• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

No testing for bio passport

Jul 29, 2009
419
0
0
Just read Gerard Vroomen's blog via his twitter where he states he's not aware of any riders being tested for the bio passport from after the tour 2010 until april 2011!

I will try and get a link.

If someone can do it faster please do!
 
Jul 29, 2009
419
0
0
Thanks!

Took me far too long!

Anyway. Disturbing news, not just the lack of testing but the fact he feels he needs to blog and tweet the info as the best way of getting it out there
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
How can this be? Krebs has expressed outrage that people question the bio passport's effectiveness and equated such skepticism as an attack on the integrity of his colleagues. Vroomen should prepare to face Kreb's righteous indignation.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Obviously the clean teams of Cervelo and Garmin dont need to be tested :rolleyes:
If you took the time to actually read Vroomens blog you would realize that there appears to have been no Bio Passport testing of any teams.

Damiano Machiavelli said:
How can this be? Krebs has expressed outrage that people question the bio passport's effectiveness and equated such skepticism as an attack on the integrity of his colleagues. Vroomen should prepare to face Kreb's righteous indignation.
If you are going to have a pop at someone than you should give their full name (or link a post) as there are 2 posters with Krebs in their username.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
If you took the time to actually read Vroomens blog you would realize that there appears to have been no Bio Passport testing of any teams.
time to take a pill Doc and get a sense of humour. ;)
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Benotti69 said:
time to take a pill Doc and get a sense of humour. ;)
Apologies - I did not realize it was an attempt at humor, perhaps the fact that there was nothing of humor in it was what misled me.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,030
0
0
This is really disappointing news. Vroomen suggests the problem is the money for testing was spent on the appeal costs for previous cases. Surely they could find a way to recover from those costs over time, so they could continue with reasonable amounts of testing.

Is the UCI in financial difficulty? If not, there is no excuse for this.
 
Suddenly the words of Floyd are haunting us alll......

The UCI choose to hunt down Pozatto in a long winded case whilst ignoring the open & shut cases like the "9's" on the leaked list - eg Popo.... You just have to scratch your head sometimes with the UCI.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
How can this be? Krebs has expressed outrage that people question the bio passport's effectiveness and equated such skepticism as an attack on the integrity of his colleagues. Vroomen should prepare to face Kreb's righteous indignation.
Dr. Maserati said:
(...)
If you are going to have a pop at someone than you should give their full name (or link a post) as there are 2 posters with Krebs in their username.
let me be of some assistance.

Krebs cycle said:
(...)
And I repeat, I am basing my opinion mainly on the data which shows that the incidence of abnormal blood profiles has decreased, and the fact that blood transfusions lead to abnormal profiles. (...)
Krebs cycle said:
(...) The bio passport appears to be working. There are fewer incidences of abnormal blood profiles and it even looks as though it can detect autologous blood doping. (...)
Krebs cycle said:
Oh here we go.... put on your tin foil hat folks, after 12yrs of research and development and millions of dollars spent on the bio passport, the scientists just publish false data because Damiano M doesn't like the sound of it. It's a grand scientific conspiracy (like global warming) to thwart the public into believing that something is being done to fight doping in sports.

Now you are showing your true colours. In the face of peer-reviewed published evidence you just simply deny its authenticity in order to satisfy your own conclusion. You have basically just stated that Olaf Schumacher is a fraud who publishes false data in the scientific literature. You've got no idea who Olaf Schumacher is do you? You've got no idea of the consequences of publishing false data in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a highly serious charge you've made and you just hit a very slippery slope without a leg to stand on. For starters, Olaf Schumacher is not the UCI. He is an MD and university professor who happens to sit on a UCI medical advisory board. Maybe you don't understand the difference between a board or advisory committee and an organisation itself?

You have no idea about the history of the development of the bio-passport and the battles that the researchers involved have waged not only with the UCI, but the IOC and IAAF to get it to where it is now. You have no idea that even though a very small minority of these scientists may sit on a UCI scientific advisory committee that they continually must fight with the UCI, IOC, and IAAF proper hierarchy and their teams of lawyers to get these tests sanctioned. You've got no idea that the bio passport is much bigger than cycling alone but is being adopted by numerous other international sporting organisations (FINA is recent example), so to publish false data would have serious consequences that reach far beyond pro cycling.

You are basically rubbishing 10-12yrs of work of dozens upon dozens of independent researchers from all over the world with this statement. Highly respected and well known scientists whom have dedicated either part or all of their careers to the fight against doping. Many of them have nothing to do with the UCI, so what about them, are they all under the magical power of the UCI big brother? I know a number of these scientists personally and I will defend their integrity against a baseless attack as you have made. And what about the subjects in these studies over the years? You are saying that all the subjects in those studies did it for nothing. Myself and many people I know had needles stuck in our arms and butts every 2 days for 6 wks on 2 separate occasions to advance this cause (hence the bee in my bonnet about this). The breach of ethics you are implying here is mind boggling.

There is a massive difference between Pat McQuaid making a broad statement to the media and an eminent scientist (whom for 99% of his time is a university professor and researcher and 1% of the time is a member for the UCI medical advisory board), publishing the culmination of 12yrs of hard work and millions of dollars spent on the development of a specific blood analysis method in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You are the one who really needs to get a clue here.


For like the 10th time, the performance comparison was a minor point compared with the science. You are really trying very very hard to focus on this as if it was the major piece of the puzzle in my reasoning. Get over it, you are wrong. Move on.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
This is really disappointing news. Vroomen suggests the problem is the money for testing was spent on the appeal costs for previous cases. Surely they could find a way to recover from those costs over time, so they could continue with reasonable amounts of testing.

Is the UCI in financial difficulty? If not, there is no excuse for this.
It is the actual Worldtour & ProConti teams that provide a lot of the funding - but obviously that is not a bottomless pit.

Here are the figures for 2009 of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation:
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
This is really disappointing news. Vroomen suggests the problem is the money for testing was spent on the appeal costs for previous cases. Surely they could find a way to recover from those costs over time, so they could continue with reasonable amounts of testing.

Is the UCI in financial difficulty? If not, there is no excuse for this.
I share in your disappointment in the UCI. One point that doesn't ever get brought out is the real budget they have to deal with. Teams, races, other federations, police,Olympics all ask things of the UCI. If they have a few positives or dozens of suspicious tests, the retests, shared data, legal costs at all levels of appeal must be staggering.
As riders and teams struggle to find money I can't imagine how much money would need to be held in a "what if" fund. Contador and Valverde cases look like they are very expensive, not only just to get the facts but to back them up legally. The built in funding should have at least 1 level of appeal paid for jointly by the accuser and the accused
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
fatandfast said:
I share in your disappointment in the UCI. One point that doesn't ever get brought out is the real budget they have to deal with. Teams, races, other federations, police,Olympics all ask things of the UCI. If they have a few positives or dozens of suspicious tests, the retests, shared data, legal costs at all levels of appeal must be staggering.
As riders and teams struggle to find money I can't imagine how much money would need to be held in a "what if" fund. Contador and Valverde cases look like they are very expensive, not only just to get the facts but to back them up legally. The built in funding should have at least 1 level of appeal paid for jointly by the accuser and the accused
the appeal in AC's case is costly, but if UCI win, AC will be spicing UCI's bankaccount.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
let me be of some assistance.
My major point was that at least 2 posters share that name and I believe would have differing views.

One thing to note about the quotes you posted, Vroomens new information doesn't diminish' Krebs Cycles' point about the Bio Passports effectiveness, but more alarmingly its very existence.

sniper said:
the appeal in AC's case is costly, but if UCI win, AC will be spicing UCI's bankaccount.
That's a point i am trying to find our - from memory costs of appeals to CAS were borne by whomever lost.
I have done a quick check on the Pellizotti case and he was fined a further €115’000 as a 'sanction' does anyone know if that was on top of appeal costs are were those costs shared?
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
Do not worry, bros. I am sure that taking eight months off and doing no testing is not a problem. No problem at all. The people who might think so need to adjust their tin foil hats. There is no way that researchers of the level involved would stand for such shoddy data collection.

The nice thing about doping in cycling and those who claim things have changed is that all you have to do is wait for the next scandal to prove them wrong. It never takes long.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,223
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
This is really disappointing news. Vroomen suggests the problem is the money for testing was spent on the appeal costs for previous cases. Surely they could find a way to recover from those costs over time, so they could continue with reasonable amounts of testing.

Is the UCI in financial difficulty? If not, there is no excuse for this.
Not according to the Financial Statements of the Anti Doping Foundation. None of those funds are contributed towards UCI's anti doping litigation costs.

Appears only to be "coal face" testing costs. Litigation costs are taken up in the main UCI accounts.

The Notes to the UCI Financial Statements (2009) state:

Administrative tasks linked to the fight against doping were entrusted to the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation with governance and penalties remaining the responsibility of the UCI (and Mr. L.E. Armstrong).

The UCI is flush with an accumulation funds for a not for profit organisation. Thanks must be acknowledged for generous voluntary donations in the past from the Japanese Keirin Federation and Mr. L.E. Armstrong
 
In later tweets Mr. Vroomen suggests it is difficult to determine if a rider has had a draw for the passport as they are not informed. A passport test would require a blood draw and any blood draw could be used for the passport, Hct or any test from blood. His concern is that from what he's hearing the riders are not being drawn for the passport. Unless he's suggesting he has only heard of urine samples being taken any blood draw in the proper tube can be used for the passport. Its certainly a concern but I think the the story needs clarification as he suggests. Maybe a comment from the UCI would help...
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
Do not worry, bros. I am sure that taking eight months off and doing no testing is not a problem. No problem at all. The people who might think so need to adjust their tin foil hats. There is no way that researchers of the level involved would stand for such shoddy data collection.

The nice thing about doping in cycling and those who claim things have changed is that all you have to do is wait for the next scandal to prove them wrong. It never takes long.
While I would certainly agree with the highlighted, before you start drinking champagne out of your tin foil hat ;) Daniel Benson tweeted a short time ago that there were Biological Passport samples taken at the Vuelta, Worlds and at a training camp.

https://twitter.com/#!/dnlbenson
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
sniper said:
the appeal in AC's case is costly, but if UCI win, AC will be spicing UCI's bankaccount.
If they lose they'll be open to other appeals as a matter of course which is financially worse. They seem to just avoid the issue and the related costs. If they suspended the testing are they now looking ahead to a surplus budget?
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,030
0
0
fatandfast said:
I share in your disappointment in the UCI. One point that doesn't ever get brought out is the real budget they have to deal with. Teams, races, other federations, police,Olympics all ask things of the UCI. If they have a few positives or dozens of suspicious tests, the retests, shared data, legal costs at all levels of appeal must be staggering.
As riders and teams struggle to find money I can't imagine how much money would need to be held in a "what if" fund. Contador and Valverde cases look like they are very expensive, not only just to get the facts but to back them up legally. The built in funding should have at least 1 level of appeal paid for jointly by the accuser and the accused
Yeah, the cost of testing and legal stuff gets overlooked but is definitely an issue. The difficulty with splitting the appeal costs is that, in principle, cases going to appeal should be less cut and dried. Courts are often reluctant to impose large cost penalties in those situation, so I doubt there would be much reliable revenue. UCI did try the salary forfeit thing, but it didn't hold up legally. IMO there is a real argument for WADA sanctions to include a fine, which would be paid into e.g. the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation.
 
May 19, 2010
1,403
0
0
thehog said:
Suddenly the words of Floyd are haunting us alll......

The UCI choose to hunt down Pozatto in a long winded case whilst ignoring the open & shut cases like the "9's" on the leaked list - eg Popo.... You just have to scratch your head sometimes with the UCI.
There was only one 9'er on the leaked list, and his name was Denis. Popo (and Barredo) was 10, no less.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,223
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Yeah, the cost of testing and legal stuff gets overlooked but is definitely an issue. The difficulty with splitting the appeal costs is that, in principle, cases going to appeal should be less cut and dried. Courts are often reluctant to impose large cost penalties in those situation, so I doubt there would be much reliable revenue. UCI did try the salary forfeit thing, but it didn't hold up legally. IMO there is a real argument for WADA sanctions to include a fine, which would be paid into e.g. the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation.
In the majority of cases it is the rider appealing against the determination of a case initiated by their own national anti-doping agency eg USADA. UCI only comes on to the scene when the UCI appeals against the (local) decision in favour of the rider eg., Alberto Contador.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,030
0
0
"2011 will see a significant increase in the number of controls conducted on riders whose profiles may indicate illegal behaviour.” The UCI will concentrate on these riders, “rather than riders with completely regular profiles who make up the majority of the peloton.”

This might be part of the explanation... I would like to know how many passport tests have actually been carried out though, perhaps this should be reported quarterly.

Velodude said:
Not according to the Financial Statements of the Anti Doping Foundation. None of those funds are contributed towards UCI's anti doping litigation costs.'...'
Sure, however the UCI's ability to adequately fund CADF theoretically could be adversely affected, if appeal costs blew their budget. If the UCI is flush with accumulated funds, there is no excuse for a failure to cough up......if in fact there was a failure to cough up - which I doubt, given that the UCI directly contributes only $800k to CADF. (Thanks for the info Dr Mas)

Digressing somewhat, I wonder whether the team contributions to CADF are set by CADF or the UCI; they aren't exactly indipendent organisations! The teams must also have to pay the UCI something. Does the UCI collect the whole lot and then decide what proportion to hand over to CADF, or does CADF set the size of the team contributions?

Velodude said:
In the majority of cases it is the rider appealing against the determination of a case initiated by their own national anti-doping agency eg USADA. UCI only comes on to the scene when the UCI appeals against the (local) decision in favour of the rider eg., Alberto Contador.
The larger point was that anti-doping testing and legal costs are both expensive; some cash needs to be scared up from somewhere. I think fines for doping offences are likely to provide a more lucrative and reliable income stream than penalty costs imposed during appeals would provide. That income could be divvied up any number of ways, to reflect the ongoing costs incurred by the various organisations involved.........perhaps all the interested parties could go to a charming holiday destination and stay at a fabulous hotel for a few weeks, all expenses paid, to thrash out the details.

Edit: Better still, sanction the riders and fine their team. The team could insure themselves against it, SCA might like to cover it.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
this particular thread is an example of why the clinic ( and the cn forums in general) appear to have been declining in clicks and, for that matter, the content quality as well

no one particular rider or a ds can know for sure how many blood passport tests were/are conducted on the entire field of about 900 riders. it's common sense, unless, of course, the rider or a ds is/are working for the uci medical staff.

an informed individual rider CAN figure out if HIS blood sample was a blood passport sample. But I doubt, the 'informed" ones are the majority.

given the fact that a highest pedigree wada-certified blood passport test is 10 times cheaper than a regular anti doping tes,t i wonder if the quoted article has much merit ?

besides, didn't wada critisize the uci (in 2010 tdf independent observer report) for too many blood passport tests


the thing is, once you have obtained the "natural" picture on a particular rider's haematological parameters, there is little advantage to testing that rider more and more if hs profile was benign.

otoh some reports from the tdf'11 indicate a podum rider from lux was tested 3X in 24 hours.

despite being the uci total skeptic, i don't have ANY concerns about the blood passport testing frequency so far...of course, i could be wrong.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS