Bio-Passport Process For Dummies

[DirtyWorks]

Tldr

For the TLDR crowd: in cycling's case, the APMU WAS administered by the UCI until January 2012.
The APMU tests for longitudinal anomalies and stores other testing results.
If the UCI did (2012 on, Saugy's group does nothing) with the results, then there are no possibilities of a positive. All within the rules. WADA has no authority to force the completion of the process.

As we saw with Armstrong's 2009(??) red-hot samples that were only uncovered by Ashenden when the UCI gave him Armstrong's identification number. The positive results were in the APMU and the UCI did nothing about them.

Cleanest peloton ever!

[edited per Maserati's correction]

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

For the TLDR crowd: in cycling's case, the APMU is administered by the UCI.
The APMU tests for longitudinal anomalies and stores other testing results.
If the UCI does nothing with the results, then there are no possibilities of a positive.

As we saw with Armstrong's 2009(??) red-hot samples that were only uncovered by Ashenden when the UCI gave him Armstrong's identification number. The positive results were in the APMU and the UCI did nothing about them.

Cleanest peloton ever!

Thats where your mistake is.

The Biological passport has not been run by the UCI since January 2012 but independently by the APMU.
The document that you spent your time running through is the general guidelines from WADA.

 

[DirtyWorks]

OK, good. I've posted it before, I don't mind being wrong.

Based on this link, http://www.triathlon.org/uploads/docs/jhse_Vol_VI_N_II_Zorzoli.pdf

authored by Mario Zorzoli of the UCI. Mario makes an appearance in Hamilton's book: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1006348&postcount=406

... This is managed by the Athlete Passport
Management Unit (APMU) which is in Lausanne and is financed by the Laboratoire d’Analyse du Dopage (LAD) and WADA. The APMU is responsible for the anonymous extraction of data from ADAMS.

So, it's LAD, which is run by Marital/Martial Saugy: http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/lad_home/lad-qui-sommes-nous/lad-qui-sommes-nous-personnel.htm
Mr. Saugy hasn't been doing so well protecting LAD:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...keys-to-defeat-the-EPO-test-to-Armstrong.aspx
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=534450#post534450

You are still right, WADA's best practices are not operated by the UCI.

But, I'm not convinced "outsourced to a third party" means they are figuratively throwing the cases over a wall and LAD is operating as an impartial third party.

-We have concrete examples of Saugy doing the UCI's bidding. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=534623&postcount=45
-We have WADA complaining the sports federations are hiding positives.
-We also have LAD demanding a 7 year NDA for hired experts. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...signation-from-biological-passport-panel.aspx

Since the APMU is the intersection and they are actively tightening information acces, I'm lead to believe they are not acting imparitally. WADA still can't open cases!

Again, thanks for the correction. I won't get better at it any other way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, good. I've posted it before, I don't mind being wrong.

Based on this link, http://www.triathlon.org/uploads/docs/jhse_Vol_VI_N_II_Zorzoli.pdf

authored by Mario Zorzoli of the UCI. Mario makes an appearance in Hamilton's book: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1006348&postcount=406

... This is managed by the Athlete Passport
Management Unit (APMU) which is in Lausanne and is financed by the Laboratoire d’Analyse du Dopage (LAD) and WADA. The APMU is responsible for the anonymous extraction of data from ADAMS.

So, it's LAD, which is run by Marital/Martial Saugy: http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/lad_home/lad-qui-sommes-nous/lad-qui-sommes-nous-personnel.htm
Mr. Saugy hasn't been doing so well protecting LAD:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...keys-to-defeat-the-EPO-test-to-Armstrong.aspx
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=534450#post534450

You are still right, WADA's best practices are not operated by the UCI.

But, I'm not convinced "outsourced to a third party" means they are figuratively throwing the cases over a wall and LAD is operating as an impartial third party.

-We have concrete examples of Saugy doing the UCI's bidding. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=534623&postcount=45
-We have WADA complaining the sports federations are hiding positives.
-We also have LAD demanding a 7 year NDA for hired experts. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...signation-from-biological-passport-panel.aspx

Since the APMU is the intersection and they are actively tightening information acces, I'm lead to believe they are not acting imparitally. WADA still can't open cases!

Again, thanks for the correction. I won't get better at it any other way.

Again, this is sortof all over the place.

I know it gets shouted around here that things don't change - but things do change. There will always be valid questions and concerns, but your conclusions are primarily based on personalities (Zorzoli, Saugy etc) and on what was done years ago, before the BP.

As an example, the Zarzoli document that you quoted - I am struggling to see what its relevance is? He writes an overview of the BP in 2011. So what?

The issue is about process, not personalities and all labs and procedures are set by WADA, who can also step in and ensure compliance, like they often do with laboratorys.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The issue is about process, not personalities and all labs and procedures are set by WADA, who can also step in and ensure compliance, like they often do with laboratorys.

This is where you and I differ. I see Saugy as head of LAD openly assisting the UCI manage doping controversy within the process parameters as documented by WADA.

Again "outsourced to a third party" suggests the APMU is run impartially, but Saugy's activities for the UCI tell a completely different story.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is where you and I differ. I see Saugy as head of LAD openly assisting the UCI manage doping controversy within the process parameters as documented by WADA.

Again "outsourced to a third party" suggests the APMU is run impartially, but Saugy's activities for the UCI tell a completely different story.

The LAD is a laboratory. Saugy is its Director.
How does Saugy do whatever it is he is supposed to be doing for the UCI?

 

[DirtyWorks]

This is a perfect example of how Saugy is working with the UCI to manage doping controversy.

http://inrng.com/2013/05/uci-armstrong-2001-suspicion-intelligence/

Saugy doing his job here for Hein in 1999.
For Armstrong’s two suspicious samples, the Lausanne lab produced a complete analytical report. One sample showed a score of 75.1%, the other 70%. For the record 70.2% was the “suspicious” threshold but the Lausanne lab still flagged Armstrong’s 70.0% sample.

While neither sample is positive, somehow the lab officially chooses the lower score to send to the UCI.

And please don't discard this as "the system doesn't work like this now." Saugy is still running the lab.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is a perfect example of how Saugy is working with the UCI to manage doping controversy.

http://inrng.com/2013/05/uci-armstrong-2001-suspicion-intelligence/

Saugy doing his job here for Hein in 1999.
For Armstrong’s two suspicious samples, the Lausanne lab produced a complete analytical report. One sample showed a score of 75.1%, the other 70%. For the record 70.2% was the “suspicious” threshold but the Lausanne lab still flagged Armstrong’s 70.0% sample.

While neither sample is positive, somehow the lab officially chooses the lower score to send to the UCI.

If you actually read your own post it is saying that the Lausanne lab flagged a sample as "suspicious" even though it was under the threshold to be declared suspicious.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If you actually read your own post it is saying that the Lausanne lab flagged a sample as "suspicious" even though it was under the threshold to be declared suspicious.

My point is, they send the lower score, not the clearly suspicious score. What are the chances that was an accident?

IMHO, Saugy's APMU assists in hiding anti-doping controversy and has been since prior to becoming the official APMU administrator and prior to the creation of WADA when his lab did drug testing for the UCI.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My point is, they send the lower score, not the clearly suspicious score. What are the chances that was an accident?

IMHO, Saugy's APMU assists in hiding anti-doping controversy and has been since prior to becoming the official APMU administrator and prior to the creation of WADA when his lab did drug testing for the UCI.

It even says it in the piece you quote that both samples were flagged as suspicious.

As well as that Saugy or anyone else at the lab had no way of knowing whose samples they were at that time. Also, the APMU is not Saugys, why do you keep referring to it as his?

But just in case you still do not get it - this is an excellent article which clearly shows that both of LAs suspicious samples were forwarded to UCI.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But just in case you still do not get it - this is an excellent article which clearly shows that both of LAs suspicious samples were forwarded to UCI.

You are entirely missing the point. The order of presentation is vital. It gives the UCI the excuse to do nothing in compliance with the rules.

And what about the 2009/10 Armstrong samples that were red-hot positive that languished in the APMU? Meanwhile, other longitudinal positives were processed.

Per my comments/longstanding opinion, it appears McQuaid was very well aware of what doping was going on and doing nothing about it. The APMU admins under Saugy's management are at minimum complicit.

But I wasn’t the only one, a lot of people knew he was called in and that the UCI told him to back off. There was a time when there was talk of guys using synthetic haemoglobin. That wasn’t out yet and I thought it was risky. So where there times when they asked what was going on in the peloton and they asked me I had heard of AICAR three or four years ago when McQuaid asked me. I said I didn’t know but that there’d been talk of AICAR. So to give them a heads up.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-4

That quote completely discredits the bio-passport as operated and completely implicates the APMU admins in Saugy's lab. Information is passed onto the federation where nothing is done. Exactly as the rules state. You can see the gaps at least cycling exploits in the documentation if anyone bothers to read it all.

It's entirely possible I've got some more details wrong. Point them out to me and I will gladly be corrected.

 

[del1962]

Hoste Demands Aquittal

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here's Asheneden's details of Saugy working with the UCI:

I am only partially less cynical about Martial Saugy’s role in the triangle established once Armstrong, the UCI and Saugy had met.
It beggars belief that the topic of the 2001 results was not raised. On 27 May 2011 Saugy led the Swiss newspaper Neue Zuricher Zeitung
to understand that he did not know who the samples belonged to:
“They were taken at four different stages, so I don’t know
whether they were from four different riders or all of the
same athlete”.
That pretense was smashed when USADA’S Reasoned Decision was released which showed that Saugy had admitted to USADA that the UCI had indeed told him that one of the samples belonged to Armstrong.
I accept that a laboratory director needs to be circumspect with the press, and I think this may explain his reluctance to divulge too much to Neue Zuricher Zeitung while an investigation was still underway.
But that does not in any way excuse Saugy meeting with Armstrong in the first place, under any circumstance, once he had grounds to believe that Armstrong may have used EPO.
And not surprisingly, Saugy’s meeting with the UCI and Armstrong is likely to fuel suspicion surrounding the circumstances under which
Saugy’s laboratory was subsequently given free use of the Sysmex analyser that had been paid for by Armstrong.
Was it ‘quid pro quo’?

http://www.siab.org.au/58dgETdx002ag/ArmstrongTriangle.pdf

We can conclude that Saugy as the head of the APMU administrators is communicating in great detail with the UCI about positive values and no case being opened. Which, is in compliance with the WADA standards as the sport federation is the one with the authority to open cases.

 

[zigmeister]

Wait, Lance lied we know. Not sure why he would lie about 2009-2010 and being clean? He has sworn up/down about the last TDF he rode in are, and that is all they are is rumors, that he was flaming positive for EPO (Tygart inflammatory/inciting speak, based off some unknown "expert" opinion). God, hope it isn't Ashenden who is the expert...he learned all he knows from Floyd...that is sad.

Release those samples, retest...or wait, or did they somehow get destroyed?

If Lance hasn't learned his lesson, perfect time to show the World what a constant liar he is, no remorse, and really make him out to be the bad guy he is perpetrated to be. Now he would lose nearly every single last believer if they retested those samples.

Lance swears he was on nothing the last TDF, over and over, but he has come clean about all the other stuff...so why deny that still and lie?

He is also still not showing all his cards we know. He wants a truth/reconciliation and the ability to have his sanctions reduced, we know that from his statements. 7 TDFs were taken away, nothing more USADA can do at this point to harm him for results and sanctions, so the last TDF and him saying he is clean makes sense.

 

[proffate]

Wait, Lance lied we know. Not sure why he would lie about 2009-2010 and being clean? He has sworn up/down about the last TDF he rode in are, and that is all they are is rumors, that he was flaming positive for EPO (Tygart inflammatory/inciting speak, based off some unknown "expert" opinion). God, hope it isn't Ashenden who is the expert...he learned all he knows from Floyd...that is sad.

Release those samples, retest...or wait, or did they somehow get destroyed?

If Lance hasn't learned his lesson, perfect time to show the World what a constant liar he is, no remorse, and really make him out to be the bad guy he is perpetrated to be. Now he would lose nearly every single last believer if they retested those samples.

Lance swears he was on nothing the last TDF, over and over, but he has come clean about all the other stuff...so why deny that still and lie?

He is also still not showing all his cards we know. He wants a truth/reconciliation and the ability to have his sanctions reduced, we know that from his statements. 7 TDFs were taken away, nothing more USADA can do at this point to harm him for results and sanctions, so the last TDF and him saying he is clean makes sense.

Why would you give a perennial liar the benefit of the doubt? Lance never
"came clean", he only admitted to the bare minimum and rationalized his behavior and even then made a public spectacle of himself doing it on Oprah. He'll do anything to regain a shred of credibility, including pretending he *ever* raced clean (in the 90s, in 2009, etc.), slandering others (Hampsten, LeMond, etc.), playing the victim card (unfair treatment). But he vociferously lied for over a decade, he sued those that told the truth, and ruined lives to protect his lie --- suddenly he's telling the truth "because why wouldn't he". The man's a sociopath, that's why.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wait, Lance lied we know. Not sure why he would lie about 2009-2010 and being clean?

As a way to save some TdF results. Those weren't outside SOL either.

He has sworn up/down about the last TDF he rode in are, and that is all they are is rumors, that he was flaming positive for EPO (Tygart inflammatory/inciting speak, based off some unknown "expert" opinion).

Ok, there are so many mangled facts in there that it's just all wrong.

Samples weren't positive for EPO. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21085940
Tests were carried out on 38 of his blood samples from that time by the Australian Institute of Sport, which concluded that the chances of the blood values recorded occurring naturally were one in a million.
Wonderboy's profile was "too normal" for a grand tour.

Ashenden was analyzing bio-passport results for the APMU prior to quitting. His expertise is unassailable. Therefore, the shotgun personal attack on the Ashenden and whoever else you'd like to discredit is a fail

Maybe a better way to put it is the process is so full of holes the sport federation and athlete has ample opportunity to dope.

 

[Benotti69]

If Armstrong was going to race clean for 'comeback 2.0' he would done it with Caitlin and not just used the guy for PR purposes!

Armstrong probably dopes for his strava. He knows no other way!

 

[DirtyWorks]

APMU advises, does not open cases #43

For the 43rd time, it's critical to understand that the APMU administrators using WADA protocols advise the people who order tests, they do not, cannot, open cases.

The Director General of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), David Howman, considers it equally advisable that the IOC deal with this issue: "We can only recommend the re-tests, but we don't lecture. But we believe that information of this kind should be passed on to the IOC. If we make a sensible recommendation based on sensible facts I think that others will implement it."

http://www.wsav.com/story/23997085/...ids-lead-to-hundreds-of-positive-doping-tests

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dredging this thread up to highlight how weak WADA really is with an old article.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/nov/13/world-anti-doping-agency-drug-wada

Wada vocabulary reads like a masterclass in doormattery. It has to request to be "accommodated". When those requests are denied, or stalled, as they frequently seem to be, Wada is always "frustrated" or "disappointed". "It doesn't overimpress us," explained the agency's director-general of the Jamaican brush-off. Last year, even getting a reply from the Kenyans "would be encouraging"; this year, Fahey was waffling about noncompliance not being something he wanted to comment on, with IOC action theoretically possible in unspecified "due course".

More than a year later, To the bolded, IOC has done nothing and is perfectly okay with IAAF doping.

 

[ray j willings]

Lance was never going to admit he doped the first time around just like 99% of the peloton. They all denied they doped. Now Lance got asked that question the most because he was winning so he would have to deny it a lot more and also in the media spotlight more than the other riders. That does not make him a bigger liar just one with a higher profile. If Lance never made the podium I doubt anyone would have asked him and we would all be talking about Ulrich or Basso and Tygart would have to search for someone else to get some attention.
I don't think Lance is lying about is comeback but I'm not that bothered.
How come no one in the main stream media asks how Wiggo started to hang on in such company or ask about Bertie and Schleck? I tell you why because it's a non story compared to Armstrong. Big story big money. Build them up and tear them down one way or another,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, KER-CHING.

 

[DirtyWorks]

An update to this thread.

Not the UCI, but the IAAF. Since both operate under WADA as "level 1" IOC sports, there will be no difference in the way anti-doping works.

More great work here by Seppelt, Ashenden and Parisotto.

"There are approximately 500 abnormal blood results between 2009 and 201, and according to the guidelines, they have to be sent immediately for expert review," Ashenden told ARD. "Yet according to the data base, the next blood test was conducted with an average delay of around eight months and in many cases more than a year. According to the data base, around a quarter of all abnormal values had no further blood tests at all."

http://lawm.sportschau.de/peking2015/nachrichten/Experts-present-new-analysis-of-IAAF-blood-test-data,doping312.html

Federation have results that should trigger the start of a doping case and nothing happens. The federation then state, "Look at all these tests we're doing!! our athletes are clean." The reality is: lots of tests, lots of suspicious results, nothing done with any of it.

In my opinion, the UCI at least goes part way and issues a letter requesting an explanaition and then do nothing. IAAF doesn't even do this much.

This is why the entire antidoping system is theater. This is intentional on the part of the IOC and sports federations.

 

[Jacques (7 ch)]

Thanks for that link

"There are approximately 500 abnormal blood results between 2009 and 201, and according to the guidelines, they have to be sent immediately for expert review," Ashenden told ARD. "Yet according to the data base, the next blood test was conducted with an average delay of around eight months and in many cases more than a year. According to the data base, around a quarter of all abnormal values had no further blood tests at all."

So: just because you take samples ('tests') - it doesn't mean you have to do anything with them. Just file in the corner?

Is this the illustration of the point that promoters can't be trusted as testers in their own sport?

 

[DirtyWorks]

So: just because you take samples ('tests') - it doesn't mean you have to do anything with them. Just file in the corner?

Is this the illustration of the point that promoters can't be trusted as testers in their own sport?

Yes to the prior, maybe to the latter.

Given what Reedie isn't doing in regards to Russia, the IOC has "fixed" WADA.

At this point, we only have work like Seppelt's and Ashenden and Parisotto. The IOC is back in control of enabling doping.

 

[heart_attack_man]

So: just because you take samples ('tests') - it doesn't mean you have to do anything with them. Just file in the corner?

Is this the illustration of the point that promoters can't be trusted as testers in their own sport?

Yes to the prior, maybe to the latter.

Given what Reedie isn't doing in regards to Russia, the IOC has "fixed" WADA.

At this point, we only have work like Seppelt's and Ashenden and Parisotto. The IOC is back in control of enabling doping.

I'd love to see Ashenden go full *** and burn the whole thing to the ground. I fear that the biggest problem is that the majority of people literally don't care. It's even worse than that they don't care, in fact. They WANT to pretend that it's all good in the hood.

My brother, who is a very well educated, sensible, vaguely critical thinking person rolls his eyes at me when I start talking about doping in sports. I've suggested that the reason that the Brisbane Lions AFL football team is so crap this year is because their program isn't up to snuff - they get run over in the last quarter often, and I've said to him that they need to sort their program out, and at the same time as getting all offended about the fact that I am confident that most of the teams are doping, then goes on to say that "well, yes they should".

People, unfortunately, prefer the current illusory theatre that goes on, because it gives them the sense that there isn't widespread doping, when in actual fact, it's almost a certainty.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Interesting piece of info, not academic, but good anecdote..

Italian athletics coach Renato Canova talking about his German marathoner's recent 2:08 performance, commenting to critics on Letsrun forums about drug testing:

(thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6815401#ixzz3pdhA43eS)

For example, if you clench the tourniquet less or more, and for few or more seconds, when you take blood from the vein of the forearm you can have a difference of 2-3 points of Hct.

I had a test with a Group of 20 athletes of Italian Team, years ago (10 males, 10 females). Doctors took blood, for everybody, while standing, and after 20 minutes while seated, and after other 20 minutes while lying : obviously, the blood was the same, but the different of the values, after the test in the lab, was (average) of 4.2 points for men, and 3.6 points for women, about hematocrit.

Given what has been published about the manipulation of blood testing, like a liter of water drastically changing values, if true, this is another hole in the application of ABP.