• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Understanding the Biological Passport

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Anonymous

Guest
joe_papp said:
This may deserve it's own thread only b/c the subject is a post on the Bio Passport, rather than the program itself or who's been caught. I think the author is looking for feedback from the science perspective. The original article is here:

http://www.localcyclist.com/2009/09/a-tale-of-two-cyclists/#more-134
Click to expand...

There are times when I feel like the more I know, the less I wish I knew.

I guess on some levels the bio passport is helping to level the playing field. I doubt we will ever hear of a rider crashing, compound fracture of the leg only to discover an Hct of 60% (Pantani).

I just don't know if it's much progress:confused:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
There are times when I feel like the more I know, the less I wish I knew.

I guess on some levels the bio passport is helping to level the playing field. I doubt we will ever hear of a rider crashing, compound fracture of the leg only to discover an Hct of 60% (Pantani).

I just don't know if it's much progress:confused:
Click to expand...

Or the stories of Museeuw's gel like blood when he crashed it P-R. I wish I could find that story again. It sounded as if the Emergency Room crew were in shock at what they saw.
 
Hugh Januss

Hugh Januss

Jul 9, 2009
7,601
911
19,680
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
There are times when I feel like the more I know, the less I wish I knew.

I guess on some levels the bio passport is helping to level the playing field. I doubt we will ever hear of a rider crashing, compound fracture of the leg only to discover an Hct of 60% (Pantani).

I just don't know if it's much progress:confused:
Click to expand...

It may be progress when it comes to being less unhealthy to the riders than the old "unlimited racing class" of mid 90's.
 
R

RhodriM

May 15, 2009
236
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
There are time when I feel like the more I know, the less I wish I knew.

I guess on some levels the bio passport is helping to level the playing field. I doubt we will ever hear of a rider crashing, compound fracture of the leg only to discover an Hct of 60% (Pantani).

I just don't know if it's much progress:confused:
Click to expand...

At least it's some progress I suppose. It may be very flawed, but then so were the 'health checks' for haematocrit in the 90s - but at least they were a start on which things could be built.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RhodriM said:
At least it's some progress I suppose. It may be very flawed, but then so were the 'health checks' for haematocrit in the 90s - but at least they were a start on which things could be built.
Click to expand...

Or a start on standardizing doping levels.
 
F

fatandfast

Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
No slam on Joe but what are the numbers? Did they test every endurance athlete with a license? Passport? If every pro rider(300) was not sampled then it would seem that a uni-baller or guy with extra junk or now the squirts can cause the data base to change. If you can have an inactive testicle and not show up on the screening then the baseline is a little low and slow. The most abused drug manufacs should be urged to put a signal substance in their drug so it shows up like a street sign.We are talking about 20 substances and 4 makers, what is the market for CERA? If nobody puts a bio flag in the drug then they know that really sick people(physically) are not the only users of their wares. 2.3 billion on Phizser for cross selling . Where is parliment or congress who buy 99% of all the
 
F

fatandfast

Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
No slam on Joe but what are the numbers? Did they test every endurance athlete with a license? Passport? If every pro rider(300) was not sampled then it would seem that a uni-baller or guy with extra junk or now the squirts can cause the data base to change. If you can have an inactive testicle and not show up on the screening then the baseline is a little low and slow. The most abused drug manufacs should be urged to put a signal substance in their drug so it shows up like a street sign.We are talking about 20 substances and 4 makers, what is the market for CERA? If nobody puts a bio flag in the drug then they know that really sick people(physically) are not the only users of their wares. 2.3 billion on Phizser for cross selling . Where is parliment or congress who buy 99% of all the
 
joe_papp

joe_papp

May 13, 2009
1,862
343
11,180
twitter.com
fatandfast said:
No slam on Joe but what are the numbers? Did they test every endurance athlete with a license? Passport? If every pro rider(300) was not sampled then it would seem that a uni-baller or guy with extra junk or now the squirts can cause the data base to change. If you can have an inactive testicle and not show up on the screening then the baseline is a little low and slow. The most abused drug manufacs should be urged to put a signal substance in their drug so it shows up like a street sign.We are talking about 20 substances and 4 makers, what is the market for CERA? If nobody puts a bio flag in the drug then they know that really sick people(physically) are not the only users of their wares. 2.3 billion on Phizser for cross selling . Where is parliment or congress who buy 99% of all the
Click to expand...


And in return, no slam on you - just a request that the thread be kept on target and not expanded if the argument/discussion could be conducted as part of an existing, much bigger thread. If you have feedback on the post by Local Cyclist, I'm sure he/she would appreciate it there.

I know you're not slamming me, since I didn't write the LC post, I just linked it in here. But the reason I started this as a separate thread was b/c it didn't seem to fit with a discussions of the pro/con, good/bad, sucks/doesn't suck, conspiracy/no-conspiracy threads in which the BioPass features. I wasn't supporting or rejecting "Tale of Two Cyclists". Just linking it in here so you could find it if desired.
 
Bala Verde

Bala Verde

Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
Thank the Local Cyclist for the article...I just brought it to The Clinic's attention. :cool: And I claim no direct, irrefutable knowledge, first-hand or otherwise, of L.A. every having doped. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Great source Joe!

It's very informative and reduces the medical details and technicalities of hemaetological functions to easy to understand concepts, variables and relations. With these tools everyone can 'read' a graph.

It's like someone explaining us how to read a HR monitor so that we can infer that a flat line means a person is dead, without having to be a doctor who fully understands the inner workings of the body. Or how to read the stock charts, without having to be an economist.
 
S

stephens

May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
Thanks for posting, but actually don't agree with the premise of the Local Cyclist article that everyone can become blood experts.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no expert. I've read tons of stuff and none of it explains how I can have hematocrit of 36% (average male is 46%) and yet the 39 other tests i've taken to find out why all come back within normal range. I hope I run into someone smarter than me someday soon...

So no way will I ever speculate as to what anyone else's numbers mean or how they got to where they are.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
I'm certainly no expert. I've read tons of stuff and none of it explains how I can have hematocrit of 36% (average male is 46%) and yet the 39 other tests i've taken to find out why all come back within normal range. I hope I run into someone smarter than me someday soon...

So no way will I ever speculate as to what anyone else's numbers mean or how they got to where they are.
Click to expand...

Because 2.5641% of your personal tests were out of line, you refuse to think anyone is blood doping. Okay, I guess that is a good reason...

It takes a lot for some people to overcome their denial. I have said this to many Lance supporters. Just go neutral for awhile and read all of the information out there. I think you will see that you have your head in the sand. It is your right to have it there, but statements like the one above will never cause anyone to take you seriously.
 
S

stephens

May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Because 2.5641% of your personal tests were out of line, you refuse to think anyone is blood doping. Okay, I guess that is a good reason...
Click to expand...

You seriously missed the point. It was not an argument against the existence of blood doping: it was an argument against a bunch of laymen on the internet being able to look at some numbers and declare who has or hasn't been doping.

The suggestion is that we can all read one article, understand the biological passport, look at some numbers, and declare who has been blood doping or using epo. I don't believe it will be so easy. Is a change in hemoglobin due to doping or hydration level or prolonged exertion or legal training methods or illness or disease or just-the-way-that-person's-body-functions?

To suggest that cycling fans (that aren't hemotologists or hemopathologists) are qualified to make that determination is just silly to me.

As for my personal tests - it isn't just that 2% were out of line. It's that the only number that really matters (my body's ability to deliver oxygen to its cells) is out of order and all the other numbers that should show why aren't showing why since they come back normal. If I had been a pro-cyclist, people would probably be saying I had damaged my body through years of cheating. (isn't that what people are saying about Joe Papp right now? what they are saying about Fignon's cancer?)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
You seriously missed the point. It was not an argument against the existence of blood doping: it was an argument against a bunch of laymen on the internet being able to look at some numbers and declare who has or hasn't been doping.

The suggestion is that we can all read one article, understand the biological passport, look at some numbers, and declare who has been blood doping or using epo. I don't believe it will be so easy. Is a change in hemoglobin due to doping or hydration level or prolonged exertion or legal training methods or illness or disease or just-the-way-that-person's-body-functions?

To suggest that cycling fans (that aren't hemotologists or hemopathologists) are qualified to make that determination is just silly to me.

As for my personal tests - it isn't just that 2% were out of line. It's that the only number that really matters (my body's ability to deliver oxygen to its cells) is out of order and all the other numbers that should show why aren't showing why since they come back normal. If I had been a pro-cyclist, people would probably be saying I had damaged my body through years of cheating. (isn't that what people are saying about Joe Papp right now? what they are saying about Fignon's cancer?)
Click to expand...


Actually, if you read the threads, you will see that there are medical professionals here who can interpret that data above a layman's ability. When those people say the profile is suspicious and so does a guy in Denmark who knows a thing or two about the subject, I don't have to be an expert to read their summations and concur. You just don't want Armstrong to have transfused blood during the Tour. He did thought.
 
S

stephens

May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Actually, if you read the threads, you will see that there are medical professionals here who can interpret that data above a layman's ability. When those people say the profile is suspicious and so does a guy in Denmark who knows a thing or two about the subject, I don't have to be an expert to read their summations and concur. You just don't want Armstrong to have transfused blood during the Tour. He did thought.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not what this thread is about. There are plenty of other threads to discuss whether a particular cyclist dopes or not. The issue at hand is an article with a very simplistic explanation of blood values and trends and the idea that one can now make declarations of guilt based on that surface level understanding of biology.

(fwiw, to be fair to the guy in Denmark, he said "it could be this, it could be that." it's unfair to him, and the cyclist, to just focus on the "this" without considering the "that".)

I'm not an Armstrong fan. I just think the witch hunt is ridiculous.
 
East Sycamore

East Sycamore

Aug 31, 2009
26
0
0
Visit site
Sorry if this has been covered before. Is there anything in the biological passport program that allows for testing in future years as new tests are developed? Is it possible that in 10 years we'll be able to go back and find out what today's cyclists were on?

I thought that this had been discussed as part of the program, but I can't remember if it was implemented. I suppose if it had, they would be re-testing last year's samples for CERA. Maybe I just answered my own question...
 
C

Cerberus

Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Visit site
East Sycamore said:
Sorry if this has been covered before. Is there anything in the biological passport program that allows for testing in future years as new tests are developed? Is it possible that in 10 years we'll be able to go back and find out what today's cyclists were on?

I thought that this had been discussed as part of the program, but I can't remember if it was implemented. I suppose if it had, they would be re-testing last year's samples for CERA. Maybe I just answered my own question...
Click to expand...

There is one major problem with retroactive testing - it might work. There is IMO a very real risk that if retroactive tests are used UCI will catch more people that they're comfortable with. That would of cause make the sport cleaner but it's entirely plausible that people will keep being tempted and that these people will win. That means there's a risk that we might get an almost constant stream of revelations that winners and podium placers in major racers were doped. Perhaps I'm being to pessimistic, but I think that the risk is real, and if UCI thinks the same they might not be so keen to do that. I don't believe that UCI would actually fake negative tests, but to avoiding doing uncomfortable tests is much easier and less risky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom