excuses there is no need for the Bio passport ATM, or am I missing something.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The court in the present case seems to have been persuaded by two key points in relation to Article 6:

The first point is about the accessibility of justice. Hoste argued that, although he had the possibility to appeal to the CAS, he would incur prohibitive costs if he did so. Presumably this would vary between individuals depending on the means at their disposal.

The second and most widely reported point is that in these matters it is for the national court to decide on the quality and validity of the evidence and here the judges clearly expected the "smoking gun" of a positive test confirmed by A- and B-samples.

The first point is very valid. At least in cycling, most of the time, they sanction riders that cannot afford a heavy defense. Every minute of the cost of appealing arbitration is on the athlete.

We also know the arbitration process lacks basic integrity or any kind of judicial discipline. In arbitration for example, your lawyer probably knows and works on sanction panels with the people on the panel deciding your case, who all happen to work for various IOC sports federations. Or the fact you have no access to your own samples. This has come up when athletes have been denied genetic testing to verify the sample belongs to them.

I'm not sure how many other countries would use the ruling, but, those are valid arguments.

This is a really good summary of what's sort of disingenuous about this kind of arbitration whose definition is, normally at least, a process into which the parties voluntarily enter with the objective of negotiating a mutual agreement. Where is the negotiation and what exactly is mutually agreeable about the outcome of a doping proceeding?

And then, as you suggest, the business of CAS (for a business it surely is) does seem pretty odd, a club of lawyers presiding over quasi-legal, pay-to-play hearings involving sometimes highly technical evidence.

Such is the closed shop and possibly one of the less overt reasons why the UCI, ever the anti-doping pioneer, decided to establish the CADF.

All of which is why Art. 6 can be reassuring to citizens in its own way: whatever happens, only a properly invested court can have the final say.

To be honest, it's not arbitration it's the truest sense of the term. Arbitration by its very intention is to be a conciliation between two parties to come to a common settlement. In sports administration the bar has been set against the athlete which is counter to the changes in civil procedure rules in most countries in the last 20 years. The Woolfe Reforms in the UK to the civil procedure rules ensured that the common person could sue a much larger body without cost being an inhibiting factor to seek remedy.

CAS and the CADF are none of these things, it's closed circuit with those who write the rules judge on them.

Being pretty considerate to all these problems Lord Woolf envisaged a New Landscape for the Civil justice which includes the following features[24]:

Ø Litigation will be avoided wherever possible

Ø Litigation will be less adversarial and more co operative.

Ø Litigation will be less complex.

Ø The timescale of litigation will be shorter and more certain.

Ø The cost of litigation will be more affordable, more predictable, and more proportionate to the value and complexity of individual cases.

Ø Parties of limited financial means will be able to conduct litigation on a more equal footing

Ø There will be clear lines of judicial and administrative responsibility for the civil justice system.

 

[fmk_RoI]

A useful read for those seeking to understand what just happened:

Arbitration, whether or not in the sense of arbitration as defined in the Belgian Judicial Code, complements the internal sport justice systems of sports federations. The Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sport (BCAS) deals with a wide array of sports cases. Sports federations, their member clubs, and individual athletes and players, may not be coerced into submitting to arbitration. Under Belgian law, any decision to submit to (international) arbitration must be freely made and, as in many other countries, the issue of what constitutes ‘free choice or consent’ has been debated at great length by legal scholars, in case law and by the sports arbitration panels themselves.

Belgium has a fairly long-standing track record of ‘forum bashing’, especially when it comes to foreign forums such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This track record can be illustrated by a number of cases.

link (PDF)

 

[L'arriviste]

Hoste is (not yet) Bosman

The auto-translation is not an easy read, but this piece by Hans Vandeweghe on the Hoste case is a repro of an article he published in Belgian daily De Morgen this week.

Hans is a senior journo and a board member of the Vlaamse Wielerbond.