The FTP Passport

[acoggan]

How variable it is? It didn't look variable at all, once he hit 21. If anything it looked very stable.

You're conveniently ignoring some of the intermediate values.

Or were you, in fact, comparing his junior, 17 year old VO2 max to his senior, 20+ year old professional bike rider VO2 max - given they were the VO2 max values in the post you quoted?

Now you're assuming that you know for a fact it was McGee.

As for assuming a pro cyclist is always at their genetic limit every season at whatever time you choose to test them - bahahahhahahahaa. Sure thing.

You haven't haven't spent much time rubbing elbows with elite athletes, have you? If you had, you'd realize that psychologically and on average they really aren't any different from those of us with lesser talent. That is, some are dedicated/highly motivated, and some aren't, and even those who are nose-to-the-grindstone types personality-wise have difficulty maintaining intense focus year-in and year-out (ever heard of the Olympic cycle?).

Of course, that's neglecting the fact that, as I said, how you train to maximize your performance and how you train to maximize your VO2max are two different things. For my youthful self, for example, the difference at peak fitness was ~4%, or ~3 mL/min/kg. Testing those who show such normal variation would be a waste of resources, while at the same time a ~4% improvement in performance due to doping would be of substantial benefit. IOW, where would you draw the line?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You haven't haven't spent much time rubbing elbows with elite athletes,

I don't need to. Only a complete moron would think athletes are peaking all year. Or the athlete is Bradley Wiggins. But meh whatever.

You said you thought it was McGee. If it wasn't, feel free to offer other suggestions, I can look up their ages and do it all over again. Your data reminds me of Coyle's Armstrong study in its usefulness.

Given the thread title is FTP passport, and has close to nothing to do with VO2 max, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Merckx index]

His values after 3-4 months base training in 93, 95, 96 were within experimental error, 79-80. His values 1-2 weeks prior to the NC in 94, 97 and 99 showed about a 4% increase, and most of that was from 94 to 97. 97 and 98 were again within experimental error.

We don’t know who this rider was, so we don’t know if these values were taken during a period when he was physically maturing. But there is some evidence here—not conclusive, but certainly suggestive—that he was nearly at his peak by 1994, with only a small change after that. While he did not achieve this peak when he was measured after the base training, that is not unexpected, and shows the effect of further training--or doping. We can’t rule this out, obviously, as any doping he did do would be mostly likely to enhance performance at the NC.

So how would values like this be useful? At a minimum, if he greatly exceeded 88 (or more precisely, if he greatly exceeded a power output that was based on 88 and other measurable and previously measured parameters), that would be suspicious. If in his entire career, 88 was the highest he had ever been measured at, and he had achieved this several times over a period of several years, I would find 92-93 (again, using V02max/kg as a proxy in this discussion for a power output) suspicious.

That is just the minimum possibility, from one rider’s values, and even here there isn’t the amount of information we would like. And that’s assuming he didn’t dope. Suppose he did? Suppose those values in the upper 80s were all the result of doping prior to a big race. It might well be that without the doping, he would have measured around 80, IOW, no variability at all, quite stable.

You haven't haven't spent much time rubbing elbows with elite athletes, have you? If you had, you'd realize that psychologically and on average they really aren't any different from those of us with lesser talent. That is, some are dedicated/highly motivated, and some aren't, and even those who are nose-to-the-grindstone types personality-wise have difficulty maintaining intense focus year-in and year-out (ever heard of the Olympic cycle?).

Sure, but that still doesn’t mean we can’t get some idea of what they’re capable of. I certainly find it interesting that this rider's values after a base training block at the end of the season were remarkably stable over a three year period. Even if his higher values were clean, this suggests that we might be able to get a fairly precise estimate of a rider’s value at this point—highly trained, close to a peak, lacking only the fine tuning, dedication, motivation, whatever it takes, needed for a major race--with further data allowing us to make predictions about how much further beyond this it’s possible to go with in season training and racing.

Of course, that's neglecting the fact that, as I said, how you train to maximize your performance and how you train to maximize your VO2max are two different things. For my youthful self, for example, the difference at peak fitness was ~4%, or ~3 mL/min/kg. Testing those who show such normal variation would be a waste of resources, while at the same time a ~4% improvement in performance due to doping would be of substantial benefit. IOW, where would you draw the line?

Like Alex, you are holding the FTP approach to a higher standard than that the passport is capable of. Normal HT can vary more than 4%. That doesn’t mean the passport isn’t useful. Good grief, riders used to boost their HT by 25% or more, and even after the EPO test became available, 10% increases through blood doping were quite possible.

There is a point, different for every individual, at which the variation in power becomes suspicious, and a further point at which it becomes highly suspicious. We don’t know exactly what this point is, but we can get an idea if we start getting the data. As I said before, it's really premature to diss this idea before we know more.

 

[jw1979]

There is a point, different for every individual, at which the variation in power becomes suspicious, and a further point at which it becomes highly suspicious. We don’t know exactly what this point is, but we can get an idea if we start getting the data. As I said before, it's really premature to diss this idea before we know more.

Herein lies the problem. Between Alex, Andy and myself you have vast amounts of experience with power meters. You say, "If we start getting the data". I don't think you realize how many files we've looked at from different athletes of all calibers using all sorts of power meters.

It's premature for you to diss this idea before you know more. I can accept that. Those of us who do know more realize this idea would do nothing in the way of weeding out doping.

That being said, I love numbers and it would be fun to see the data, absolutely. But it would do nothing to help with the doping situation. If anything, I think it would make it worse. More riders would realize they only need 10-20 watts more to make a substantial jump. "Hmm...maybe if I just do a little, just to get 10 watts worth. Just for this one big race."

Like Alex has been saying, just look at the results. Test the top riders. If a rider is even starting the tour it's because they are one of the very best in the world. Test them, a LOT. Oh wait, there isn't a budget for that. So how do you budget power meters and power testing for everyone....which at best will only tell you who to target...which we actually already know via results anyway. Therefore, FTP Passport is not valid. It's just masturbation with numbers.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Goodness me.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Like Alex has been saying, just look at the results. Test the top riders. If a rider is even starting the tour it's because they are one of the very best in the world. Test them, a LOT. Oh wait, there isn't a budget for that. So how do you budget power meters and power testing for everyone....which at best will only tell you who to target...which we actually already know via results anyway. Therefore, FTP Passport is not valid. It's just masturbation with numbers.

1. You don't have to dope to win.
2. You don't have to win to dope.

Mid-stage or race efforts can be tracked more easily with a power meter, and provide better insight into a rider's need for testing than their finishing position at the end of the stage or race - for 90% of the field.

To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

It's akin to suggesting only the guys finishing top 10 are doping.

Your "I've seen lots of power meter files" reminds me of JV's "I've seen lots of blood profiles". In JV's case the point is moot because he can't know if they were doped or not, so his experience is essentially ... credibility theatre.

Unless you have done the analysis being suggested by MI, and I am guessing you haven't, and bring a valid or meaningful argument for why it wouldn't work at all based on that analysis, your derisory dismissal of the idea based on seeing power meter files is ... a similar kind of theatre.

You are not the only people who have seen power meter files.

 

[Merckx index]

Herein lies the problem. Between Alex, Andy and myself you have vast amounts of experience with power meters. You say, "If we start getting the data". I don't think you realize how many files we've looked at from different athletes of all calibers using all sorts of power meters.

Trust us, we have all the answers, nothing to see here, move on.

Fine, why don’t you post some of these data? I’d really be interested in seeing them.

Just a few ground rules:

1) Elite riders, or if you don’t have those, at least serious racers, training/racing much of the year.
2) Can be of any age at the beginning of tracking, but the tracking has to continue until they’re well into their 20s.
3) Tests are annual or more frequent, and occur over a period of several, preferably many, years
4) Have to have some way of minimizing the possibility of doping, or at least assessing the likelihood
5) Any other known factors that IYO could affect the results—illness, fatigue, etc., should be discussed

 

[jw1979]

Trust us, we have all the answers, nothing to see here, move on.

Fine, why don’t you post some of these data? I’d really be interested in seeing them.

Just a few ground rules:

1) Elite riders, or if you don’t have those, at least serious racers, training/racing much of the year.
2) Can be of any age at the beginning of tracking, but the tracking has to continue until they’re well into their 20s.
3) Tests are annual or more frequent, and occur over a period of several, preferably many, years
4) Have to have some way of minimizing the possibility of doping, or at least assessing the likelihood
5) Any other known factors that IYO could affect the results—illness, fatigue, etc., should be discussed

I'm not saying there is "nothing to see here". I'm saying people can already see what you are looking for (regarding power), and that it doesn't reveal the other picture you are looking for (regarding who is doping) more efficiently. It's like trying to look at someone's face that is 15 feet away through the hubble telescope; it's going to be really expensive, totally unnecessary and lead you down a maze that has no end.

As for your points 1-5, you might as well just ask me to download my brain into yours, it's not possible...although I'm sure google and ray kurzweil are working on it!

Of course there are loopholes with the passport, but I think for the most part cyclists nowadays are healthier than in the past. At some point you just need to enjoy the show and be glad that young men aren't dying in their sleep anymore.

Anyway, I admire trying to find a solution to the doping problem, so accept my apologies if I came off as a rude know-it-all that of course doesn't know it all.

I think what we should keep in mind is that the guys in the peloton KNOW who is doping. Everyone else, like the vampires, the fans, etc. have some idea, but are not totally sure. You want to get rid of doping? Make some incentive for the peloton to tell the truth.

For instance, take the 500 or so riders in the Pro Tour and require them to submit to a weekly survey. The survey is simply a list of their 499 peers, of which they must pick 5 they think should be targeted. In addition, leave one open space where they fill in the name of any Pro Conti guy they think should be targeted. At least that survey is practically free to conduct and is likely to net actual results since the tide seems to have turned and guys aren't happy with dopers in the peloton.

Like I said, those guys actually know. Maybe that sort of survey idea wouldn't work, but if you want clean sport, you need them to talk.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

How do you know this? One of my points is that by collecting a lot of data, we would have a better idea of how much variation does occur in power values. The very fact that teams do not test riders regularly in this manner now is evidence that we don’t have enough information to conclude much. Froome, it seems, had one V02 test back in 2008 or so, I can’t remember when. He’s never had one at Sky. How can we possibly say how much variation he would exhibit? Wouldn’t you think Sky would want to find out? And even if they didn’t have to release the identities of specific riders, couldn’t they release the data itself?

Have you ever tried to find out the V02max, let alone other power-relevant data, from well known riders of the past? For most, it doesn’t seem available, and when it is, it’s usually from a single measurement. Can you point me to a series of measurements over the years on Lemond? Or Indurain? Pantani? Ullrich? Armstrong? So on what data are you basing your assertion that the variability is too great?

There are reasons why most are not bothering with VO2 testing. Apart from the inconvenience/reliability (e.g. I'm reminded of VO2 data on Armstrong so ripped apart by many here), it's not exactly a good guide to performance potential. Hence the incentive to do such testing isn't high. Besides, actual racing does a pretty good job of sorting out who is/is not performing.

But we know from published science what does happen with VO2 because it is scientifically interesting and has other uses in understanding what's going on "under the bonnet". But it's not necessary to know it or measure it to train someone effectively.

Power data is rare for historical riders simply because it wasn't readily available, except in the lab. Power meters are a relatively recent phenomena, indeed it's one area where amateur ranks have been ahead of the curve compared with professional cycling.

Before the passport was designed, people could have said, what we need is evidence of EPO, not evidence of hematocrit variability. HT can vary depending on many factors. But after a lot of monitoring, it was concluded that normal ranges can be defined for individuals. The criteria are not as clear-cut as a gel pattern (not that the EPO test is that clear-cut, either, for that matter), or a mass spec peak, but there are changes achieved by doping that can be confidently ruled not explainable by other factors.

It’s the same principle with power. Yes, there is going to be some variation, which creates a lot of fuzziness. But to argue that there are no power changes that might strongly suggest doping—without first collecting and analyzing a lot of data—seems to me premature.

Undoubtedly there will be a lot of individual variation, but the same is likely true of the passport. What I mean is that some individuals probably have larger natural fluctuations in blood parameters than others, which means it will be harder to establish a variation is the result of doping for them. The allowable range they can get away with is greater. I would expect a similar situation with performance, but that doesn’t mean it might not be very useful in identifying at least some riders.

Then convince me with some science that demonstrates one can parse out doping via power data for an individual.

I consider changes in key blood parameters to be significantly more specifically attributable to doping than changes in power output are.

In any case, either it will lead to a sanction, or it will lead to targeted testing. The former needs much more robustness than the latter, and is not what you are suggesting in any case.

The latter leaves us pretty much where we are now, reliant on a woefully inadequate level of urine/blood testing.

My point is I don't think it's going to improve targeting over methods already available to us.

No, it isn’t. As I stated in the OP, a main rationale for this proposal is that a performance that could be normal for one rider could be abnormal for another. To say that who needs to be targeted is obvious from racing results is like saying who needs to be targeted is obvious from HT. A high HT does not necessarily mean doping, and a low HT does not necessarily mean not doping. It’s really the same with performance.

Again, look at DiLuca. Based on his performance at the Giro, he wasn’t a prime candidate for targeting. He wasn’t among the race leaders. But he was racing better than expected. I think a lot of people here suspected him (his past obviously helps there, too), but had he not tested positive, having hard data would have made the suspicions much more credible. And DiLuca was noticeable because he had a recent racing record for comparison. Someone newer and less known might have done the same thing DiLuca did and flown completely under the radar.

Hence we'd need power data for all of those riders.

Nobody is claiming that power monitoring will detect all doping. That’s sort of like arguing we shouldn’t have a blood passport because many riders can juice without triggering the red flag.

OK. I didn't think you or anyone was. I'm working on the assumption the prime aim is to better target testing.

I'm trying to see how it will make things better though, when the outcomes are still beholden to a woefully inadequate testing regime.

Like Hincapie? Many of these domestiques bury themselves on a large portion of a key climb. Are you saying they aren't making maximal efforts? Look at Martin the other day. He's not a GC contender. You think he wasn't going all out on that climb, until he dropped off?

Sure, but isn't that already clear from watching the race? I don't need a power meter to see which domestiques are burying themselves in service of others. e.g. you just told me who without a power meter file in sight, so add them to the list.

And then not only are we estimating power, we are proposing to estimate it for portions of a ride we have incomplete data for based on someone else's power data ridden under different circumstances.

Unless of course we have power meters on all those bikes.

I don’t understand why people keep making this point. You don’t need a power meter for every rider. One or two riders on a climb will do it.

Which means we are back to only really being able to deal with those that complete the selective climbs au bloc or near enough. IOW GC and stage win contenders. We already know about those.

For the others that might "fly under the radar", well you'll need to put a meter on all their bikes for all racing and training, before during and after a tour.

That's why I'm making the point.

Frankly, you could create a machine that would go up the climb, designed to have air and rolling resistance similar to a cyclist, and calculate the power value from that. It could be done, but it’s not necessary if you have one or two riders with power meters. If you have reliable power data, plus the time on the climb, you can correct for wind. Other sources of variation are not going to make that much difference. As long as there is no sanctioning possible, being off by a few % in estimates is not a big deal.

You have greater confidence than I in such things. That's OK. I'm skeptical and need some convincing. I presume that's OK too?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Merckx index, whilst I share the concerns of those questioning the idea, where I think the concept has merit is for targeting purposes. The concern of different power meters in invalid because you're looking for sudden changes in the MMP curve within an individual (but this concern becoems a problem if an individual changes PMs). The problem is that there are relatively large fluctuations in the MMP curve within a season due to fatigue, freshness, illness etc

However, something that stays remarkably stable over long periods of time (or gradually creeps upwards from year to year) is the absolute best MMP that can be achieved at any point in the entire year. This is what needs to be identified in elite level cyclists.

So herein lies the challenge/problem, you're not going to catch a doper who has previously submitted data corrupted by a history of doping, because their "doping MMP curve" has already been established, hence within a season when they dope, they just approach that performance level and the changes could look like normal within season fluctuations.

You've basically got one chance and one chance only to catch them..... when you've got a history of at least 2-3 yrs of non-doping MMP curves and then they commence a doping program for the first time. In that case the absolute best MMP curve will increase uncharacteristically.

Herein lies the second challenge/problem. What is a "normal" absolute best MMP curve progression over many years? To establish this, there will need to be a large scale concerted scientific effort also over many years (at least 5-7yrs) starting with junior elite cyclists not yet signed to pro conti or pro teams. Given that maybe only a few percent of those junior elites will make it to senior pro ranks, you're going to need a lot of participating junior elite riders due to the high drop out rate.

All cyclists have an incentive to properly calibrate their PMs and acquire valid and reliable power data. Eventually... 10yrs into the future.... if there was a requirement for registered "elite" juniors through to senior pro riders to submit data every year for many years (coded confidentially of course) to an appropriate authority who then run it through some custom designed software that raises the red flags, those power profiles are then examined personally by a team of experts, and a final red flag is raised or dismissed. Those red flags that remain get hassled the s*** out of with regular blood testing.

This approach does not need to be independent of jw1979s idea of an anon survey (which itself is rather like the anon doping "hotline" suggested by many anti-doping campaigners over the years), but they work in tandem.

So your idea does have merit, but there are huge logistical challenges that stand in the way of it becoming a valid and cost effective approach to establishing red flags.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

All cyclists have an incentive to properly calibrate their PMs and acquire valid and reliable power data.

As a comment unrelated to this thread's main discussion, while you are right you might be surprised how few actually bother (or even know how).


Related to your comments, use of power meters in the pro peloton grew in use throughout the doping overdrive era, starting with occasional adoption by Lemond in 1993, and then by riders like Riis/Ullrich/Telekom 1997 onwards, then Armstrong.

Mostly SRMs, then later some Powertaps (e.g. recall images of Landis's Powertap head unit during his famous stage 17 ride in 2006). Since then the quality of the data hasn't been improved much, if at all. Rather the product has become more commoditised as new players have entered the market.

Considering how early in their careers some commenced doping (e.g. Armstrong), I think you make a fair point.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

There's no doubt the solution requires a multifaceted approach.

It's then a question of:

1. assigning the resources required to do the job properly, and that requires political will. I don't think sufficient political will exists and this is the primary problem.

The resources applied to the anti-doping effort are woefully tiny in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps WADA affiliated sports need to have a mandated doping tax on all income to race organisers, team and individuals (e.g. sponsorships, TV deals) to properly fund the anti-doping effort. Otherwise I think it'll pretty much continue to be ****ing into the wind.

2. how to use the resources you do have available more effectively to prevent and catch dopers.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Also, I'm not suggesting that this is this only solution.

I also think resources devoted to effective investigative approach is also required, e.g. people with skills and experience such those a federal level police/detective might have. Amazing what a good investigator can uncover if given the resources.

Absolutely. That's bang on the mark. With a little bit of digging of contacts/phone records/devices - evidence of doping product acquisition would be there, no doubt. Fair number of legal questions on such an approach.

I also agree that increased testing, increased complexity of testing and greater sanction is something that should happen, irrespective of the data gathering methods we are discussing here.

 

[acoggan]

Like Alex has been saying, just look at the results. Test the top riders. If a rider is even starting the tour it's because they are one of the very best in the world. Test them, a LOT. Oh wait, there isn't a budget for that. So how do you budget power meters and power testing for everyone....which at best will only tell you who to target...which we actually already know via results anyway. Therefore, FTP Passport is not valid. It's just masturbation with numbers.

Simple solutions appeal to simple minds.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21263

 

[acoggan]

something that stays remarkably stable over long periods of time (or gradually creeps upwards from year to year) is the absolute best MMP that can be achieved at any point in the entire year. This is what needs to be identified in elite level cyclists.

Here are year-over-year changes in the maximal power-duration relationship for an elite (e.g., multiple medals including gold at nationals, invites to World Cups, participation in H-P International and other international-caliber races, etc.) cyclist. Data are from only the last 3 y of a 5 y racing career, as prior to that they didn't own a powermeter. Development/physical maturation did not play a role, as they were in their mid-20s when they started racing. They also weren't completed untrained when they started, as they had been involved in another "quadcentric" endurace sport for several years before transitioning to cycling.

 

[acoggan]

forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21263

Yup, the notion of using estimated or even directly-measured power as an anti-doping measure has been around for quite a while. The limitations to the approach haven't really changed, though, which is why the idea hasn't gone (and likely never will go) anywhere.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I might be missing something but thought this fitted in here.

Was he aware that 49.441 km Boardman only produced 403 watts, againt 442 watts for 56.375 km Boardman? i.e, that with the same power Boardman would have done about 51.1km (far better than Sosenka)

I thought those figures were estimated?

They had SRM data from all his training, so had a pretty good idea of his capability and aerodynamics and rolling resistance, as well as environmental conditions for each attempt.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I might be missing something but thought this fitted in here.

In what way? They are estimates of a rider's power output. Nothing wrong with that.

They are however not numbers being used to prove/disprove a rider's doping status/probability, a use for which it's somewhat more important to understand the methodology and accuracy of said estimates.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Here are year-over-year changes in the maximal power-duration relationship for an elite (e.g., multiple medals including gold at nationals, invites to World Cups, participation in H-P International and other international-caliber races, etc.) cyclist. Data are from only the last 3 y of a 5 y racing career, as prior to that they didn't own a powermeter. Development/physical maturation did not play a role, as they were in their mid-20s when they started racing. They also weren't completed untrained when they started, as they had been involved in another "quadcentric" endurace sport for several years before transitioning to cycling.

So what? This unpublished cherry picked data on n=1 is not typical of fulltime training athletes with 5-7yrs+ training history.

 

[acoggan]

So what? This unpublished cherry picked data on n=1 is not typical of fulltime training athletes with 5-7yrs+ training history.

It's not atypical, either (and this was a full-time athlete w/ a 5+ y training history). The simple fact of the matter is that some years some people have their **** together, and some years they don't. For example, here are data from another world-class rider who also came into cycling in their 20s from a different endurance sport. Years 5 and 6 I refer to as their "lost years", but even ignoring those years there is significant fluctuation.

 

[acoggan]

Just to beat the dead horse a little more: here are data from a world-class cyclist that everyone here is convinced was doping one year, but not the other:

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So what? This unpublished cherry picked data on n=1 is not typical of fulltime training athletes with 5-7yrs+ training history.

Always two, there are.

A master and an apprentice.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

So release all your raw data and analysis so that we can evaluate it for ourselves. Tiny little snippets of pre-selected data don't show anything at all. You might as well show us some scribblings done in crayon for all the edifying it does.

John Swanson

 

[Merckx index]

So release all your raw data and analysis so that we can evaluate it for ourselves. Tiny little snippets of pre-selected data don't show anything at all. You might as well show us some scribblings done in crayon for all the edifying it does.

John Swanson

Amen.

There are lots of blood passport profiles from highly suspicious riders that show no significant changes at all. In fact, during the Contador case, his lawyers used passport data as evidence that he didn’t transfuse. DiLuca was busted for EPO last year, use of which certainly affects blood parameters, but I don’t recall that his passport was found to be irregular prior to his positive. If it was, it could have been used to target him, but it certainly wasn't irregular enough to sanction him on that basis.

There have also been several studies that show the passport misses a lot of doping:

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Sep;111(9):2307-14. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-1867-6. Epub 2011 Feb 20.
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.
Ashenden M1, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K.

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.

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 J1, Sharpe K, Belhage B, Damsgaard R, Schmidt W, Prommer N, Gore CJ, Ashenden MJ.

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.

There are also fairly sizeable fluctuations in passport profiles that are not considered evidence of doping. LA’s in 2009, I think it was, was highly suspicious (no, not one in a million, but highly suspicious), but because the passport has to be designed to take into account possible large natural fluctuations, he was not sanctioned. The point here is not that LA should have been sanctioned at that time, but that variability that could very well be due to doping is recognized to be within limits that are not sanctioned.

The problem is not confined to the passport. Doping tests bend over backwards to avoid false positives, so a slew of highly suspicious results is allowed to pass through. For every EPO positive, there are probably multiple tests that are in the gray area and are very likely to indicate doping, but which are ruled negative. There is a similar problem with the testosterone IRMS test, as revealed in the Landis case. Despite these limitations, all these tests are recognized as useful. Variability is a limitation; it is not a deal-breaker.

IMO, the proper approach here is not, power varies too much, it can never be used as an anti-doping tool, end of discussion. It’s, let’s get all the data we can on the table and see if it can be used as an additional tool in some cases. It may well turn out that for some riders, power changes can never be useful in this sense, while for others they may be very illuminating.

AKA, "I don't actually care about power data, which is why I don't have a bunch of raw data and analysis already that i've been analyzing the past 10+ years. I'd rather spend my time accumulating 10,000 posts on a message board com paining about a bunch stuff I don't actually know anything about."

Guys, this stuff ain't new. If you actually cared about it, you wouldn't have to ask someone else to do the work for you.

By that logic, no one who wasn't a hematologist should have been pushing for the blood passport.