Bio-Passport Process For Dummies

[Von Mises]

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.

No it does not show this. It shows how UCI can spin things, but it does not show how they can hide positives.

 

[sniper]

No it does not show this. It shows how UCI can spin things, but it does not show how they can hide positives.

but they can prevent positives.
if there is no positive, there's nothing to hide.

 

[Netserk]

To me it certainly seems like that no matter how suspicious Armstrong's passport would be, it'd never result in a case.

 

[Von Mises]

but they can prevent positives.
if there is no positive, there's nothing to hide.

How can they prevent positives? In Armstrong case, did software flag it? If yes, what did first expert say? What did second and third expert say? Was there dossier? Did UCI get dossier? Did they hide it?
As far as I know, we do not know what exactly happened.

 

[thehog]

No it does not show this. It shows how UCI can spin things, but it does not show how they can hide positives.

There is no such state as "positive" in the bio passport. It's not a trigger to positive. There's a criteria and of flagged then is opened for review. That's where potentially cases of drug use can legitimately not move forward. The UCI doesn't need to hide anything. They can "hide" cases legally. It also acts as a warning system for riders and the UCI. No one will test postiive if they've been sent a letter. They will sit out the next race and go train in Tiede for a a week or two.

This and also the criteria is fairly wide open. One off drug users are more likely to be flagged than consistent drug users. Which is probably why we only see lower ranked riders caught and not those with the means to dope season through.

 

[Von Mises]

There is no such state as "positive" in the bio passport. It's not a trigger to positive. There's a criteria and of flagged then is opened for review. That's where potentially cases of drug use can legitimately not move forward. The UCI doesn't need to hide anything.

I know that we are not speaking of "positive" in direct sense. But my question was about UCI - where in this process UCI can hide "positive" or where UCI can not move forward?
If it is opened to review, like you said, then I understood that it is opened not by UCI, but by WADA funded organization. They will open the case, they will present final dossier, not UCI.

 

[thehog]

I know that we are not speaking of "positive" in direct sense. But my question was about UCI - where in this process UCI can hide "positive" or where UCI can not move forward?
If it is opened to review, like you said, then I understood that it is opened not by UCI, but by WADA funded organization. They will open the case, they will present final dossier, not UCI.

The AMPU sees nothing unless flagged by the UCI software. At that point its anonymous.

The Armstrong case is interesting one. Armstrong profile pre-Giro was selected at “random” and after that when he hit the BBs his profile was not flagged. Whether it was not flagged deliberately or not is the question.

The UCI said:

“As everyone should know, the APMU (Athletes Passport Management Unit, which is an independent unit established in Lausanne) regularly submits profiles to the experts of the panel . This procedure is strictly anonymous, which means that neither Dr Ashenden nor any other expert would ever have known when or how many times the profile of one rider or another was submitted to him. Having said that, the UCI wishes to confirm that on May 4, 2009 Dr Ashenden and two other experts on the Biological Passport panel received the profiles of eight riders. These profiles were selected randomly and included that of Lance Armstrong.”

Carpani specified that the profile included nine separate test results, with five of them carried out in 2008 on October 16, November 26, December 3, December 11 and December 18 respectively, and the remaining four on January 16, February 4, February 13 and March 11 2009.

“In their responses (in the case of Dr Ashenden, on May 5 2009), it is interesting to note that of the three experts, Dr Ashenden was the only one to have defined this profile as “normal” without making any other remarks, comments or reservations (of the eight profiles submitted, Dr Ashenden was the expert who most often used the definition “normal” with no further comment),” he continued.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...s-over-Texans-test-results.aspx#ixzz2h2UDfKrb

Which his countered by Ashenden:

Ashenden responded to that statement with comments of his own, accepting that while it appeared he had reviewed Armstrong’s profile up to March 11th, that the later readings which provoked his suspicion plus accusations of doping in the USADA reasoned decision were not included.

By cross referencing the athlete code, he added that it proved he didn’t receive any later results to review, including the contested 2009 Tour de France samples.

“Amidst their evident haste to disparage me, the UCI have confirmed that I did not review Armstrong's suspicious blood results.

“During Pat McQuaid's interview, he specifically referred to Armstrong's 2009 and 2010 blood values. Those are the results that USADA found were consistent with blood transfusion. McQuaid said that those suspicious tests were evaluated by independent experts including me. Now that the UCI have volunteered the date they sent me Armstrong's anonymous profile, I have been able to cross match with my archives. I confirm that I did receive the passport profile denoted 'BPT374F23' [on May 4th 2009 – ed.] and those results do correspond with Armstrong's blood values published along with the Reasoned Decision on the USADA website.

“I would also like to add some clarity. The haemoglobin concentration and reticulocyte percentage of the nine test results I was sent on 4 May 2009 were as follows: 16 Oct 143g/L & 0.99%; 26 Nov 150g/L & 1.08%; 3 Dec 144g/L & 0.83%; 11 Dec 143g/L & 1.29%; 18 Dec 154g/L & 1.49%; 16 Jan 141g/L & 1.03%; 4 Feb 152g/L & 0.90%; 13 Feb 150g/L & 0.99%; 11 Mar 145 g/L & 0.88%. Those nine values coincide exactly with the results published on the USADA site. Interestingly, USADA's results also contain an additional sample collected on 30 April that was not included in the profile sent to me on 4 May. I have no explanation why that result was missing in the UCI profile.”

Ashenden added that two additional results from December 3rd and December 11th were voided as they were not analysed within the 36 hour timeframe required by WADA but, whether or not these were included, he accepted that any variation in the results up to March 2009 ‘could be due to nothing more than natural variation.’

It seems clear that the two positions differ in their interpretation of language. The UCI picks up on Ashenden’s statement that he didn’t get to review Armstrong’s blood passport, saying that this is not accurate. Ashenden maintains that his assertion related to the period identified as suspicious by the USADA report, with the context being that the 2009 Tour values were too unusual for him to have not redflagged them if he had the opportunity.

Whatever about the results up to March 2009, the Australian states that the information proves that he didn’t get a chance to study those later results.

“I have checked my archives and I cannot find any trace of the profile BPT374F23 having been sent to me again after May 2009. Whereas I had suspected this previously, it has now been confirmed that I was never asked to review Armstrong's suspicious blood results from the 2009 Tour de France.”

When a profile is sent forward for examination, three members of the nine-member UCI biological passport panel are provided the data and asked to make an assessment. However the UCI – or, more recently, the Athlete Passport Management Unit in Lausanne – makes the initial decision about which passport profiles are sent to the experts.

Ashenden wants the release of this code to be used by the other biological passport experts to verify if they were themselves given the opportunity to review the Tour data.

“Given Armstrong's blood results have been published and are public record, and given we now know that the anonymous code assigned to Armstrong's results is BPT374F23, it may be possible for the remaining experts to check their own records to confirm whether they ever saw Armstrong's suspicious results,” he stated.

“Since both the UCI and the Lausanne laboratory who enforced an 8-year confidentiality clause on the experts both have an interest in dismissing any hint of collusion with Armstrong, I hope and expect they will both now authorise the remaining experts to make public comment.”

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...s-over-Texans-test-results.aspx#ixzz2h2Uw3f00

 

[King Boonen]

According to Richard Moore on the Humans Invent podcast, one in four cases which get to the stage JTL is currently at then go on to a full prosectution.

Would still be helpful to know how many cases there are in total, but that's looking a little less serious for JTL, at the moment. I think we can count on one hand the number of BP doping sanctions in cycling can't we?


This is all something Brian Cookson needs to do something about. The UCI needs to be removed completely from the decision making process and statistics need to be reported in, at least, annual reports.

 

[Parker]

Would still be helpful to know how many cases there are in total, but that's looking a little less serious for JTL, at the moment. I think we can count on one hand the number of BP doping sanctions in cycling can't we?


This is all something Brian Cookson needs to do something about. The UCI needs to be removed completely from the decision making process and statistics need to be reported in, at least, annual reports.

Moore mentioned some figures. They were quite low as you say.

Having more cases isn't necessarily better. If weaker cases go to CAS and get overturned the passport loses some of its authority - it can work just as well as a deterant as well as a detection method.

 

[Netserk]

Moore mentioned some figures. They were quite low as you say.

Having more cases isn't necessarily better. If weaker cases go to CAS and get overturned the passport loses some of its authority - it can work just as well as a deterant as well as a detection method.

Or to blackmail dopers...

 

[Parker]

Or to blackmail dopers...

Yes in tin-foil hat land. In the real world not so much.

 

[King Boonen]

Moore mentioned some figures. They were quite low as you say.

Having more cases isn't necessarily better. If weaker cases go to CAS and get overturned the passport loses some of its authority - it can work just as well as a deterant as well as a detection method.

I agree, although I said sanctions rather than cases. I think there needs to be a few more until it really is a deterrent, currently it seems to be seen as a bit of a joke.

Maybe is this one ends up in a sanction people will start to take a bit more notice.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Would still be helpful to know how many cases there are in total, but that's looking a little less serious for JTL, at the moment. I think we can count on one hand the number of BP doping sanctions in cycling can't we?


This is all something Brian Cookson needs to do something about. The UCI needs to be removed completely from the decision making process and statistics need to be reported in, at least, annual reports.

It has been since January 2012. The UCI are no longer part of the decision making process and it is run by the Athletes Passport Management Unit.

This goes back to the OPs earlier assertion when they stated "What's not explicit is the sports federation is the one ordering WADA to do stuff"

That needs to be explained.

 

[thehog]

I agree, although I said sanctions rather than cases. I think there needs to be a few more until it really is a deterrent, currently it seems to be seen as a bit of a joke.

Maybe is this one ends up in a sanction people will start to take a bit more notice.

It appears to be more marketing than anything else. Also gives the UCI a nice little database of rider profiles.

Good intel!

 

[King Boonen]

It has been since January 2012. The UCI are no longer part of the decision making process and it is run by the Athletes Passport Management Unit.

This goes back to the OPs earlier assertion when they stated "What's not explicit is the sports federation is the one ordering WADA to do stuff"

That needs to be explained.

From inrng's article:

"This file is reviewed and once again all three experts have to unanimously concur for an “adverse passport finding” and then an anti-doping organization is notified, in this case the UCI.

The UCI then contacts the rider and WADA to advise them that it is mulling an anti-doping case and includes the APMU dossier with the data, sample custody and more along with the request for the athlete to explain the data in the dossier."

So is inrng wrong? The AMPU pass it on to the UCI but it is still up to the UCI whether they bring a case, correct?

This is where more clarity is needed. Are the AMPU and WADA informed of the outcome of any meetings between the UCI and the rider? Are they involved?

Or can the UCI just say "It's been explained, case closed"?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From inrng's article:

"This file is reviewed and once again all three experts have to unanimously concur for an “adverse passport finding” and then an anti-doping organization is notified, in this case the UCI.

The UCI then contacts the rider and WADA to advise them that it is mulling an anti-doping case and includes the APMU dossier with the data, sample custody and more along with the request for the athlete to explain the data in the dossier."

So is inrng wrong? The AMPU pass it on to the UCI but it is still up to the UCI whether they bring a case, correct?

This is where more clarity is needed. Are the AMPU and WADA informed of the outcome of any meetings between the UCI and the rider? Are they involved?

Or can the UCI just say "It's been explained, case closed"?

Inrng is not wrong - it is only passed to the Anti Doping Organisation (ie UCI) because they have the code to identify the athlete. The athlete is notified by the UCI, who receive the explanation from the athlete and then send this on back to the AMPU for evaluation.

 

[King Boonen]

Inrng is not wrong - it is only passed to the Anti Doping Organisation (ie UCI) because they have the code to identify the athlete. The athlete is notified by the UCI, who receive the explanation from the athlete and then send this on back to the AMPU for evaluation.

Ok, but in the quote he says the UCI decide if there is a case to be brought (Or words to that effect "The UCI then contacts the rider and WADA to advise them that it is mulling an anti-doping case").

So it seems the UCI still get the final say as to whether a case is brought.
this is where the UCI need to be removed from the process, as it seems they can either say "Nope, we think it's fine" or "We've had a chat, nothing to see here" and tell the AMPU to basically do one.

The UCI should be informed, but an external body should meet with the rider and the AMPU to discuss the results.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, but in the quote he says the UCI decide if there is a case to be brought (Or words to that effect "The UCI then contacts the rider and WADA to advise them that it is mulling an anti-doping case").

So it seems the UCI still get the final say as to whether a case is brought.
this is where the UCI need to be removed from the process, as it seems they can either say "Nope, we think it's fine" or "We've had a chat, nothing to see here" and tell the AMPU to basically do one.

The UCI should be informed, but an external body should meet with the rider and the AMPU to discuss the results.

Nope.

The UCI's role is limited to identification and passing on the information submitted by the athlete. This is returned to AMPU for further evaluation and they (APMU) decide whether it is an anti doping violation or not.

Appendix D on Page 45 of the AMPU WADA document explains the process.
What happens after is 7.4 (page 44) here of the WADA Code.

 

[King Boonen]

Nope.

The UCI's role is limited to identification and passing on the information submitted by the athlete. This is returned to AMPU for further evaluation and they (APMU) decide whether it is an anti doping violation or not.

Appendix D on Page 45 of the AMPU WADA document explains the process.
What happens after is 7.4 (page 44) here of the WADA Code.

Thanks.

It seems that the mulling over part needs to be removed then. Also the considering part in the link you posted (Section 5, "the ADO will then be responsible for:") is confusing as the anti-doping organisation isn't considering anything, they are merely a conduit between the AMPU and the athlete.

Even after the athlete has met with the ADO the expert panel has the final call. I wonder why the expert panel, or a representative, is not present during this meeting?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Even after the athlete has met with the ADO the expert panel has the final call. I wonder why the expert panel, or a representative, is not present during this meeting?

The expert panel makes a recommendation to the sports federation who are free to do as they please.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The definition of "anti-doping organization"

Anti-Doping Organization (ADO): A Signatory that is responsible for
adopting rules for initiating, implementing or enforcing any part of the
Doping Control process. This includes, for example, the International Olympic
Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, other Major Event
Organizations that conduct Testing at their Events, WADA, International
Federations, and National Anti-Doping Organizations.

That means the UCI and even event producers are anti-doping authorities alongside WADA.

The definition of "Expert panel:"
Expert Panel: The experts, with knowledge in the concerned field, chosen
by the Anti-Doping Organization and/or APMU, who are responsible for
providing an evaluation of the Passport. For the haematological module,
experts will have knowledge in one or more of the fields of clinical
hematology (diagnosis of blood pathological conditions), sports medicine or
exercise physiology.

This Panel may include a pool of appointed experts and any additional ad-hoc
expert who may be required upon request of any of the appointed Experts or
by the Athlete Passport Management Unit of the Anti-Doping Organization.

See bolded UPON REQUEST. Specific to cycling, the UCI/event organizer/IOC/somebody has to request the expert. No request? No problem! Again, this is why WADA complains that sports federations are hiding positives.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sports Federation Responsibilities

4.2.1 The Anti-Doping Organization(s) is/are responsible for:

a) Adopting, implementing and administrating an Athlete Biological
Passport in accordance with these Guidelines including compliance
with the International Standard for Testing;

b) Ensuring that recommendations received from the APMU is
converted into effective, targeted, timely and appropriate follow-up
testing; and

c) Following up on Adverse Passport Findings in accordance with
TD2012RMR (Appendix D) and Article 7.4 of the Code.

Just to be clear, the Anti-Doping organization in cycling's case is the UCI, Event Promoters who don't assign the UCI the job of being the anti-doping official national federations and perhaps WADA if they had the budget to test.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The Expert Review

In the event that a result rendered by a WADA accredited or approved
Laboratory is an atypical value or triggers an atypical longitudinal profile, the
Passport must be reviewed by an expert chosen by the Athlete Passport
Management Unit of the Anti-Doping Organization. The Athlete Passport
Management Unit is responsible to liaise with this expert to ensure a review
of the Passport in a timely manner.

And if they don't, who would know? Let's say I'm crazy and sports federations strictly comply with this step.

The Athlete Passport Management Unit is responsible for
liaising with the experts and for advising the Anti-Doping Organization of the subsequent expert assessment.

Advising, not directing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The expert panel makes a recommendation to the sports federation who are free to do as they please.

This is absurd.

You have posted a deluge of unattributed text which is largely irrelevant to the process and you have highlighted words and misrepresenting the context.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This is absurd.

You have posted a deluge of unattributed text which is largely irrelevant to the process and you have highlighted words and misrepresenting the context.

All from here:
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/S.../WADA_ABP_OperatingGuidelines_version_3.0.pdf

I'm some anonymous contributor to a forum who really could have utterly failed comprehension of the documents. Totally possible. If in fact, I am broadly wrong, then WADA would have no complaints about sports federations hiding positives. Positive results would be routed to experts post-haste. But they aren't.