Understanding the Biological Passport

[joe_papp]

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

 

[the truth.]

the future is built on openness and transparency.
good second step joe

 

[Anonymous]

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

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

 

[Anonymous]

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

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.

 

[Cobber]

Great article, thanks Joe!

 

[Hugh Januss]

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

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

 

[RhodriM]

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

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.

 

[Anonymous]

Great article, thanks Joe!

Yea, that kicker at the bottom is pretty right on. Well written piece.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Or a start on standardizing doping levels.

 

[usedtobefast]

Or a start on standardizing doping levels.

rider health needs to be the priority.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Or a start on standardizing doping levels.

Kind of like limits on engine size, gross weight, aerodynamics, and design parameters in car racing?

 

[joe_papp]

Great article, thanks Joe!

Thank the Local Cyclist for the article...I just brought it to The Clinic's attention. And I claim no direct, irrefutable knowledge, first-hand or otherwise, of L.A. every having doped.

 

[fatandfast]

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

 

[fatandfast]

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

 

[VeloFidelis]

Or a start on standardizing doping levels.

This is exactly the goal. Anything more ambitious than that is doomed to fail.

 

[joe_papp]

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

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]

Thank the Local Cyclist for the article...I just brought it to The Clinic's attention. And I claim no direct, irrefutable knowledge, first-hand or otherwise, of L.A. every having doped.

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.

 

[stephens]

Thanks for posting, but actually don't agree with the premise of the Local Cyclist article that everyone can become blood experts.

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.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

 

[ingridseynhaeve]

Hi joe,

You have done great job man.
Nice article by you. Keep it continue.

 

[stephens]

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...

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?)

 

[Anonymous]

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?)

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.

 

[stephens]

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.

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]

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...

 

[Cerberus]

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...

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.