General Doping Thread.

[BiomechanicsProfessor]

in case you haven't seen the full pdf posted above, here's the explanation given by the expert panel:

"After careful review and considering the most relevant scientific literature, the Expert Panel concluded univocally that Sample 2 HGB and OFFS values were still much too high to be explained by a stay and training at altitude in the two weeks preceding the sample collection, even considering the most favourable scenario to the Rider:

“According to the new information provided in Mr. Scott’s report, the athlete was at altitude until the 3rd of August 2018 e.g., the altitude exposure ended 14 days before Sample 2 was collected. To examine the potential impact of this altitude exposure on the blood values in Sample 2 we have first calculated the approximate altitude dosage according to Garvican-Lewis et al. 2016. Three pieces of altitude information each day from 07.07.2018 till 03.08.2.18 were presented in the report by Mr Scott; ‘accomodation altitude’, ‘average exercise altitude’ and ‘peak exercise altitude’. For the majority of days the altitude reported does not differ significantly between the three categories. Since we have no information of the average exercise time per day we have hypothesized that the athlete exercised for an average of 8 hours each day (which likely is overestimated, but will benefit the athlete in our calculation) except on the 16.07.2018 and 21.07.2018 where he rested (was anticipated to be at ‘accomodation altitude’) and that the remaining 16 hours were spent at the ‘accomodation altitude’. The total altitude dosage during the 28 days was calculated to 992 km.hr. There are several publications having examined the effect of altitude. Mr. Scott has mentioned some of these in his report, also some of which have reported results during the post-altitude period, which is the period of interest in this profile. Instead of picking only specific papers that potentially fits into the argumentation, a more scientifically correct way would be to use data from a meta-analysis, where all relevant data is examined together. Lobigs et al. 2018 provided such a paper in 2018. Here it is evident that the average increase in Hb 15 days after altitude is around 0.2 g/dL above the normal level, while the OFFscore on average is 3-4 points above baseline. Considering only values reflecting a similar altitude dosage (800-1000 km.hr) as the athlete, none of the subjects from the meta-analysis had elevations in Hbs above 1 g/dL or elevations in OFFscores of more than 20 points, 15 days post altitude. Considering all Hb values except Sample 2 and 6, the athlete’s average level is 15.0 g/dL and the average OFFscore is 99 (only considering samples analyzed with the XT1 excluding Sample 2 and 6). Hence the Hb in Sample 2 is 1.6 g/dL above average and the OFFscore is 24 points above average, which highly contrast the average increase of 0.2 g/dL and OFFscore 3-4 points and above the highest single values recorded in the Lobigs study."

https://assets.ctfassets.net/761l7gh5x5an/3NIby352rhLqCoEhjeEySj/0882e917c8ab7cf9d3dc3a9e77aa350c/Judgment_UCI_ADT_05.2023_UCI_v._Mr_Robert_Stannard_publication.pdf

I'm going to have to leave shortly. The report actually goes on a little bit more:
Further to this, Mr. Scott argues that the elevated Hb could be due to a plasma volume reduction 5-7 days after a high exercise load (Miller et al. 2019). According to Mr. Scott, the Rider raced (and won) on 12 August 2018, i.e. 5 days prior to the collection of Sample 2. In the Miller paper which examined hematological changes after an Ironman competition (which might not be directly comparable to a cycling race) the Hb was actually not statistically different from the baseline 5 days after the Ironman race. In relative terms the Hb was approximately 0.5%, 4%, and 3% higher than baseline on days 5, 6, and 7 post-race, respectively. Hence even a 4% increase in Hb corresponds to 0.6 g/dL, which in combination with the altitude effect still falls short of the value observed in Sample 2. Furthermore, in the Miller paper an increase in %ret of 20-30% is reported in the 5-7 day period after the Ironman competition, which contrast the low %ret value observed in the Rider’s profile.

The Miller effect (0.6) and the altitude effect from Lobigs et al. (0.2) combine for the 0.8 value I referenced earlier. And again, remember that the acceptance limit was exceeded by 0.3.

I can't figure out how to copy and paste the relevant figure from Lobigs et al., but it is Figure 2, and you would be looking at the values marked in asterisks. Note that the Lobigs et al. changes are from immediately pre-altitude, and are not from the change in the mean as the expert report states. Sample 1 was taken more than a year before sample 1, so the expert panel has no idea what the rider's blood values were immediately before altitude exposure. To account for this it would be necessary to increase the variability to reflect the uncertainty in pre-altitude blood values, but of course the expert panel didn't do that.

The change in OFF score from Lobigs et al. referenced by the expert panel is the result of a linear fit, and is not the mean change in OFF-score at that time. The 2(!) studies that included a total of 13 (!) participants that were included in the meta-analysis actually had an increase of 11.2 in the OFF-score- and note the large variability.

The expert panel reported that Stannard's OFF-score was 24 points above average, but it was only 6.65 points above the acceptance limit. 8 of the 13 participants had a change in OFF-score greater than that.

It is only by ignoring the variability built into the biological passport that the expert panel found a breach of the limits. Note that variability is completely absent from the expert panel's explanation.

I have spent too much time on this, so this is probably the last post unless something obviously wrong is posted.

 

[Nomad]

Again, if you look at the original post, why is it that the expert panel are the ones deciding which argument is correct. We asked many times for an independent review, but the expert panel refused. Any competent scientist would have rejected their arguments. It is worth re-emphasizing that multiple people have reviewed the biological passport for Robert Stannard, and only that expert panel deemed it indicative of doping.

That's not their job to do an independent review. You could have appealed the Tribunal's decision to CAS. I understand Stannard's decision not to do so, but with no attempt to clear his name this concludes an ADRV on his record. Spilling all of your grievances & your discontent with the expert panel and the ABP system on this forum, I think is futile on your part. In case you haven't noticed, "The Clinic" forum of CN is an anti-doping forum where people can critically discus dopers & suspected dopers. In fact, there's more of a concern expressed by many people here that the ABP doesn't do enough & it's too easy for a doper to circumvent the system, especially with the guidance & help from doping doctors & coaches.

In paragraph #200, the Judge states the ABP constitutes a reliable means of evidence in determining if an ADRV has been committed. The reliability & validity of the ABP has been challenged many times in CAS (the case challenges & decisions from the Court are listed in the footnotes).

As I said, the hematological module of the ABP has been in existence since 2009. There have been over 180 ABP hematological-anomalies cases from cycling & athletics resulting in ADRVs. Russian athletics alone had over 70 cases involving some of their top athletes - Olympic & WC gold medal winners, major marathon winners, etc. Many of the cases went to CAS, some with the same challenges & rebuttals you have. However, the interesting aspect of the Russian cases were that when the whistleblower came forward with evidence of Russia's state-sponsored systematic doping program - doping schedules & strategies to circumvent the ABP were revealed (see the McLaren report). So, in this situation, the ABP was doing a magnificent job of detecting & identifying 02-vector doping from both transfusions & ESA use.

Furthermore, the number #1 defense in ABP hematological-anomalies cases is altitude - both altitude & altitude-natives alike. That's why there's numerous studies published in the literature on altitude's effect on the hematological parameters of the ABP involving professional cyclists, runners, swimmers, etc. Many of these studies have been authored by Schumacher, who has devoted a large part of his career to this field.

The bottom line is since Stannard elected not to appeal in an attempt to clear his name, his case goes down as an official ADRV involving hematological-anomalies on his ABP.

Robert Stannard signs with Bahrain Victorious after accepting doping sanction

Australian cleared to race after back-dated ban and ready to compete at Tour of Britain

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[Nomad]

in case you haven't seen the full pdf posted above, here's the explanation given by the expert panel:

"After careful review and considering the most relevant scientific literature, the Expert Panel concluded univocally that Sample 2 HGB and OFFS values were still much too high to be explained by a stay and training at altitude in the two weeks preceding the sample collection, even considering the most favourable scenario to the Rider:

“According to the new information provided in Mr. Scott’s report, the athlete was at altitude until the 3rd of August 2018 e.g., the altitude exposure ended 14 days before Sample 2 was collected. To examine the potential impact of this altitude exposure on the blood values in Sample 2 we have first calculated the approximate altitude dosage according to Garvican-Lewis et al. 2016. Three pieces of altitude information each day from 07.07.2018 till 03.08.2.18 were presented in the report by Mr Scott; ‘accomodation altitude’, ‘average exercise altitude’ and ‘peak exercise altitude’. For the majority of days the altitude reported does not differ significantly between the three categories. Since we have no information of the average exercise time per day we have hypothesized that the athlete exercised for an average of 8 hours each day (which likely is overestimated, but will benefit the athlete in our calculation) except on the 16.07.2018 and 21.07.2018 where he rested (was anticipated to be at ‘accomodation altitude’) and that the remaining 16 hours were spent at the ‘accomodation altitude’. The total altitude dosage during the 28 days was calculated to 992 km.hr. There are several publications having examined the effect of altitude. Mr. Scott has mentioned some of these in his report, also some of which have reported results during the post-altitude period, which is the period of interest in this profile. Instead of picking only specific papers that potentially fits into the argumentation, a more scientifically correct way would be to use data from a meta-analysis, where all relevant data is examined together. Lobigs et al. 2018 provided such a paper in 2018. Here it is evident that the average increase in Hb 15 days after altitude is around 0.2 g/dL above the normal level, while the OFFscore on average is 3-4 points above baseline. Considering only values reflecting a similar altitude dosage (800-1000 km.hr) as the athlete, none of the subjects from the meta-analysis had elevations in Hbs above 1 g/dL or elevations in OFFscores of more than 20 points, 15 days post altitude. Considering all Hb values except Sample 2 and 6, the athlete’s average level is 15.0 g/dL and the average OFFscore is 99 (only considering samples analyzed with the XT1 excluding Sample 2 and 6). Hence the Hb in Sample 2 is 1.6 g/dL above average and the OFFscore is 24 points above average, which highly contrast the average increase of 0.2 g/dL and OFFscore 3-4 points and above the highest single values recorded in the Lobigs study."

https://assets.ctfassets.net/761l7gh5x5an/3NIby352rhLqCoEhjeEySj/0882e917c8ab7cf9d3dc3a9e77aa350c/Judgment_UCI_ADT_05.2023_UCI_v._Mr_Robert_Stannard_publication.pdf

Here's the Garvican-Lewis paper cited:

Time for a new metric for hypoxic dose? - PubMed

Time for a new metric for hypoxic dose?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[smaryka]

I might have missed it in reading, but it's interesting that in all the posts explaining how flawed the process was, it's never explicitly stated that he wasn't doping. Just that the process was so flawed that it can't be proved he doping, there was no evidence or whatever.

So was he doping or not? @BiomechanicsProfessor

 

[Rob5091]

I might have missed it in reading, but it's interesting that in all the posts explaining how flawed the process was, it's never explicitly stated that he wasn't doping. Just that the process was so flawed that it can't be proved he doping, there was no evidence or whatever.

So was he doping or not? @BiomechanicsProfessor

That's a bit like asking a defence lawyer, is your client actually guilty?

 

[pastronef]

I might have missed it in reading, but it's interesting that in all the posts explaining how flawed the process was, it's never explicitly stated that he wasn't doping. Just that the process was so flawed that it can't be proved he doping, there was no evidence or whatever.

So was he doping or not? @BiomechanicsProfessor

one could say that Uci/Wada were so sure he was doping that he got a backdated suspension, so he wasn't actually suspended. and it took them years to come up with that.
doping is a legal matter, you need strong grounds to stand on.

 

[Sciatic]

one could say that Uci/Wada were so sure he was doping that he got a backdated suspension, so he wasn't actually suspended. and it took them years to come up with that.
doping is a legal matter, you need strong grounds to stand on.

I don’t mean to split hairs just to be annoying, but doping in countries where it’s not part of the criminal law code only becomes a legal issue when the person busted for a violation appeals to a court. Issuing the ban is not a legal action. Even CAS cases only quasi-judicial in that they don’t work like the regular system (or I should say not like the ones I’m familiar with),
But you probably knew all that already and just used “legal” as a euphemism. In which case I apologize in advance.

 

[search]

I might have missed it in reading, but it's interesting that in all the posts explaining how flawed the process was, it's never explicitly stated that he wasn't doping. Just that the process was so flawed that it can't be proved he doping, there was no evidence or whatever.

It's a defense apparently backed by Bahrain, a team a.o. run by a known Ferrari client who brought enough advocates to outsmart the ABP. And I assume the Dr. Paul Scott involved is the same Dr. Paul Scott who was trying to clear Landis for precedural errors!?

So I guess it's fair to say, that guilty or not doesn't seem to matter much here. Which probably also explains why a news outfit like Cyclingnews wasn't too interested in their story.

 

[pastronef]

I don’t mean to split hairs just to be annoying, but doping in countries where it’s not part of the criminal law code only becomes a legal issue when the person busted for a violation appeals to a court. Issuing the ban is not a legal action. Even CAS cases only quasi-judicial in that they don’t work like the regular system (or I should say not like the ones I’m familiar with),
But you probably knew all that already and just used “legal” as a euphemism. In which case I apologize in advance.

and talking about doping or methods to improve your performance without tripping the red line: well, altitude is all about this.
this afternoon I was arguing on twitter (from my phone so it took me ages to write in English without a keyboard) with a tweeting about an unknown Russian rider who rode with "drug dealer" Piccolo for 2 months in 2022 in Gazprom (they didnt even race together)
I was angered by the fact this guy used Piccolo to hint at the Russian rider's doing something awry, or just being suspicious cause he was on the same team with Piccolo (he never had doping problems nor suspicions)
I went mad as *** cause I hate gratuitous accusations and slander.
I know athletes try everything, but until you get caught, I don't point fingers
those dozens fuckers on twitter only posting when doping news come out and using their obsession to get clicks, think "a priori" everybody "dopes".
well everybody does what they can do, get to the top edge of the limit they are allowed to and until altitude training is not BANNED, then well, athletes will train high and use methods to improve the performances.
when they trip the wire then I'll point fingers

 

[BiomechanicsProfessor]

That's not their job to do an independent review. You could have appealed the Tribunal's decision to CAS. I understand Stannard's decision not to do so, but with no attempt to clear his name this concludes an ADRV on his record. Spilling all of your grievances & your discontent with the expert panel, and the ABP system on this forum, I think is futile on your part. In case you haven't noticed, "The Clinic" forum of CN is an anti-doping forum where people can critically discus dopers & suspected dopers. In fact, there's more of a concern expressed by many people here that the ABP doesn't do enough & it's too easy for a doper to circumvent the system, especially with the guidance & help from doping doctors & coaches.

In paragraph #200, the Judge states the ABP constitutes a reliable means of evidence in determining if an ADRV has been committed. The reliability & validity of the ABP has been challenged many times in CAS (the case challenges & decisions from the Court are listed in the footnotes).

As I said, the hematological module of the ABP has been in existence since 2009. There have been over 180 ABP hematological-anomalies cases from cycling & athletics resulting in ADRVs. Russian athletics alone had over 70 cases involving some of their top athletes - Olympic & WC gold medal winners, major marathon winners, etc. Many of the cases went to CAS, some with the same challenges & rebuttals you have. However, the interesting aspect of the Russian cases were that when the whistleblower came forward with evidence of Russia's state-sponsored systematic doping program - doping schedules & strategies to circumvent the ABP were revealed (see the McLaren report). So, in this situation, the ABP was doing a magnificent job of detecting & identifying 02-vector doping from both transfusions & ESA use.

Furthermore, the number #1 defense in ABP hematological-anomalies cases is altitude - both altitude & altitude-natives alike. That's why there's numerous studies published in the literature on altitude's effect on the hematological parameters of the ABP involving professional cyclists, runners, swimmers, etc. Many of these studies have been authored by Schumacher, who has devoted a large part of his career to this field.

The bottom line is since Stannard elected not to appeal in an attempt to clear his name, his case goes down as an official ADRV involving hematological-anomalies on his ABP.

Robert Stannard signs with Bahrain Victorious after accepting doping sanction

Australian cleared to race after back-dated ban and ready to compete at Tour of Britain

www.cyclingnews.com

I might have missed it in reading, but it's interesting that in all the posts explaining how flawed the process was, it's never explicitly stated that he wasn't doping. Just that the process was so flawed that it can't be proved he doping, there was no evidence or whatever.

So was he doping or not? @BiomechanicsProfessor

I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that someone is not doping. For example, now that I have been on the inside of the biological passport, the flattest (i.e. no variability, and therefore the least likely to get an adverse finding) was Alexander Vinokourov's. I did not spend time with Robert Stannard during training, or watch what he did at night. So I couldn't say for sure that he didn't dope.

My suspicion is that he didn't. If he was willing to dope, it would be easy to reduce variability and stay within the biological passport. After the first few years I'm pretty sure everyone figured out that reducing variability was the way to avoid detection. Most likely the people that are getting "caught" are people with high natural variability who are not doping.

 

[BiomechanicsProfessor]

That's not their job to do an independent review. You could have appealed the Tribunal's decision to CAS. I understand Stannard's decision not to do so, but with no attempt to clear his name this concludes an ADRV on his record. Spilling all of your grievances & your discontent with the expert panel and the ABP system on this forum, I think is futile on your part. In case you haven't noticed, "The Clinic" forum of CN is an anti-doping forum where people can critically discus dopers & suspected dopers. In fact, there's more of a concern expressed by many people here that the ABP doesn't do enough & it's too easy for a doper to circumvent the system, especially with the guidance & help from doping doctors & coaches.

I'm not sure why you do that I am not critically discussing dopers and suspected dopers. I am looking with a very skeptical eye at the evidence needed for an adverse analytical finding, and seeing that the innocent athlete has essentially no defense.

The expert panel can do whatever they want and there is no independent check on them. The fact that you don't think that it is their job to do an independent review speaks volumes. That is exactly what they should be doing, but under the current rules they have no reason to do so.

But note that the rider's ABP would have gone to at least two other expert panels who came to a different decision. Other scientists have looked at this and rolled their eyes at the expert panel's decision. The expert panel appears to be the outlier: the question is whether that is because they know something that everyone else does not, or whether everyone else knows something that they don't.

In paragraph #200, the Judge states the ABP constitutes a reliable means of evidence in determining if an ADRV has been committed. The reliability & validity of the ABP has been challenged many times in CAS (the case challenges & decisions from the Court are listed in the footnotes).

I kind of suspect that you are from the UCI (you make a lot of the same ignorant comments that the expert panel did). At the tribunal, we were specifically not allowed to question the ABP: it was not even an issue. The judge decided to make a comment about it anyway, but it was not part of the case. The fact that you are using this as evidence that the ABP is reliable makes me realize how gullible you are.

As I said, the hematological module of the ABP has been in existence since 2009. There have been over 180 ABP hematological-anomalies cases from cycling & athletics resulting in ADRVs. Russian athletics alone had over 70 cases involving some of their top athletes - Olympic & WC gold medal winners, major marathon winners, etc. Many of the cases went to CAS, some with the same challenges & rebuttals you have. However, the interesting aspect of the Russian cases were that when the whistleblower came forward with evidence of Russia's state-sponsored systematic doping program - doping schedules & strategies to circumvent the ABP were revealed (see the McLaren report). So, in this situation, the ABP was doing a magnificent job of detecting & identifying 02-vector doping from both transfusions & ESA use.

Furthermore, the number #1 defense in ABP hematological-anomalies cases is altitude - both altitude & altitude-natives alike. That's why there's numerous studies published in the literature on altitude's effect on the hematological parameters of the ABP involving professional cyclists, runners, swimmers, etc. Many of these studies have been authored by Schumacher, who has devoted a large part of his career to this field.

You may not realize this, but the expert panel refused to recognize anything other than the Lobigs et al. meta-analysis of the effects of altitude. That meta-analysis referred to two arters (both by Garvican-Lewis) containing a total of 13 participants between them. We brought up other articles, but the expert panel insisted that Lobigs et al. was the definitive word.

The judge, who you believe with question, complimented the expert panel on their thorough search of the literature. For you this must mean that there are only two published articles.

And, for the record, as I showed in another post, the two articles cited in Lobigs showed that Stannard's variability was within the legal limits, as long as valid statistical measures were taken.

The bottom line is since Stannard elected not to appeal in an attempt to clear his name, his case goes down as an official ADRV involving hematological-anomalies on his ABP.

Robert Stannard signs with Bahrain Victorious after accepting doping sanction

Australian cleared to race after back-dated ban and ready to compete at Tour of Britain

www.cyclingnews.com

And I will admit that Stannard did not elect to appeal, and that he will have a suspension next to his name. There will be a lot more to come from this case, but no longer on this forum. I believe I have made my point that the process was flawed and that the statistical methods used by the so-called "experts" were of such poor quality as to cast their decision into doubt.

 

[smaryka]

I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that someone is not doping. For example, now that I have been on the inside of the biological passport, the flattest (i.e. no variability, and therefore the least likely to get an adverse finding) was Alexander Vinokourov's. I did not spend time with Robert Stannard during training, or watch what he did at night. So I couldn't say for sure that he didn't dope.

My suspicion is that he didn't. If he was willing to dope, it would be easy to reduce variability and stay within the biological passport. After the first few years I'm pretty sure everyone figured out that reducing variability was the way to avoid detection. Most likely the people that are getting "caught" are people with high natural variability who are not doping.

Fair enough, thanks for replying.

 

[Sciatic]

I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that someone is not doping. For example, now that I have been on the inside of the biological passport, the flattest (i.e. no variability, and therefore the least likely to get an adverse finding) was Alexander Vinokourov's. I did not spend time with Robert Stannard during training, or watch what he did at night. So I couldn't say for sure that he didn't dope.

My suspicion is that he didn't. If he was willing to dope, it would be easy to reduce variability and stay within the biological passport. After the first few years I'm pretty sure everyone figured out that reducing variability was the way to avoid detection. Most likely the people that are getting "caught" are people with high natural variability who are not doping.

You just said you can’t know for sure if someone has doped or not but then say the people getting caught are the ones with “natural variability who are not doping.” You may be on top of all the science but your argument is inconsistent at best or poor logic at worst. Of course that final line really makes it sound like you’re in with the omertà.

 

[Ripper]

I am more at 50/50 at the moment. Although Peter Attia is a fan, San Milan's "zone 2 training" is not very sophisticated so I can imagine that a new trainer has some low hanging fruit to work with and can improve the riders in the team but then again this takes time and you can't add 5-10% in watt/kg to pro cyclists in a year.

Attia is more youtuber than anything and he is also a fan of Lancey, so who cares one way or the other what he is selling

I also think you can be comfortable knowing that Pog and team were doing a lot more than Z2 stuff. It is a myth they were doing mostly Z2 steady state stuff before and that suddenly they have a good coach and therefore a 5-10% annual upswing at this juncture in the career.

 

[peterfin]

You just said you can’t know for sure if someone has doped or not but then say the people getting caught are the ones with “natural variability who are not doping.” You may be on top of all the science but your argument is inconsistent at best or poor logic at worst. Of course that final line really makes it sound like you’re in with the omertà.

That is not what he says. He did not say that people getting caught "are the ones" that are not doping. He says that people that get caught due to high variability are most like not doping because its easy to control the variability.

What concerns me the most in the discussion is that false positives are more likely to occur than true positives. This is a risk for a rider and his team that can only be mittigated by controlling variability. For the more sophisticated teams with 'ambition' it's a small step to 'improve' the blood values while keeping variability within limits.

 

[Ripper]

That is not what he says. He did not say that people getting caught "are the ones" that are not doping. He says that people that get caught due to high variability are most like not doping because its easy to control the variability.

What concerns me the most in the discussion is that false positives are more likely to occur than true positives. This is a risk for a rider and his team that can only be mittigated by controlling variability. For the more sophisticated teams with 'ambition' it's a small step to 'improve' the blood values while keeping variability within limits.

Do we know that false positives are more likely? Or is it all based on just the current conversation?

 

[Sciatic]

That is not what he says. He did not say that people getting caught "are the ones" that are not doping. He says that people that get caught due to high variability are most like not doping because its easy to control the variability.

What concerns me the most in the discussion is that false positives are more likely to occur than true positives. This is a risk for a rider and his team that can only be mittigated by controlling variability. For the more sophisticated teams with 'ambition' it's a small step to 'improve' the blood values while keeping variability within limit.

He states a conclusion that he bases on a premise that there exists a subset of riders who are not doping, which he admits several sentences earlier is not knowable.

 

[Nomad]

The fact that you are using this as evidence that the ABP is reliable makes me realize how gullible you are.

Too funny..."gullible" to a system that's been in use since it's inception in 2009. Gullible to sytem that's resulted in over 180 ADRVs for hematological-anomalies involving athletics, cycling, triathlon, etc. Gullible to a system that's resulted in successful OOC target-testing of numerous riders, including some high-profile riders (e.g. Danilo DiLuca, Thomas Dekker, Manuel Beltran). Gullible to a system that has withstood numerous legal challenges at the highest level of Court for sports arbitration.

In 2014, a steroid module was added to the ABP. As a result, WADA doesn't need the 4:1 T/E ratio breached to pursue further testing with the carbon isotope ratio (CIR) test. It can target test using CIR on suspicious fluctuations detected on the hormonal profile.

And last year, a growth hormone module was added to the ABP which will monitor fluctuations in GH markers.

You may be negative on the ABP as a result of the outcome of your client's case, but the ABP has been a successful tool in the fight against doping.

Athlete biological passport - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[peterfin]

Do we know that false positives are more likely? Or is it all based on just the current conversation?

It's just a hypothesis based on the current observation. Basically the hypothesis is this: if there exist high natural variability and if variability can be controlled, false positives will be more likely than true positives because those who are doping are obviously much more inclined to control their blood variability than those who are clean.

 

[Pozzovivo]

It's just a hypothesis based on the current observation. Basically the hypothesis is this: if there exist high natural variability and if variability can be controlled, false positives will be more likely than true positives because those who are doping are obviously much more inclined to control their blood variability than those who are clean.

Statistically it's quite worrying. Let's consider some assumptions that might not be numerically precise but effectively illustrate how a false positive rate can overshadow the real positive results in doping tests.

Suppose each year, 2% of 500 riders in the pro peloton are cheating, translating to 10 cheaters and 490 non-cheaters annually. If the test's false positive rate (FPR) is 1%, then 1% of the non-cheaters—approximately 4.9 riders—are wrongly identified as cheaters. On the other hand, if the true positive rate (TPR) is 5%, it means that 5% of actual cheaters—0.5 riders—are correctly caught each year. This may initially seem like a beneficial 5-to-1 ratio in favor of catching cheaters, but the reality is quite different.

Based on these assumptions, each year, on average, only 0.5 cheaters are correctly identified, while 4.9 non-cheaters are mistakenly caught. Over 5 years, this adds up to 2.5 cheaters being caught and 24.5 non-cheaters being wrongly accused.

In summary, for every 2.5 dopers caught, 24.5 innocent riders could be wrongly accused!

Please note: The numbers used here are merely hypothetical; I don't know the actual figures (and who does?). However, if the real numbers are even remotely similar, which is not uncommon in medical testing scenarios, we could see a significant number of false accusations.

This phenomenon is well-documented in diagnostic tests, which is why people are often advised against taking numerous tests unless there's a strong indication of a specific condition. A random test might yield a false positive purely by chance!

 

[firefly3323]

Statistically it's quite worrying. Let's consider some assumptions that might not be numerically precise but effectively illustrate how a false positive rate can overshadow the real positive results in doping tests.

Suppose each year, 2% of 500 riders in the pro peloton are cheating, translating to 10 cheaters and 490 non-cheaters annually. If the test's false positive rate (FPR) is 1%, then 1% of the non-cheaters—approximately 4.9 riders—are wrongly identified as cheaters. On the other hand, if the true positive rate (TPR) is 5%, it means that 5% of actual cheaters—0.5 riders—are correctly caught each year. This may initially seem like a beneficial 5-to-1 ratio in favor of catching cheaters, but the reality is quite different.

Based on these assumptions, each year, on average, only 0.5 cheaters are correctly identified, while 4.9 non-cheaters are mistakenly caught. Over 5 years, this adds up to 2.5 cheaters being caught and 24.5 non-cheaters being wrongly accused.

In summary, for every 2.5 dopers caught, 24.5 innocent riders could be wrongly accused!

Please note: The numbers used here are merely hypothetical; I don't know the actual figures (and who does?). However, if the real numbers are even remotely similar, which is not uncommon in medical testing scenarios, we could see a significant number of false accusations.

This phenomenon is well-documented in diagnostic tests, which is why people are often advised against taking numerous tests unless there's a strong indication of a specific condition. A random test might yield a false positive purely by chance!

2% ??????

 

[Black Betsy]

Mechanical doping in Gymnastics:

Cypriot gymnastics judge accused of manipulating result in international competition

Cypriot gymnastics judge accused of manipulating result in international competition

A Cypriot rhythmic gymnastics judge is at the centre of an international controversy over alleged result manipulation at the European Games in Budapest last May.The judge stands accused of favouring Cypriot athlete <a href=https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/sports/rhythmic-gymnast-vera-tugolukova-to-ca

in-cyprus.philenews.com

 

[Pozzovivo]

2% ??????

As I say numerous times - I don't know the real numbers. If we only look at riders who test positive it's a few each year or so. Or about 2%.

 

[Rob5091]

Mechanical doping in Gymnastics:

Cypriot gymnastics judge accused of manipulating result in international competition

Cypriot gymnastics judge accused of manipulating result in international competition

A Cypriot rhythmic gymnastics judge is at the centre of an international controversy over alleged result manipulation at the European Games in Budapest last May.The judge stands accused of favouring Cypriot athlete <a href=https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/sports/rhythmic-gymnast-vera-tugolukova-to-ca

in-cyprus.philenews.com

Apparently vote swapping by the judges to rig the scores -

https://www.reddit.com/r/Gymnastics/comments/1cznjft/so_about_that_european_rhythmic_olympic_quota

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gymnastics/comments/1cznjft/so_about_that_european_rhythmic_olympic_quota/?rdt=44213

There is controversy over the Rhythmic European Olympic quota. Allegations of score swapping between Cyprus and Azerbaijan and to the detriment of a 15-year old from Poland. The athletes involved were very close/evenly matched so short of a confession it would be hard to prove. Rhythmic is a fundamentally ill sport when it comes to corruption, it doesn't all flow from Russia/Irina Viner, and existed long before her. In ways it's getting better but it would take a major cultural shift and consequences for people to look at these kinds of situations and trust results.

A cliff notes on the allegations: Athletes from Cyprus and Poland were evenly matched going towards the Olympic quota. The Azerbaijan Group can get to the Olympics if either they or Germany (who is currently in the reallocated host spot from worlds) win the quota at Euros. The belief is that Azerbaijan traded their support of the Cyprus individual for Cyprus' support of the Azerbaijan Group. If they want to be subtle (for versions of the word) all they'd have to do is make sure the un-involved Germans win the group.

The Germans just missed qualification at worlds so winning the spot here would be plausible. It is plausible that Cyprus won the RGI spot legitimately (though there is a whiff of truth to the allegations). This kind of thing doesn't work unless they are an edge case.

 

[firefly3323]

As I say numerous times - I don't know the real numbers. If we only look at riders who test positive it's a few each year or so. Or about 2%.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-wider-usage-published-after-scandalous-delay

https://www.shu.ac.uk/news/all-articles/features-and-comment/athlete-doping

**I realize that those two articles are not cycling specific but no reason to think the numbers don't fit the pro peloton as well

There are tons of 'studies' that have been done and, if you ignore the majority/all of the American ones (seems that our athletes are not only cheaters but liars as well (maybe just delusional from all the drugs)), the numbers are pretty damning. When these are only the athletes that admit it, well......... its a risk/reward situation in reality. Nearly zero risk with lots of reward.