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

No testing for bio passport

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 26, 2010
87
0
0
JRTinMA said:
I made the assumption that you are seeing the total of both teams. 45 being the total from July 1 to its cessation of business or December 31 for Cervelo. 68 is the total for Garmin from the same July 1 starting point to included the combined team after December 31. This means we don't know the testing split between the two teams prior to the merge.
It also doesn't tell us how many of those tests were conducted after the end of the 2010 Tour.
 
Bag_O_Wallet said:
They've done a lovely little dance around the area of concern (01.01.2011 to 01.04.2011) - while making it appear that they've attempted to be transparent.
alanshearer said:
It also doesn't tell us how many of those tests were conducted after the end of the 2010 Tour.
I don't disagree with you and I wouldn't defend the UCI on much but this whole thing was brought on by Vroomen. They published a response and its not satisfying to everybody but it was only supposed to disprove Vroomen's assertion. Like I said, the UCI should not have dignified Vroomen with a response, they have only created new concerns. Sometimes you can't win.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
Agree. :D
Wah wah wah wah....oh wait....uhmm.......UCI sucks anyway...but wait....we all have no clue anyway...

Snake steps in....everyone frozen and quiet by his highness' pure presence.
What would the clinic do without the great snake having the overview and owning the absolute thruth, which is of course, too detailed, too complicated and too demanding for all the mortals around here, who just pollute the clinic and it's awareness ?

snake and dottore now checking and comparing their complicated data - a new penis comparison and greatness competition just around the corner.
dottore already calculating again. If those results are wrong, its the numbers, not the calculation of course.
Its all about quality.
My sincere apologies that simple addition and subtraction confuses you.

Bag_O_Wallet said:
They've done a lovely little dance around the area of concern (01.01.2011 to 01.04.2011) - while making it appear that they've attempted to be transparent.
Yip - does that 68 number include the 45 from the previous year? It would appear so.

For a team with a current roster of 29 riders it appears the testing for the BP has slowed to a trickle.
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
How can Vroomens comments be viewed as either shallow or premature?
He mentioned the teams that he was involved in and didn't for example point fingers at others and when should he ask such a question?

Do you believe that if he called the UCI they would be forthcoming with information??

Also what about the numbers?
In today's UCI press release they say:


How do they match up to their other statements.
This is the 2010 UCI Biological Passport numbers - leaving aside the urine tests as the UCI have in their new numbers for 2010 (1074 blood tests from July, excluding TdF).
The total blood tests for 2010 was 5003 - but from the IO report we know that there 993 BP samples taken before the Tour, 198 BP samples as per the Pre Tour medical and a further 124 during the Tour exclusively for the BP.

993 + 198 + 124 = 1315, add in the new info from UCI of 1074 = 2389.
That leaves a substantial difference of 2614 blood samples for 2010 - are the UCI saying these tests were all done from Jan to July 2010.
I like the headline "UCI issues stinging response" or whatever. Perhaps if Pat selected his partners better he wouldn't have the stinging...
Ashendon not having access is still a problem and my question is: when is a test not a test? Collecting samples alone is not testing. Submitting the samples to the test protocol, analyzing the results and publishing the findings is what everyone has been led to believe is the Biopassport; is it not? I could be off base but are there no results to view?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
What - only lately?


This is where I disagree - he should be able to get pretty accurate information from the ADAMS system that is released to the riders. On that it is (perhaps was) updated how many controls were for use of the BP.

As I pointed out earlier there appears to be an alarming reduction in testing from pre July to after July in 2010 with only 1074 of the 5003 blood samples being done after July.
After July two of the three GTs are complete and a majority of the racing has been completed. So 1074 tests were completed after july, what percentage of the racing days remain at the end of July? I would guess only about 30% remain but its a total shot in the dark. I bet you could figure it out Doc! If I'm even close at 30% its not that bad that 1074 tests were done after July.

FWIW even Vaughters has questioned Vroomen now, saying he lacks data and scientific basis for his claims. I think we can trust Vaughters, he's that clean team guy!
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
JRTinMA said:
After July two of the three GTs are complete and a majority of the racing has been completed. So 1074 tests were completed after july, what percentage of the racing days remain at the end of July? I would guess only about 30% remain but its a total shot in the dark. I bet you could figure it out Doc! If I'm even close at 30% its not that bad that 1074 tests were done after July.
If you are not going to back up your suggestion why in the world would you expect me too?

Particularly as those figures would be irrelevant - 30%, "I will only dope 30% after July", if a rider is doping when would you expect them to do the majority of their doping? During competition or during training/build-up?
Out of competition testing is crucial to any anti-doping or testing effort.

The whole point of the passport is to build up a consistent picture of an athletes profile.

JRTinMA said:
FWIW even Vaughters has questioned Vroomen now, saying he lacks data and scientific basis for his claims. I think we can trust Vaughters, he's that clean team guy!
What claims did Vroomen make that can be dismissed by scientific data?

Vroomen wrote that he "heard" that people had not been tested for the BP.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
If you are not going to back up your suggestion why in the world would you expect me too?

Particularly as those figures would be irrelevant - 30%, "I will only dope 30% after July", if a rider is doping when would you expect them to do the majority of their doping? During competition or during training/build-up?
Out of competition testing is crucial to any anti-doping or testing effort.

The whole point of the passport is to build up a consistent picture of an athletes profile.



What claims did Vroomen make that can be dismissed by scientific data?

Vroomen wrote that he "heard" that people had not been tested for the BP.
You missed the point, I said only 30% of the racing days remain after July. So your math, if it is correct and you lack all the data, suggests that the percentage of racing days and testing is not that far off. I have no idea how you formed an opinion of doping only 30% after July. I guess you made it up, like what you presumed the UCI is actually saying...and a lot of the clinic content thats posted.

I didn't make the claim of no scientific data, go back and read what I wrote, I said Vaughters made that suggestion. If you want clarification you should ping him. I trust he knows what he is saying and need no further clarification from JV.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
JRTinMA said:
You missed the point, I said only 30% of the racing days remain after July. So your math, if it is correct and you lack all the data, suggests that the percentage of racing days and testing is not that far off. I have no idea how you formed an opinion of doping only 30% after July. I guess you made it up, like what you presumed the UCI is actually saying...and a lot of the clinic content thats posted.
I didn't miss the point - I clearly stated that 30% (50%, 80% whatever figure) is irrelevant.

Riders who dope will dope throughout the year - which is why you build up a consistent profile.

JRTinMA said:
I didn't make the claim of no scientific data, go back and read what I wrote, I said Vaughters made that suggestion. If you want clarification you should ping him. I trust he knows what he is saying and need no further clarification from JV.
You are the one who said you believed Vaughters, that is why I asked you what scientific data would suggest Vroomen was wrong?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I didn't miss the point - I clearly stated that 30% (50%, 80% whatever figure) is irrelevant.

Riders who dope will dope throughout the year - which is why you build up a consistent profile.


You are the one who said you believed Vaughters, that is why I asked you what scientific data would suggest Vroomen was wrong?
The testing was consistent throughout the year so we don't have an issue there.
 
UCI internal issues

All this UCI dirty laundry of Vroomen, Ashenden, and McQuack reminds me of this:




and:




To top that off, airing it out in public when it should be handled internally is crazy for the UCI. Hopefully good will come in the long run.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
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.


...
Not if there are gaps in the profile. It could affect the effectiveness; frequency is a key parameter in the evaluation of the passport unfortunately.

Unless they are already confident about the base profile from previous years. Then they can use it. Of course you don’t expect your natural blood behavior to change over a period of several few years unless you get sick and everything is changed. But that would be an exception.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Not if there are gaps in the profile. It could affect the effectiveness; frequency is a key parameter in the evaluation of the passport unfortunately.

Unless they are already confident about the base profile from previous years. Then they can use it. Of course you don’t expect your natural blood behavior to change over a period of several few years unless you get sick and everything is changed. But that would be an exception.
I agree - which is why I had added in that post about its current existence.

It would be acceptable if there was a lower overall number of tests per year once the BP was established but it appears from the available information that testing has been scaled back much more than that, which puts the all the previous work/data in jeopardy.
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
If the UCI wanted to catch dopers then it would compare riders' current data to that of five and six years ago. Let Leipheimer explain how his blood values changed so dramatically. Of course that would require actually getting rid of more than a token fall guy here and there.
 
Meanwhile, the elephant in the living room goes unremarked upon--even by the elephant's trainer himself:

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011 Apr;21(2):235-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01033.x.
Detecting autologous blood transfusions: a comparison of three passport approaches and four blood markers.
Mørkeberg J, Sharpe K, Belhage B, Damsgaard R, Schmidt W, Prommer N, Gore CJ, Ashenden MJ.
Source

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. jakobmoerkeberg@hotmail.com
Abstract

Blood passport has been suggested as an indirect tool to detect various kinds of blood manipulations. Autologous blood transfusions are currently undetectable, and the objective of this study was to examine the sensitivities of different blood markers and blood passport approaches in order to determine the best approach to detect autologous blood transfusions. Twenty-nine subjects were transfused with either one (n=8) or three (n=21) bags of autologous blood. Hemoglobin concentration ([Hb]), percentage of reticulocytes (%ret) and hemoglobin mass (Hbmass) were measured 1 day before reinfusion and six times after reinfusion. The sensitivity and specificity of a novel marker, Hbmr (based on Hbmass and %ret), was evaluated together with [Hb], Hbmass and OFF-hr by different passport methods. Our novel Hbmr marker showed superior sensitivity in detecting the highest dosage of transfused blood, with OFF-hr showing equal or superior sensitivities at lower dosages. Hbmr and OFF-hr showed superior but equal sensitivities from 1 to 4 weeks after transfusion compared with [Hb] and Hbmass, with Hbmass being the only tenable prospect to detect acute transfusions. Because autologous blood transfusions can be an acute practice with blood withdrawal and reinfusion within a few days, Hbmass seems to be the only option for revealing this practice.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Feb 20. [Epub ahead of print]
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.
Ashenden M, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K.
Source

SIAB Research Consortium, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, heyasho@hotmail.com.
Abstract

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.
 
Damiano Machiavelli said:
If the UCI wanted to catch dopers then it would compare riders' current data to that of five and six years ago. Let Leipheimer explain how his blood values changed so dramatically. Of course that would require actually getting rid of more than a token fall guy here and there.
This was suggested by several of the posters long time ago. We all know that. But the UCI had to accept some kind of "fictitious doping amnesty". Otherwise most of veteran riders (not that there are many left anyway) would be busted solely on high hematocrit. Just think about how many riders were riding the tour with the crit border lining 50%. And now having a hematocrit baseline of 43%. That would be inexplicable anyway.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
rata de sentina said:
So all this boils down to is Vroomen is mistaken, the UCI hires 12 year olds to write its' press releases, DM and sniper get a chance to bash up on Krebs since they are still smarting from their last little tiff, python gets to pontificate and Dr M seems to have got rather snarky of late. All in all a fine day in the Clinic.
but he started it!

:(
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Merckx index said:
Meanwhile, the elephant in the living room goes unremarked upon--even by the elephant's trainer himself:
Great info, thanks!

So, the BioPass doesn't flag rhEPO use, but there's a way to prove autoinfusion based on Hbmass? Interesting since the chatter keeps chirping about how everyone is now autoinfusing and only micro-dosing EPO...

It seems that the UCI likes to allow for some big loopholes in their noose (although that may just be my own paranoia coming out).
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Bio Passport won't eradicate doping, you know that. It will keep it tamed.
What is the bio passport budget for FIFA? or F1 or the NBA,NHL,MLB or football of any type? The proportions and reactions to doping in cycling is killing it. Bike racing will always exist as long as there are bicycles but high level racing will continue to be effected when 10 elite athletes get blood put into a centrifuge for "therapy" and only the cyclists are talked about. Tiger Woods is going to tee off this weekend and nobody will ask him about his transfusions
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
fatandfast said:
What is the bio passport budget for FIFA? or F1 or the NBA,NHL,MLB or football of any type? The proportions and reactions to doping in cycling is killing it. Bike racing will always exist as long as there are bicycles but high level racing will continue to be effected when 10 elite athletes get blood put into a centrifuge for "therapy" and only the cyclists are talked about. Tiger Woods is going to tee off this weekend and nobody will ask him about his transfusions
I actually don't think it is killing it.

There will always be doping in cycling, just as there will always be doping in society.

From the very earliest days of EPO (producing some of the most brilliant of human performances EVER), doping has provided a new twist to the grand narrative that the Opera of cycling is.

It's not killing it. People who know and understand the sport have come to the understanding that it's so entrenched that it will continue ad nauseum.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from a doping apologist (if you look at my posting history - apart from the smart-*ssness - it's obvious I'm anti-dope).

I just don't believe 'small d' doping is killing the sport. It's when it gets out of hand (and complicitly protected by governing bodies) that it starts killing the sport. That's what the early EPO days did. Performances that were so ridiculous that they were super-human lent fans to lose their faith in the drama of cycling (the Grand Opera of a GT for example).

The only point I'm trying to make is that the view of 'doping killing the sport', doesn't actually carry much weight. Salaries are higher than ever, sponsors are still involved (unless, perhaps you're Stapleton), fans still line the roads in increasing numbers; but as true as those metrics may be, it does not detract from the fact that doping may be eroding the legitimacy of the sport to some degree.

People want the historic drama of sport as battle. They can't do it, but can live vicariously through it.

When it comes down to it, sport is stupid if you're not doing it.

How's that for a tirade that was utterly pointless? Sheesh! I better get my meds recalibrated...
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I actually don't think it is killing it.

There will always be doping in cycling, just as there will always be doping in society.

From the very earliest days of EPO (producing some of the most brilliant of human performances EVER), doping has provided a new twist to the grand narrative that the Opera of cycling is.

It's not killing it. People who know and understand the sport have come to the understanding that it's so entrenched that it will continue ad nauseum.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from a doping apologist (if you look at my posting history - apart from the smart-*ssness - it's obvious I'm anti-dope).

I just don't believe 'small d' doping is killing the sport. It's when it gets out of hand (and complicitly protected by governing bodies) that it starts killing the sport. That's what the early EPO days did. Performances that were so ridiculous that they were super-human lent fans to lose their faith in the drama of cycling (the Grand Opera of a GT for example).

The only point I'm trying to make is that the view of 'doping killing the sport', doesn't actually carry much weight. Salaries are higher than ever, sponsors are still involved (unless, perhaps you're Stapleton), fans still line the roads in increasing numbers; but as true as those metrics may be, it does not detract from the fact that doping may be eroding the legitimacy of the sport to some degree.

People want the historic drama of sport as battle. They can't do it, but can live vicariously through it.

When it comes down to it, sport is stupid if you're not doing it.

How's that for a tirade that was utterly pointless? Sheesh! I better get my meds recalibrated...
I think you may have missed 'fatandfasts' point - they are claiming anti-doping efforts highlight the doping, so its anti-doping that kills the sport.

Of course it is a misguided argument - as cyclings doping has been uncovered not by cyclings authorities but by Police or State authorities.
The reason why cycling has its deserved reputation is because the cycling authorities prefer to serve up PR and spin then attempt to tackle the issue - time and again their BS gets exposed.

There will always be doping in any sport - that's a given, but as long as the UCI are in control of anti-doping it will always be viewed as an institutional problem that is ignored by the authorities.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I think you may have missed 'fatandfasts' point - they are claiming anti-doping efforts highlight the doping, so its anti-doping that kills the sport.

Of course it is a misguided argument - as cyclings doping has been uncovered not by cyclings authorities but by Police or State authorities.
The reason why cycling has its deserved reputation is because the cycling authorities prefer to serve up PR and spin then attempt to tackle the issue - time and again their BS gets exposed.

There will always be doping in any sport - that's a given, but as long as the UCI are in control of anti-doping it will always be viewed as an institutional problem that is ignored by the authorities.
To the first bolded bit: I don't think being anti-doping kills the sport any more than being anti-radio (albeit, a weak metaphor) kills the sport. That wasn't my argument. There will always be the necessity of 'manipulation' - whether to speed recovery, or to increase training, or to give you a better feeling while getting blown off at 60km/h.

The governing bodies are the issue. If they really want to do something, then they should do it. Their outright obfuscation of WHAT they are doing, and pimping it out with big PR releases or outright attacks, does nothing for them. It makes them look complicit in a half-*ssed effort, and pretty foolish to anyone in the know.

To the second bit: There in lies the issue. If they had the nuts to exclude themselves from testing, and to hand it over to some sort of third party, then I believe things (from a perception point of view) would change in regards to how cycling is viewed.

That's not to say that out of all sport we should sequester cycling into some sort of individual fish-bowl, but rather take the BS out of their institutionalized testing and mitigate the poorly done spin the UCI keeps coming out with.

There are some pretty rudimentary methods that could lend credibility to the PR testing that's going on, and I think that that is the primary issue vis-a-vis cycling having a sketchy name in sport.

The governing bodies say one thing (anti-dope), and are proven under the most cursory of examination to be doing something quite different. The problem with cycling is that the UCI says they want to clean it up, and they are the only ones who have that power (given to them by themselves).

Sounds like an open door for graft and corruption, if you ask me...
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
sniper said:
but he started it!

:(
Lets get one things straight. What is clear in this forum is that you and DM are the two most vocal opponents to the possibility that Cadel Evans is clean. You have both written that you are inclined to believe that Cadel is a doper or you have implied it on numerous occasions. Most of what you have written in the past week is in the interest of defending this opinion and it was occurring well before I entered the discussion.

Hence, this little debate about the effectiveness of the bio passport is merely a proxy for your bias against Cadel Evans because you obviously dislike the idea that he could possibly be clean (for what reason I cannot fathom because the entire world is crying out for a clean tdf winner after 15yrs of doping scandals).

So when I posted the graph below you simply turned around and said that we cannot trust that data because the authors sit on a UCI medical advisory board.
sniper said:
I was just pointing out that one has to remain skeptical of the veracity of such studies, especially when members of the UCI medical board are involved in the data analysis.
This is what I object to. It is not a matter of being skeptical about the authors, we don't need the authors' opinions in order to make a comment on the data itself, thus it is about whether or not the data in the graph below is or is not FALSE. I am stating categorically that the data is NOT false because the ramifications of the alternative are enormous and no scientist would ever risk his entire career and livelihood in such a blatant manner. There are many other people that have access to the data and thus if false data was published it would not go unnoticed. And besides, a quick background check on Zorzoli shows that this is a man who was even willing to sacrifice his position at the UCI by leaking data that would damage the reputation of the UCI, so I hardly think he is the kind of person who sucks it up and does whatever the UCI tells him to.




http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=632631&postcount=43
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS