So, it's crunch time for the Bio Passport. Valjavec, Caucchioli and now Pellizotti are in line for CAS decisions. CONI has said that the BP can be useful for target testing, but not for sanctioning. The paper from the New Pathways Conference examined the Valjavec proceedings to show what the UCI is doing wrong. So what happens if the cyclists win all three cases, and Pellizotti sues for a million Euros for losing a year of his career? The BP is a big public relations item for pro cycling - hey everyone, look what we're doing that no one else is doing.
But does it have any real value to the sport if they can't use it to identify cheaters and punish them? Or if they can only punish guys who don't have the cash to fight back?
As for targeted testing, here's what Pellizotti had to say May 5th:
"I thought it [the biological passport] was started as an instrument to monitor the riders and hit at those suspected of cheating," continued Pellizotti. "It was like that in most cases. But this is what bothers me, after the Tour, they did only one surprise control, August 9, and another at our team camp in March 2010. If there were doubts, why did they not control me more?
He was notified in May that he had abnormal values the previous July, and only had two surprise controls during a time they should have been gathering evidence, or trying to catch him with an illegal substance in his body? They had a total of nine riders they were looking at for the first round of sanctions. Why didn't they test the heck out of them?
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...-questions-biological-passport-s-methods.html
How might things be different right now if all the samples taken for Biological Passport only had instead been tested for EPO, CERA, etc? With that many more tests, might they have caught more than five guys, three of which have a chance of being found innocent?
It's obvious to a lot of people that it's impossible for the organization to promote and police the sport at the same time. If the CAS shuts them down to the point where they don't even bother trying to sanction based on Passport results, who believes they could successfully use it for target testing? Some quotes from the WADA/AMA Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour - Here's the quality of timely information available to the testers:
For the Tour ABP samples are sent to the Lausanne Laboratory in anonymous format, the results of which are then statistically analysed by the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) and sent to the UCI and the experts if necessary During the major Tours the AMPU in turn provides a commentary to the UCI regarding all of the riders’ profile identifying whether the profile was suspicious (using a 10 point scale with 10 representing the highest priority for testing and 1 the least) as well as recommendations as to the type of test to target the rider. The data that the UCI holds on each rider is hugely valuable in informing an intelligent testing programme.
And here's how they failed to use it, even with the AMA looking over their shoulders and taking notes.
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). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.
A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.
So, they had quality intel showing four very suspect riders, and failed to do anything about it. To some extent, the Passport science was working, but the decision makers failed. And again, this was the only race of the year where anyone was watching the UCI actions. And of course, (as far as we know), unlike the AFLD, the UCI allowed all non-Contador samples to be disposed of. All that money spent, and all that's left is additional Passport data to go with the info they ignored in July.
The UCI outlined that it did not have a specific policy in place regarding the storage of samples post analysis (ie. outside of the standard 3 months storage period required by the International Standard for Laboratories). The UCI informed the IO Team that they would consider the storage of a few samples of selected riders based on final results of the Tour. The IO Team has not been made aware of any samples collected in the lead up to or during the Tour that have been placed into long term storage for reanalysis at a later stage (for example, the performance of the riders at the Tour could be a criteria that could trigger reanalysis of previously collected samples)
.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf
Just as Armstrong turned me from being a vocal fan to a very vocal detractor, the UCI has turned me from a staunch anti-doping proponent to hoping the whole system fails so someone will have to do it right. I have no idea what if anything Franco might have done wrong, but I'm 100% rooting for him and Taminelli. Damn The Man