retrospective testing

[L29205]

What is the overall opinion of testing years old samples?

Does it help weed out dopers?

Does it hurt dopers who are trying to change?

Does it help provide incentive not to dope because of future test find your state of the art PED's??

thoughts

 

[Anonymous]

i dont think most cyclists have the brains to think a year ahead personally.. that much has been proven

 

[L29205]

i dont think most cyclists have the brains to think a year ahead personally.. that much has been proven

I agree most professional athletes think about next years paycheck and nothing else.

If that is the case doping will never end. Always something newer, better, and more undetectable.

 

[scribe]

It would help, but they seem to loathe to enforce against an older GT that 'in the books'.

 

[ggusta]

What is the overall opinion of testing years old samples?

Does it help weed out dopers?

Does it hurt dopers who are trying to change?

Does it help provide incentive not to dope because of future test find your state of the art PED's??

thoughts

It will be interesting to see of they can somehow determine hgh use or autologous infusions from a sample at some point in the future.

Of course, what price has Bjarne Riis paid? They should have stripped him and banned him from any contact with the sport, imo.

Why should they care with that as an example?

 

[scribe]

Riis wasn't really caught, no? His admitting use of PED's helps the sport work towards cleaning up. It would be a terrible precedent to discourage more cyclists from coming forward.

 

[luckyboy]

It will be interesting to see of they can somehow determine hgh use or autologous infusions from a sample at some point in the future.

Of course, what price has Bjarne Riis paid? They should have stripped him and banned him from any contact with the sport, imo.

Why should they care with that as an example?

There is already a test for hGH. At least that's what WADA says..


Some different methods to find out what a rider has been doing..
They can look at low retics, which point to transfusions/EPO, while they can look suspicious, they doesn't prove either of these.
They can measure 2,3-DPG levels - stored blood will have lower levels as 2,3-DPG goes down over the time it is stored, so lower levels than normal in the cyclist could indicate transfusions.
There is CO2 rebreathing/total body hemoglobin (it's worth registering to read that article - someone posted it here a while ago).


Anywho, here is a chart of some blood values of a professional cyclist during this year's TdF (it's not about the cyclist in question - it is about the values and why they can be considered suspicious. Please don't start arguing over it - the rider's innocence/guilt isn't what this is about).

Now, this chart shows blood values that could be considered irregular considering that the values were taken over the course of a three-week bike race. The Hct level is actually higher at the end than at the beginning, when usually, there would be a drop of around 5-10%.

There is clearly a jump in this value after the first rest day on July 13th. During the tough mountain stages, the Hct dropped to 40.7 (probably lower on the 12th). The jump to 43.1% straight after the rest day is irregular, and could point towards a blood transfusion having taken place.
Although there are no values available for the day directly after the second rest day, it is highly likely that the Hct value would have been in the high 43s, possibly 44s (considering the mountain stages and TT that follow, and given that the final value is 43, it is most likely that a test on July 21st would've shown the Hct to be in the mid 44s).

The Hb-z score around the first rest day is also very suspicious (Hb-z gives an indicator as to where the athlete is within the his/her normal range - +/-2 is considered abnormal). Although the level isn't outside of the 'acceptable range', it can be said that a fluctuation of 0.99 in 3 days is abnormal.

The reticulocyte levels too, are consistently low - certainly not something that is normal over this type of event. Considering the athlete's reticulocyte level in the off-season (October 08-January 09) are all around 1.0%, this consistently low level can be confirmed as odd (As a sidenote, during this off-season period, the retic levels seem to jump twice - from 0.83% to 1.29% and 1.39% - this is consistent with a theory suggesting that an athlete could withdraw blood during the off-season and freeze it to be used later on. Retic levels are known to rise after significant blood loss - this can be attributed to significant trauma [I was going to look to Pantani's levels after Turin '95, but the only certificate I've found doesn't include retics], but also to withdrawing blood for the later purposes of blood doping).

Finally, there is something that I don't know a great deal about - the T/E ratio. This seems to be very low, but considering other results for this athlete, I don't know if they are normal for him. Maybe someone can help me out with these.


This whole bit about the charts was an admittedly long way of showing that, while the values can seem suspicious and can point towards autologous transfusions, there is no way to conclusively prove that this is the reason for the values. Also, I wanted to see how much I had learnt/how much I actually know about doping/blood transfusions (any corrections/criticism appreciated), so while the second part of my post isn't totally important, the first bit is relevant to what ggusta was pondering.

Thanks

 

[usedtobefast]

i see no need. what is the good end? stirring up poop. IMO

 

[sida-mot]

It's a good idea.

The dopers are a couple of years ahead of the testing. Analyzing old samples diminishes that gap.

It's not primarily about stirring up old poop, it's about convincing young riders that if you dope you will eventually get caught.

 

[sida-mot]

There is already a test for hGH. At least that's what WADA says..


Some different methods to find out what a rider has been doing..
They can look at low retics, which point to transfusions/EPO, while they can look suspicious, they doesn't prove either of these.
They can measure 2,3-DPG levels - stored blood will have lower levels as 2,3-DPG goes down over the time it is stored, so lower levels than normal in the cyclist could indicate transfusions.
There is CO2 rebreathing/total body hemoglobin (it's worth registering to read that article - someone posted it here a while ago).


Anywho, here is a chart of some blood values of a professional cyclist during this year's TdF (it's not about the cyclist in question - it is about the values and why they can be considered suspicious. Please don't start arguing over it - the rider's innocence/guilt isn't what this is about).

Now, this chart shows blood values that could be considered irregular considering that the values were taken over the course of a three-week bike race. The Hct level is actually higher at the end than at the beginning, when usually, there would be a drop of around 5-10%.

There is clearly a jump in this value after the first rest day on July 13th. During the tough mountain stages, the Hct dropped to 40.7 (probably lower on the 12th). The jump to 43.1% straight after the rest day is irregular, and could point towards a blood transfusion having taken place.
Although there are no values available for the day directly after the second rest day, it is highly likely that the Hct value would have been in the high 43s, possibly 44s (considering the mountain stages and TT that follow, and given that the final value is 43, it is most likely that a test on July 21st would've shown the Hct to be in the mid 44s).

The Hb-z score around the first rest day is also very suspicious (Hb-z gives an indicator as to where the athlete is within the his/her normal range - +/-2 is considered abnormal). Although the level isn't outside of the 'acceptable range', it can be said that a fluctuation of 0.99 in 3 days is abnormal.

The reticulocyte levels too, are consistently low - certainly not something that is normal over this type of event. Considering the athlete's reticulocyte level in the off-season (October 08-January 09) are all around 1.0%, this consistently low level can be confirmed as odd (As a sidenote, during this off-season period, the retic levels seem to jump twice - from 0.83% to 1.29% and 1.39% - this is consistent with a theory suggesting that an athlete could withdraw blood during the off-season and freeze it to be used later on. Retic levels are known to rise after significant blood loss - this can be attributed to significant trauma [I was going to look to Pantani's levels after Turin '95, but the only certificate I've found doesn't include retics], but also to withdrawing blood for the later purposes of blood doping).

Finally, there is something that I don't know a great deal about - the T/E ratio. This seems to be very low, but considering other results for this athlete, I don't know if they are normal for him. Maybe someone can help me out with these.


This whole bit about the charts was an admittedly long way of showing that, while the values can seem suspicious and can point towards autologous transfusions, there is no way to conclusively prove that this is the reason for the values. Also, I wanted to see how much I had learnt/how much I actually know about doping/blood transfusions (any corrections/criticism appreciated), so while the second part of my post isn't totally important, the first bit is relevant to what ggusta was pondering.

Thanks

Found it very interesting. Thanks for an awsome read. I find it hard to find info about this kind of things so that explanation might have been off topic but well worth reading.

 

[scribe]

i see no need. what is the good end? stirring up poop. IMO

I wish they would do the testing as it takes years for the controls to catch up with the application of new programs. Of course, it would be embarrassing to unseat entire podiums and such years later. Only the threat of real consequences will clean the sport up.

 

[quiensabe]

If only..

I wish they would do the testing as it takes years for the controls to catch up with the application of new programs. Of course, it would be embarrassing to unseat entire podiums and such years later. Only the threat of real consequences will clean the sport up.

If only they had a dedicated mobile laboratory going along with the big races, doing on-the-spot analyses and catching dopers "red handed", it would be a big deterrent. A great idea, but costly. It's all down to money, as usual.

 

[python]

retrospective testing is a good thing.

suppose i was armstrong and transfused my own blood so well that even the bletchley park geniuses would be fooled by my blood passport. gee knowing the transfusion test is around the corner, i’d lose some serious sleep.

If only they had a dedicated mobile laboratory going along with the big races

dont they already do that for blood?

 

[glisudsti]

bookmarked and b back l8er, bro,

 

[sashimono]

Keeping old samples around for use with new techniques is really interesting. I'm glad its being done.

But I wish there were a time limit much shorter than 8 years for returning jerseys. Changing race outcomes, or waiting months for results to be confirmed is not good for the sport. And it may not be fair anyway since with the kind of spotty testing that is done, who knows if the guys that will be moving up a spot in the standings as a result of a disqualification are all clean.

 

[Psalmon]

There is already a test for hGH. At least that's what WADA says..

There is clearly a jump in this value after the first rest day on July 13th. During the tough mountain stages, the Hct dropped to 40.7 (probably lower on the 12th). The jump to 43.1% straight after the rest day is irregular, and could point towards a blood transfusion having taken place.
Although there are no values available for the day directly after the second rest day, it is highly likely that the Hct value would have been in the high 43s, possibly 44s (considering the mountain stages and TT that follow, and given that the final value is 43, it is most likely that a test on July 21st would've shown the Hct to be in the mid 44s).

I am not saying you are incorrect in your observation and I don't know your qualifications to make doping judgments; however, I don't understand how these numbers can be read and judged so precisely. Maybe someone can help.

The average 70 kg person has 5 liters of blood volume. A 2.4% difference in blood cell volume (40.7 to 43.1) would mean an extra .12 l of cells or about 4 oz of blood cells, half a cup, two shot glasses.

The average blood cell lives 4 months. 5 l at 42% is 2.1 l of blood cells. Over 120 days that means you produce .02 l/day of blood cells. Over 3 days .06.

Under stress, extremely well trained guys, one rest day, 3 post Andorre days, one sans-radio cruise up to Issoudun, does their system produce 2X that or 4x that if you think replacement?

Can we measure and judge that precisely? Think about the volumes involved. Every day the riders consume 8-10 bottles of water/liquids on the road, more later in the day, or about 6 liters. 90% of plasma is water. So of 5 l you have 2 l of cells .3 l of stuff, and 2.7 l of water. 6 l is 2x your body's steady state water volume every day.

In addition, a guy who has a 40.7 hct, has 2.035 l of blood and 2.965 l of water and stuff. Holding blood constant, to get a 43.1 the guy would have 2.687 l of water and stuff a difference of .28 l or 9.5 oz.

So I work in the garden on a hot day and drink one cup short, and I'm doping? Well, take away my roses I guess.

When was this guy tested on these days? What did he drink and when? When did he ****? What indicators do we have on his kidney function? Was the guy sick? Viruses? Infections? Allergies? Road rash from a crash?

Retroactive testing sounds great, but where's that data on this sheet? How do these substances breakdown over time? How does that behave at different temperatures? Who will check on the condition of samples every day? How are the data records maintained? Custody of samples? Scrupulousness of everyone who may have access to the samples over, what, ten years?

For the record, I'm not pro-doping or anti-testing. But these are seriously difficult things to manage and judge when dealing with human physiology (not some wind-tunnel test of an airplane) and human behavior, both on the riders side and testing side. When you launch witch hunts you catch witches, EVERY time. Retroactive testing employs retroactive testers and guys like David Walsh. We want riders free to speak out on abusive behavior be it teams or officials. Speak out with this and OOPS! you're sample ten years ago...looks "suspicious." Yikes.

With respect to the sport's history, should we go back to Super Bowl X, apply instant replay, make some "reasonable" judgments about subsequent play, declare the Cowboys the winner, and make new rings? However the immaculate reception was a ripoff, everyone outside Pittsburgh knows it. Look, Basso won the 2006 Giro...with the help of aliens. Riis 1996 TdF winner, tainted. Ullrich, miracle diet every year? Yes, in Spain.

Invest in the best testing methods continuously, address the culture at the sponsor and team management level, preserve a consistent and fair process (hopefully innocent until proven guilty), maintain tough sanctions (maybe tougher, no way Ricco gets 20 months), and above all accept the outcome, celebrate success, don't punish it forever after.

 

[red_flanders]

I am not saying you are incorrect in your observation and I don't know your qualifications to make doping judgments; however, I don't understand how these numbers can be read and judged so precisely. Maybe someone can help.

The average 70 kg person has 5 liters of blood volume. A 2.4% difference in blood cell volume (40.7 to 43.1) would mean an extra .12 l of cells or about 4 oz of blood cells, half a cup, two shot glasses.

The average blood cell lives 4 months. 5 l at 42% is 2.1 l of blood cells. Over 120 days that means you produce .02 l/day of blood cells. Over 3 days .06.

Under stress, extremely well trained guys, one rest day, 3 post Andorre days, one sans-radio cruise up to Issoudun, does their system produce 2X that or 4x that if you think replacement?

Can we measure and judge that precisely? Think about the volumes involved. Every day the riders consume 8-10 bottles of water/liquids on the road, more later in the day, or about 6 liters. 90% of plasma is water. So of 5 l you have 2 l of cells .3 l of stuff, and 2.7 l of water. 6 l is 2x your body's steady state water volume every day.

In addition, a guy who has a 40.7 hct, has 2.035 l of blood and 2.965 l of water and stuff. Holding blood constant, to get a 43.1 the guy would have 2.687 l of water and stuff a difference of .28 l or 9.5 oz.

So I work in the garden on a hot day and drink one cup short, and I'm doping? Well, take away my roses I guess.

When was this guy tested on these days? What did he drink and when? When did he ****? What indicators do we have on his kidney function? Was the guy sick? Viruses? Infections? Allergies? Road rash from a crash?

Retroactive testing sounds great, but where's that data on this sheet? How do these substances breakdown over time? How does that behave at different temperatures? Who will check on the condition of samples every day? How are the data records maintained? Custody of samples? Scrupulousness of everyone who may have access to the samples over, what, ten years?

For the record, I'm not pro-doping or anti-testing. But these are seriously difficult things to manage and judge when dealing with human physiology (not some wind-tunnel test of an airplane) and human behavior, both on the riders side and testing side. When you launch witch hunts you catch witches, EVERY time. Retroactive testing employs retroactive testers and guys like David Walsh. We want riders free to speak out on abusive behavior be it teams or officials. Speak out with this and OOPS! you're sample ten years ago...looks "suspicious." Yikes.

With respect to the sport's history, should we go back to Super Bowl X, apply instant replay, make some "reasonable" judgments about subsequent play, declare the Cowboys the winner, and make new rings? However the immaculate reception was a ripoff, everyone outside Pittsburgh knows it. Look, Basso won the 2006 Giro...with the help of aliens. Riis 1996 TdF winner, tainted. Ullrich, miracle diet every year? Yes, in Spain.

Invest in the best testing methods continuously, address the culture at the sponsor and team management level, preserve a consistent and fair process (hopefully innocent until proven guilty), maintain tough sanctions (maybe tougher, no way Ricco gets 20 months), and above all accept the outcome, celebrate success, don't punish it forever after.

A lot of really good points in this post. Well done. Not sure what your problem is with Walsh, but otherwise many good points, particularly at the end.

 

[East Sycamore]

...
With respect to the sport's history, should we go back to Super Bowl X, apply instant replay, make some "reasonable" judgments about subsequent play, declare the Cowboys the winner, and make new rings? However the immaculate reception was a ripoff, everyone outside Pittsburgh knows it...

I agree with most of your post, but this part has to be corrected! First of all, the immaculate reception happened in a playoff game against the Raiders three years before Super Bowl X. Secondly, a crude from of instant replay was used at the time and the play stood as called on the field. Finally, more than 35 years after the play, most people who have reviewed and analyzed the play believe it was called correctly. I think the most you could say is that there isn't enough evidence to say either way . . . in which case the play stands as called on the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Reception

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnfbKKvUG9Q

And yes, I'm from Pittsburgh.

 

[HoustonHammer]

I wish they would do the testing as it takes years for the controls to catch up with the application of new programs. Of course, it would be embarrassing to unseat entire podiums and such years later. Only the threat of real consequences will clean the sport up.

The question is, what would the 'real consequences' be, especially if the violation were discovered three or four years after the fact? Glory is definitely part of the motivation, but ultimately these guys are professionals and they ride for money. Unless there is a clear financial consequence, I think most riders will be very content to risk being retroactively stripped of a GT win in exchange for several million dollars. That's pretty much where we are right now.

 

[python]

two thumbs up and my hat off to both luckyboy (for a diligent analytical post) and to psalmon (for a constructive critique). no sarcasm!

but both missed the main points of the thread by using an inapplicable example in the luckboy’s post.

(i) luckyboy used a table from the athlete’s blood passport. abp procedure is a tool with the idea opposite to retrospective testing. abp concerns with immediate incompetition results (within 36 hours in most cases) to better target riders with regular tests whereas a retrospective test is a test after a long term sample storage (up to 8 years)
(ii) due to the current standard (and practice) for blood samples storage, the hematological parameters in the example will not be available for retro testing years down the road. that’s because currently wada and ioc laboratories are equipped to store only frozen serum and plasma. parameters such as hct, hg, % rets are cell based indexes, and whilst theoretically possible and indeed used in limited research, are not in mass long term storage.
(iii) a retrospective test that would have become available at a later date will have been exposed to mandatory rigorous validation including preserving and discrimination of the physiological variables covered in psalmon's critique.

amen and cheers.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

(iii) a retrospective test that would have become available at a later date will have been exposed to mandatory rigorous validation including preserving and discrimination of the physiological variables covered in psalmon's critique.

Unless the retrospective 'test' is in fact a retrospective statistical analysis of previously measured blood parameters, using a more refined statistical model.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Does it help provide incentive not to dope because of future test find your state of the art PED's??

Anything that increases the chance of being caught must be a disincentive to dope. More importantly, some of the 'state of the art PED's' are likely to be medicines in the development stage, which haven't undergone full clinical trials for any application. Without retrospective testing the message is basically pump yourself full of whatever poorly understood experimental drugs you can buy on the black market.

 

[Psalmon]

And yes, I'm from Pittsburgh.

I knew it as soon as I saw the quoted piece! And to think I forgot to mention how the Seahawks were robbed too.

Seriously, the point was all in good fun. That it's all a game. Everyone has a "we was robbed" moment. Champions are crowned. They play next year (even if a young boy whose parents had Raiders season tix is crushed by a bad call and carries the scars of that moment to this day).

P

 

[East Sycamore]

I knew it as soon as I saw the quoted piece! And to think I forgot to mention how the Seahawks were robbed too.

Seriously, the point was all in good fun. That it's all a game. Everyone has a "we was robbed" moment. Champions are crowned. They play next year (even if a young boy whose parents had Raiders season tix is crushed by a bad call and carries the scars of that moment to this day).

P

Hopefully my response was taken in good fun as well. Obviously a cycling forum is not the place to hash out the good or bad calls made against a football (American Football, that is) team. If a bad call bothered a Raiders fan in the 70's then the current state of the team must have that now grown man near-suicidal!

A little more relevant to the topic would be that a large number of the Steelers players from the 1970s have admitted to steroid use during those years. I'm not sure if steroids were even illegal in the NFL at that time, but it puts a big asterisk beside the most dominant team of that decade. It's also worth noting that a very high percentage of the players from that decade are dying early - in their 50's or late 40's!

 

[Cerberus]

I am not saying you are incorrect in your observation and I don't know your qualifications to make doping judgments; however, I don't understand how these numbers can be read and judged so precisely. Maybe someone can help.

The average 70 kg person has 5 liters of blood volume. A 2.4% difference in blood cell volume (40.7 to 43.1) would mean an extra .12 l of cells or about 4 oz of blood cells, half a cup, two shot glasses.

The average blood cell lives 4 months. 5 l at 42% is 2.1 l of blood cells. Over 120 days that means you produce .02 l/day of blood cells. Over 3 days .06.

Under stress, extremely well trained guys, one rest day, 3 post Andorre days, one sans-radio cruise up to Issoudun, does their system produce 2X that or 4x that if you think replacement?

No, not under normal circumstances, the normal trend over a tour is decreasing blood values. A trend not seen in the rider here. If someone did produce a higher than normal number of blood cells it should be reflected in their reticulate count being higher than normal.

Can we measure and judge that precisely? Think about the volumes involved. Every day the riders consume 8-10 bottles of water/liquids on the road, more later in the day, or about 6 liters. 90% of plasma is water. So of 5 l you have 2 l of cells .3 l of stuff, and 2.7 l of water. 6 l is 2x your body's steady state water volume every day.

In addition, a guy who has a 40.7 hct, has 2.035 l of blood and 2.965 l of water and stuff. Holding blood constant, to get a 43.1 the guy would have 2.687 l of water and stuff a difference of .28 l or 9.5 oz.

So I work in the garden on a hot day and drink one cup short, and I'm doping? Well, take away my roses I guess.

When was this guy tested on these days? What did he drink and when? When did he ****? What indicators do we have on his kidney function? Was the guy sick? Viruses? Infections? Allergies? Road rash from a crash?

You're partially correct here. Dehydration and Diarrhea (can cause spikes in blood values and that is the reason why values like this don't result in a sanction. Note however that the body contains far more water than what's in the blood (around 2/3 of a human is water IIRC), so you need to be far more dehydrated than your calculations indicate. If we were to assume that the rider did in fact have the normal downwards trend in blood values and it was merely masked by dehydration he'd have to have been dehydrated through almost the entire tour.

Also obviously dehydration is associated with performance loss, while doping is associated with performance gain. Obviously it's difficult to sanction someone based on their performance being to good, but it's something to note. If your blood values spike the day you struggle to hang on to the buss that's a lot less suspicious than if it's the day where you drop the entire peloton.

In sumery yes, there are uncertainties though they're less than what you seem to believe.

In case you're wondering my qualifications for making doping judgments are that I read sciency stuff on the intertubes, writen by people who actually know something about it.