Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

[red_flanders]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet.

Both are freaks of nature.

I'm a little skeptical about putting the prime years too early for cyclists. There is more of a peak relating to explosiveness. I don't think stamina is reduced that much so early. Other factors might be more important like children, other interests, being fed up etc. The body may still have the juice but the will does not.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet.

Both are freaks of nature.

I'm a little skeptical about putting the prime years too early for cyclists. There is more of a peak relating to explosiveness. I don't think stamina is reduced that much so early. Other factors might be more important like children, other interests, being fed up etc. The body may still have the juice but the will does not.

I'm talking about measurable physiological attributes such as heart rate. It's a proven physiological fact that the older you get after the age of 32 or 33, your heartbeat slows little by little year after year. The 34 y.o. Gilbert and Valverde are supposed to have less oxygen rich blood flowing into their muscles. It may not be a significant drop but it drops nonetheless.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

The Bio passport is indeed not foolproof. Ashenden et al got this published in a peer reviewed journal. Ten percent boost to haemoglobin mass is not peanuts.

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.

The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software.Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951

That paper is from 2011. Methods and tests have IMHO improved. The bio pass combined with out of comp testing makes it even more difficult to follow such a program now.

 

[ToreBear]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.

Who was the last doper that won something of any significance?

 

[meat puppet]

Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet.

Both are freaks of nature.

I'm a little skeptical about putting the prime years too early for cyclists. There is more of a peak relating to explosiveness. I don't think stamina is reduced that much so early. Other factors might be more important like children, other interests, being fed up etc. The body may still have the juice but the will does not.

I'm talking about measurable physiological attributes such as heart rate. It's a proven physiological fact that the older you get after the age of 32 or 33, your heartbeat slows little by little year after year. The 34 y.o. Gilbert and Valverde are supposed to have less oxygen rich blood flowing into their muscles. It may not be a significant drop but it drops nonetheless.

I'm no expert, but what if there is compensation involved of some kind? Say experiences allows one to be more rational about oxygen use. Or the muscles get better at tolerating lactate. Or the muscles in some way improve their use of the available oxygen. Also I would think there are large individual differences in the year of peak heart beat.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.

I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.

 

[wheresmybrakes]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Can we assume that you have never been in a race or even ride a bike?

Please stop the petty insults, both of you.

My intentions are not to insult, it just seems that as soon as someone wins a race/numerous races having been off the radar for a while, has to be taking something extra. Can't a rider just come into some sort of form for a period of time before fading for a while before coming back again without being accused of cheating?

I ride my bike for pleasure, I don't do races, I ain't good enough/enjoy riding on my own (billy no mates ) I can do the same route on different occasions and the times could be quite different, does that mean I've been on the wacky stuff? Nah, just a bit better form. (or a tail wind )

 

[climb4fun]

Re: torebear

Dude! Puhleeese!? Why aren't more "old guys" kickin' it. My guess is Valverde, GVA and Gilbert are doing something we've never heard of. Also, the biological passport is like a lock on your door, makes the honest, stay honest.

Why are you on this forum? Morbid curiosity or masochism?

 

[Bolder]

As has been mentioned numerous times, the question isn't whether he's doping but on what program is he on?

Look, I don't discount the possibility of crushing the field every now and then without some kind of illegal performance aids. But to do it repeatedly -- i.e. Gilbert in 2011 (23 victories!), LA in the TdF, just about any Cancellara performance -- doesn't add up. Given the number of participants in bike racing and the technical advances in training (available to anyone via the Web the likelihood of a series of clean, freakish performances is infinitesimal. I seriously doubt that PG is the kind of guy who said sometime in the past few years: "Hey, you know what? I think I'll do it all on bread and water."

 

[frisenfruitig]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.

I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.

We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.

What is a fishy doctor? One mans fish may be another mans dolphin.

Did Valverde dope in the period up to his ban? I doubt it since that would leave him in hot water with his Puerto case still ongoing. Or could it be that it was dirty when he was banned, then everyone including him got clean, and we are only now seeing their real capabilities?

When you use performance relating to his previous self, or previous others/current others, the variables become to complex. Hence performance is not a good measure of doping.

I'm not really that into "seeing" since what I see that I find outside the norm can have many different explanations unrelated to doping.

I can't say ive noticed many "ridiculous performances". There are just too many variables to count that could explain why a time is so good: Wind strength/direction, drafting or not. Day climb occurs in tour. When climb is on the stage. What the stage was like the previous day. I'm sure there are more.

Well, that settles it. Utterly delusional

 

[red_flanders]

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.

Who was the last doper that won something of any significance?

I'll just assume you're pulling our collective leg at this point.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Quickstep have 5 team doctors. 5!!!!

And then you realize that a staff of five doctors could service 200 clinical patients or a small hospital...

John Swanson

Jaysus! I would never have thought of it like that. Leaving aside the obvious clinic stuff for a moment, do all teams not have several doctors simply for the various schedules, different riders at different races and suchly?

i always remember Bassons saying he never saw the team doctor. When he needed medical attention he went to his GP.

Team doctors = doping.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: torebear

Dude! Puhleeese!? Why aren't more "old guys" kickin' it. My guess is Valverde, GVA and Gilbert are doing something we've never heard of. Also, the biological passport is like a lock on your door, makes the honest, stay honest.

Why are you on this forum? Morbid curiosity or masochism?

Cause I'm interested in doping and antidoping. In the beginning it was to learn. Nowadays it's less learning, but sometimes some interesting nuggets show up.

 

[ToreBear]

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.

Who was the last doper that won something of any significance?

I'll just assume you're pulling our collective leg at this point.

It was a serious question.

 

[Saint Unix]

It was a serious question.

Then the answer is "On Sunday".

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Hypothesis:
the fact that Gilbert wins BIG then drops out of the next race
is a sign that those who control cycling are have a group of favoured riders
who are free to dope/motor but only to win their allotted races.

This makes cycling more attractive to the causal punter
- since races can be "manipulated" to guarantee:
1) entertaining finishes &
2) reliable stars - with higher degree of recognition
- making it simpler to sell as an online betting sport.

it leaves me (a non-punter) with a undertone of being manipulated.

 

[meat puppet]

Re: Re:

Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.

I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.

My point was that the conclusions of the Ashenden study about the room that athletes have to blood dope and microdose EPO are still quite valid unless the passport's blood components have been altered since the study. I don't think they have been but if they have, I am very interested to learn how.

It is true that more athletes are part of the BP and many athletes have been part of it for 6-7 more years from the study. This is to be welcomed. A steroid module has been added to the bio passport, yes, but that does not substantially diminish the room to blood dope.

However, the point of the study was to show that the passport in its current setup does not trigger suspicion even in the case of substantial blood manipulation in the order of increasing HBmass by ca. 10%. This "room to play" applies to the new athletes who have entered the BP pool as well as to those athletes who now have a longer history in the pool.

Longer history might help catch abnormal fluctuations, of course. But their abnormality is decided by the current setup of the BP blood passport. And its sensitivity to fluctuations induced by doping is what the study tested. Unless the setup is altered, there is a considerable room to dope without triggering suspicion. How many BP cases leading to bans have there been?

Finally, microdose EPO glowtime is not long, perhaps even shorter than the no testing window during nights. So one has to mess it up if a direct pop for pissing hot occurs.

As for your arguments about better governance, coordination and enactment of antidoping in general I remain agnostic but sceptical. What might indicate things having evolved in this direction? In my understanding it is a stretch to argue for improvement since the publication of the Ashenden study.

 

[the pope]

Re:

Hypothesis:
the fact that Gilbert wins BIG then drops out of the next race
is a sign that those who control cycling are have a group of favoured riders
who are free to dope/motor but only to win their allotted races.

This makes cycling more attractive to the causal punter
- since races can be "manipulated" to guarantee:
1) entertaining finishes &
2) reliable stars - with higher degree of recognition
- making it simpler to sell as an online betting sport.

it leaves me (a non-punter) with a undertone of being manipulated.

Quick, someone get Dan Brown in. This guy is onto something.

 

[The Hegelian]

It was a serious question.

Then the answer is "On Sunday".

Monday (Scarponi).

We don't even have to infer that one.

 

[Saint Unix]

It was a serious question.

Then the answer is "On Sunday".

Monday (Scarponi).

We don't even have to infer that one.

Depends on the definition of "any significance".

 

[python]

...quite amazing to see the same old arguments made, refuted, and yet coming up again.

assuming that evolving/improving anti doping somehow is catching up with also evolving/getting more sophisticated doping is either naive or stupid. i really can't be bothered to tell which is which.

as always, there are 2 big groups of dopers - those that can pay for a sophisticated program and the various degrees of amateurism, mainly, but not only, sustained by the internal 'word of mouth' or googling.

there are always several docs out there - like the infamous ferrari - who will know the glow times for the undetectable dozes, b/c they stay abreast with ms-gc sensitivity improvements. the same docs will work out how much and how often their client will need to micro doze to beat ANY bio passport. and this is NOT even talking about the 'grey areas' - or legal doping - via manipulations of the murky world of tue's. those of us following the xc ski threads might be well informed of how sundby did it etc etc.

it is a proven fact - the sophisticated doping has always been ahead. the relatively low frequency of testing is also a problem. recall, armstrong was sure that he will NEVER be caught. he even invited a personal tester (don catlin) to flaunt the idea in everyone's face...and we know he was right had it not been for one very persistent police investigator...

this is not to say that doping is risk-free or that from time to time a big fish did not gets busted. but where a well financed, professional effort is applied, the dope police is behind.

and they know it.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.

I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.

My point was that the conclusions of the Ashenden study about the room that athletes have to blood dope and microdose EPO are still quite valid unless the passport's blood components have been altered since the study. I don't think they have been but if they have, I am very interested to learn how.

It is true that more athletes are part of the BP and many athletes have been part of it for 6-7 more years from the study. This is to be welcomed. A steroid module has been added to the bio passport, yes, but that does not substantially diminish the room to blood dope.

However, the point of the study was to show that the passport in its current setup does not trigger suspicion even in the case of substantial blood manipulation in the order of increasing HBmass by ca. 10%. This "room to play" applies to the new athletes who have entered the BP pool as well as to those athletes who now have a longer history in the pool.

Longer history might help catch abnormal fluctuations, of course. But their abnormality is decided by the current setup of the BP blood passport. And its sensitivity to fluctuations induced by doping is what the study tested. Unless the setup is altered, there is a considerable room to dope without triggering suspicion. How many BP cases leading to bans have there been?

Finally, microdose EPO glowtime is not long, perhaps even shorter than the no testing window during nights. So one has to mess it up if a direct pop for pissing hot occurs.

As for your arguments about better governance, coordination and enactment of antidoping in general I remain agnostic but sceptical. What might indicate things having evolved in this direction? In my understanding it is a stretch to argue for improvement since the publication of the Ashenden study.

I'm no expert on this stuff and I don't want to be, and I have to admit this is the first time i'we read the hole study.

In the study Ashenden uses the Athlete biological passport operating guidelines from 2009.

I went to Wadas guidelines page:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/athlete-biological-passport/athlete-biological-passport-abp-operating-guidelines

They don't have the ones from 2009. But they have the ones from 2.1 2010 to 6.0 in 2017.
The earliest one, version 2.1 from 2010 contains this selection on page 29/31:

Typically, a profile will be flagged by the Adaptive Model for a review by a
panel of three experts if the profile deviates from the norm by 99.9%,
however, an individual Anti-Doping Organization may choose to use a lower
probability score, which will cause more profiles to be reviewed by their
Expert Panel.

Revisions from 2014 and 2017:

rev 5.0 oct 2014
page 50/63
A specificity of 99% is used to identify both haematological and steroidal ATPFs that
warrant further investigation and/or results management.

rev 6.0 jan 2017
page 50/65
A specificity of 99% is used to identify both haematological and steroidal
ATPFs.

From Ashendens study

A blood value from
one subject exceeded the 99.9% threshold (OFF-hr score)
at baseline prior to receiving rhEPO. Throughout the
remainder of the study no individual values were flagged as
abnormal by the ABP software. Two other subjects had
sequences of blood profiles that approached but did not
exceed the 99.9% percentile (99.88% for [Hb] and 99.87%
for OFF-hr score).

So you already have 2-3 flags of the 9-10 in Ashendens 2011 study who would get flagged under the 2014 and 2017 revisions now.

Lets say there were 10 that finished the study and 3 flags, thats 30% caught for doping using this recipe for manipulation.

I should have read this paper before since it seems well done, it even lists its limitations:

One limitation of the present study was the absence of
urinalyses to assess the presence of rhEPO in urine samples.

In summary, we would speculate that the likely sensitivity
of urinalyses to detect our protocol of once weekly injections
of 1,500–6,000 IU per week, assuming samples were
collected 2 days post-injection, would probably range
between 0 and 25% (i.e., a continuum correlated with the
dosage used).

Another limitation of the current protocol was the
absence of a washout period. Extending the protocol by a
further 3–4 weeks was deemed to place an unwarranted
burden on participants, and primacy was instead given to
extending the treatment phase for as long as possible. This
trade-off almost certainly diminished the sensitivity of the
ABP component monitoring OFF-hr score, since it has
been well-documented that a nadir in OFF-hr score is
reached 10–14 days after rhEPO injections cease (Gore
et al. 2003).

We assume this signature would have held also
in our subjects, whose OFF-hr scores would have increased
markedly and most likely been flagged by the software as
being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased.

Similarly, we speculate that the sequence analysis used by
the ABP software, which explicitly evaluates variations in
the data, would have yielded greater sensitivity if washout
data had been included as these data would have varied
substantially from both baseline and treatment phases.

Finally, an inevitable limitation when structured laboratory
studies seek to mimic how athletes dope ‘in the field’
is the inability to faithfully replicate that setting. For
example, our protocol incorporated regular twice weekly
injections over a three month period. It could be disputed
whether an athlete would adhere to that regimen, and less
consistent dosing could result in larger fluctuations in
blood variables.

One implication of this study is that careful attention
should be paid to when and how unannounced urine controls
are collected from high risk groups. Given that at least
one microdosing strategy can be utilised without being
flagged by the ABP software, conventional urinalyses will
remain a crucial and perhaps the only avenue open to
authorities to remedy microdosing. However, this observation
should only temper, not redact, implementation of
the Athlete Biological Passport: sport federations or
national anti-doping agencies without a coherent blood
testing strategy may well house a population of athletes
whose blood values resemble cycling and cross-country
skiing circa 1997 (i.e., unsophisticated doping regimens
with commensurately extreme blood values). In that environment
we speculate the ABP software would wield an
unprecedented deterrent/detection effect (at least until the
athletes revised their doping strategies).

The passport’s utility as an intelligence-gathering tool
should not be understated. Perhaps additional biomarkers,
with increased sensitivity but reduced specificity, might be
introduced to magnify the passport’s utility as a targeting
strategy (low specificity in this setting is immaterial when
the data are used only for intelligence gathering).

From the conclusions:

Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to inject
rhEPO without triggering Passport thresholds. On one
hand, this underlines the need to retain existing analytical
procedures (‘direct detection’) in support of the Athlete
Blood Passport, and on the other hand, emphasises the need
for recruitment of novel strategies to hopefully close current
loopholes.

It's possible to avoid flagging, but it definitely does not look easy to do, and you still run the risk of an inopportune urine test ruining all this expensive and time consuming work.

As for Epo glowtime:

We are mindful that the IEF
sensitivity depends on factors including the dosage used
2312 Eur J Appl Physiol (2011) 111:2307–2314
123
and the interval between injection and sample collection.
However, some insight can be gleaned from a previous
publication where a cohort of eight healthy subjects were
given subcutaneous injections of 5,000 IU (Lundby et al.
2008), which elicited an overall increase in haemoglobin
mass of 92 g (compared to our increase of 113 g). All urine
samples collected 2 days post-injection were positive when
injections were given every second day, whilst one quarter
of samples collected during the maintenance phase (i.e.,
one injection per week) were declared positive (it is noteworthy
that a second laboratory analysing duplicate samples
yielded no positive results during either phase). An
imperfect bookend for Lundby’s study may be the research
reported previously where an (undisclosed) microdose of
rhEPO was not detectable via IEF analyses 12–18 h postinjection
(Ashenden et al. 2006), however, it is noteworthy
that study utilised ‘first generation’ positivity criteria,
which have since been modified to yield better sensitivity

There is no clear answer. I think Tyler Hamiltons book talked about being a 6-8 hour glowtime, or maybe it was 18-24 hours or something. Anyway it's not easy to design a dopingprogram that is good enough that you can feel safe from being caught.

As for improvements since 2011, this should be an example of some of the improvement. But it's hard to measure improvement overall. One way might be to view the evolution of anti doping budgets. Or the amount of testing. Or the type of testing.

Ps. As for how many cases have only used the passport, I don't know, but assume very few. I would think the AD units will find it easier to use targeted testing as a result of the BP findings to get a positive sample rather than to rely on the drawn out process to get a passport only conviction.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Hypothesis:
the fact that Gilbert wins BIG then drops out of the next race
is a sign that those who control cycling are have a group of favoured riders
who are free to dope/motor but only to win their allotted races.

This makes cycling more attractive to the causal punter
- since races can be "manipulated" to guarantee:
1) entertaining finishes &
2) reliable stars - with higher degree of recognition
- making it simpler to sell as an online betting sport.

it leaves me (a non-punter) with a undertone of being manipulated.

The problem is, it's the UCI you suggest are doing this. The UCI. They can't even organise a party in a brewery. Yet they're pulling off this massive conspiracy with manufactured stars?