Alex Simmons/RST said:
As for standard stages/tests, well I just can't see such events incorporating such tests. Only place to control for the variables is a lab. That's just not going to happen. This is a race.
Again, I'll say that if cycling is serious about doing everything possible to identify doping, it will bring the lab to the race. It's time to jettison tradition and think outside the box.
There is a big difference between a test that is used to declare whether a substance actually is detected in blood/urine, and a power meter file which simple records what the rider did performance wise. The power meter file does not tell us whether a rider used a prohibited substance or method, just as climbing ADH in 40-minutes doesn't either.
As I have argued previously in this forum, using power data is a logical extension of the biopassport approach. The BP does not directly indicate whether a prohibited substance is in the body, either; it’s an indirect measure, the idea being that a certain level of physiological parameters could only be caused (i.e., with high probability only be caused) by such a substance. Use of power data simply extends the indirect approach from physiological to functional data. The premise is that a certain level of power could only be caused by some prohibited substance.
Since there is substantial normal variation in physiological parameters (and further variation caused by abnormal but not necessarily doping factors), the biopassport is always going to be less certain, fuzzier if you will, than a direct test for a substance. Still, as we have seen recently, with the help of sophisticated algorithms, it’s possible to set criteria that can be confidently used to determine whether doping occurred. Power data are even fuzzier, subject to still more variation, but I see no reason why criteria can’t also be set. Again, it just means that a lot of false negatives will get away. That is undoubtedly the case with the BP, too--probably any rider who wants to can dope a little and beat it--but it most likely reduces the degree to which a rider can dope. Riders can no longer jack up their HT with no end in sight (or even up to 50%).
The same should be true with power data. It won't identify all doping, it should be able to eliminate excessive doping.
I'm confused with your terminology. You are saying we can't sanction based on power data but it can be sufficiently indicative of being positive for doping. If it's sufficiently indicative, then surely sanction must follow? Else it's pointless.
In what way does the data tell us who should be targeted that we don't already know by the fact that they are winning/elite/professional bike riders?
OK, so what's the line? And why?
Is the line the same for say Mark Cavendish as it is for Alberto Contador or <insert any rider name here>?
If not, why not? How would you determine this?
Perhaps, but if we are going to implement a doping control regime, should it not apply equally to all?
The precursor of the BP, the off-score, was never used to sanction, either, and the 50% HT rule was used only for very short suspensions. They were never considered reliable enough for full suspensions. Even after the BP was developed, there was a long period in which the method was not considered good enough to use to sanction. Many people questioned whether it would ever be robust enough to do so. Eventually, thought, it was developed to the point where sanctioning could be done confidently.
I see the same sort of evolution with power data. These data are not going to be used to sanction riders in the beginning. As I said, they will just provide officials with a better idea of what's going on. You have emphasized all the variables that make it difficult to determine power from climbing times. Just having SRM data will clarify that a little. Actual power outputs will be known more precisely.
Now it may be that all or most of the top riders are doping, so these data will not indicate what a clean performance could maximally be. But at least they will suggest the maximum performance under current doping regimes, so if a new substance or doping method comes along--and this of course is what the history of doping has been all about--it might be possible to spot it. I'm not going to get into details here. I will just point out that the same kind of approach used in the BP--sustained deviations from baselines--can be used here. In this initial phase, the baseline will be constructed from the best riders/times, and deviations compared against that. Yes, some once in a generation rider can come along and outperform everyone will staying clean or at least not doping any more than they do--or maybe respond better to the dope--but again, there has to be some limit to this, and as data are gathered over time and riders, this limit should become clearer. And again and again and again I emphasize that the limit can be set for any arbitrary significance level, if we are willing to let many potential false negatives pass through.
This is the first phase. In the second phase, as I see it, as the program is gradually expanded, baselines will be developed for individual riders, just as they are with the BP. So in addition to a line that no one should be able to cross, individuals will have their own lines. I realize that constructing such lines will be more difficult than for the BP, but I don't see that it's impossible. Again, an enormous amount of data will be gathered by this time, we will have a very good idea of how much a rider can improve with training and time. And again, there no doubt will be a long period, as with the BP, when a lot of suspicious values will be seen, but no sanctioning, until the technology is considered robust enough to do this with confidence.
You may argue that this will never work in practice, and possibly you could be right. But we will never know for sure if we don't try it, and see how much the data allow us to refine the model and set criteria. The first phase, at least, is not terribly expensive.
And what if a rider has a "mechanical" and changes bikes? Are we going to stop the race so an independent referee can validate the new power meter's zero offset and slope setting are correct (assuming you have a power meter on the spare)? Do we ban using a team mate's bike if that became necessary?
If the rider is with others who have power meters, some kind of correlation is possible. I'm not saying problems like these won't crop up, but I don't think they're fatal to the program.
Then there is the context argument that you allude to earlier (i.e. being able to account for things like length of stage etc when deciding on what the line in the sand is). Well if you don't use the data to account for the rider's workload through the whole race from Day 1, indeed for the months leading up to the race, then doesn't that sort of negate the ability to account for such things?
This would only be an issue if we wanted to draw a very sharp line between doping and non-doping. I have already emphasized, though, that any line will undoubtedly allow for a lot of false negatives (much as the BP does). It's purpose is not to catch every doper or even most dopers, but to prevent excessive amounts of enhancement.
It's pretty clear that the main value of the BP is not that it catches most dopers or even, really, that it catches any dopers. It's main value is that it creates an environment in which riders feel they must dope less. I see power data having much the same effect. It might be that at the end of the day we can never confidently set a power value line that we can confidently use as the basis of a sanction. But merely by trying, we might well force riders to reduce their doping in fear of crossing such a line.
There should be a prereq for posting in these threads such as a Phys-101 class or something.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram