IAAF introduces biological passport

[icefire]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds...l+passport&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9f8b03dc067bc529

 

[BotanyBay]

How ill the use it? Punitively or for targeting?

 

[D-Queued]

How ill the use it? Punitively or for targeting?

Or like the UCI, as a health advisory to let their athletes know when values suggest some additional medical attention is required.

Dave.

 

[pmcg76]

Wow, didnt realise athletics was so far behind cycling, Bio Passport has been in cycling for what 3 seasons now. Even though I dont think the Bio passport is perfect, the fact other sports are only now introducing it show how far behind the dopers they are. No wonder cycling gets all the abuse.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Too little too late.

Makes for good PR, though...

 

[Dallas_]

Or like the UCI, as a health advisory to let their athletes know when values suggest some additional medical attention is required.

Dave.

Dave, I was under the impression the UCI does not release bio passport information to riders. Please correct me if I am wrong. So if I am correct, I don't understand your theory.
From my understanding, the bio passport combined with normal substance testing(epo, etc) are the best technology available at this time. Again, correct me if wrong.

Ashenden was questioned on the legal effectiveness of the bio passport. He was non committal at this stage, preferring to follow the early cases to conclusion.
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2010/ashenden-defends-bio-passport
I prefer to take a "wait and see" approach too.
Maybe the bio passport data from AC said ..mm -> target AC with more tests -> bingo clen

just a little background. My view of miracle boy donating mega$$ to the UCI - the lowest act EVER involving the UCI, no question.
Apart from that, I am not a UCI basher as some are in this forum. If the UCI does not ensure AC gets 2 years, a basher I will be.

cheers dallas

 

[Dallas_]

Too little too late.

Makes for good PR, though...

Maybe too late, but "better late than never"
Have you seen the physique on some of the IAAF golden league athletes? mm.. maybe I spend too much time in the clinic!
Agreed good PR

cheers dallas

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, I was under the impression the UCI does not release bio passport information to riders. Please correct me if I am wrong. So if I am correct, I don't understand your theory.
From my understanding, the bio passport combined with normal substance testing(epo, etc) are the best technology available at this time. Again, correct me if wrong.

Ashenden was questioned on the legal effectiveness of the bio passport. He was non committal at this stage, preferring to follow the early cases to conclusion.
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2010/ashenden-defends-bio-passport
I prefer to take a "wait and see" approach too.
Maybe the bio passport data from AC said ..mm -> target AC with more tests -> bingo clen

just a little background. My view of miracle boy donating mega$$ to the UCI - the lowest act EVER involving the UCI, no question.
Apart from that, I am not a UCI basher as some are in this forum. If the UCI does not ensure AC gets 2 years, a basher I will be.

cheers dallas

Yes, the Passport data is released to the riders.

In fact, a specific concern has been officially noted with respect to the timing of Passport data release. From the WADA Independent Observer Reporton the 2010 TdF:

possibility of riders being aware of possible follow up testing and/or then having the ability to manipulate their blood profiles after accessing such data and before a follow up sample can be collected.

Recommendation 15: The UCI and WADA should consider the timing of releasing ABP date to riders to ensure that the UCI has time to review and act accordingly on any profiles that warrant further investigation and/or testing prior to the rider being afforded the same opportunity to look at their own profiles

There is also clear evidence that the Passport has been underwhelming and has direct and anecdotal evidence of being a smokescreen - or worse.

Please consider:

1. Evidence of subjective application
2. Not catching anyone during the CERA outbreak via Passport
3. Increased evidence of organized doping (and no Passport-related action)
4. Non-passport tests are down (i.e. the kind that actually catch someone)

1. What we do know is that the WADA observers at last year's Tour made a specific observation that 'high priority targets' as identified by the Passport were not being tested.

• While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).

• During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP).

Moreover, the Observers report noted that a representative from the UCI anti-doping program wasn't even present for the whole Tour.

Recommendation 3: A member of the UCI anti-doping staff should be physically present for the duration of the Tour

In other words, we have very specific and clear information that the Passport is being used or applied subjectively.

And, we have egregious statements from the UCI that
“UCI will do Tour testing as AFLD has no credibility” (May 11, 2010 from McQuaid)

Here is what the WADA Independent Observer report said about that:

Recommendation 2: Given the significance of the Tour to cycling and France, mediation talks should be scheduled as a matter of urgency between the UCI and the AFLD to establish how both parties might work closer together for the 2011 Tour

From that same VeloNews article:

The have been a number of criticisms of the recently announced list of riders who are under investigation due to abnormalities on their biological passport. In the case of Liquigas-Doimo rider Franco Pellizotti, his proflie showed abnormalities before the 2009 Tour but he was only accused of doping on May 3, almost a year later

2. We also have the anecdotal information that the Passport has not yielded an increase in sanctions. This was most glaring was 2008 (first year of the Passport) when CERA (or Micera) was all the rage (Ricco, Schumacher, Kohl...) - and riders were getting popped all over. BUT not a single case brought forward on the Passport.

The example of Riccardo Ricco being busted is particularly notorious as he had a 'UCI certification for his high haematocrit'.

3. The organized doping has continued - as evidenced by the busts of Basso's family, Ricco's family, and Patacchi's teammate Bernucci.

4. Finally, as noted in a previous post, the UCI records that its number of tests are way up. This is actually misleading. When the Passport tests are included, there is a larger number. When the Passport tests are excluded, the number of tests have gone down by almost a third.

Dave.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I am not a UCI basher as some are in this forum. If the UCI does not ensure AC gets 2 years, a basher I will be.

cheers dallas

Better start picking out a good bashing stick...

 

[BotanyBay]

Dave, I was under the impression the UCI does not release bio passport information to riders. Please correct me if I am wrong. So if I am correct, I don't understand your theory.
From my understanding, the bio passport combined with normal substance testing(epo, etc) are the best technology available at this time. Again, correct me if wrong.

They also don't provide advance intelligence to certain riders about impending OOC tests...

 

[Samwise]

Yes, the Passport data is released to the riders.

In fact, a specific concern has been officially noted with respect to the timing of Passport data release. From the WADA Independent Observer Reporton the 2010 TdF:



There is also clear evidence that the Passport has been underwhelming and has direct and anecdotal evidence of being a smokescreen - or worse.

Please consider:

1. Evidence of subjective application
2. Not catching anyone during the CERA outbreak via Passport
3. Increased evidence of organized doping (and no Passport-related action)
4. Non-passport tests are down (i.e. the kind that actually catch someone)

1. What we do know is that the WADA observers at last year's Tour made a specific observation that 'high priority targets' as identified by the Passport were not being tested.




Moreover, the Observers report noted that a representative from the UCI anti-doping program wasn't even present for the whole Tour.


In other words, we have very specific and clear information that the Passport is being used or applied subjectively.

And, we have egregious statements from the UCI that
“UCI will do Tour testing as AFLD has no credibility” (May 11, 2010 from McQuaid)

Here is what the WADA Independent Observer report said about that:


From that same VeloNews article:



2. We also have the anecdotal information that the Passport has not yielded an increase in sanctions. This was most glaring was 2008 (first year of the Passport) when CERA (or Micera) was all the rage (Ricco, Schumacher, Kohl...) - and riders were getting popped all over. BUT not a single case brought forward on the Passport.

The example of Riccardo Ricco being busted is particularly notorious as he had a 'UCI certification for his high haematocrit'.

3. The organized doping has continued - as evidenced by the busts of Basso's family, Ricco's family, and Patacchi's teammate Bernucci.

4. Finally, as noted in a previous post, the UCI records that its number of tests are way up. This is actually misleading. When the Passport tests are included, there is a larger number. When the Passport tests are excluded, the number of tests have gone down by almost a third.

Dave.

posts like these just make my day... great stuff.