WADA 2013 Report now out

[del1962]

Something to get your heads round

http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/2013-testing-figures/#.U70BKOVT6ek.twitter

 

[DirtyWorks]

It is important to note that the number of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) reported by laboratories may not correspond with the number of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) reported by ADOs. This is because all results are subject to a results management process conducted by ADOs, which includes matching results with Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) and longitudinal studies.

This is WADA warning the world the ADO's (anti-doping organizations) are not processing positives.

If I'm reading page 7 of this https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws...-Testing-Figures-TESTING-AUTHORITY-REPORT.pdf right:

Did the UCI issue half or 1/4 of 91 positives in 2013? As the note above makes clear, it's not 91 individuals, it's 91 positives where one athlete can have multiple positives. And this is not national federations, just UCI. That's quite a few TUE's!!!

URINE:
Urine samples collected in competition: 6096
Urine samples collected out of competition: 2967
UCI In Competition suspicious scores:148
UCI In Competition positive scores: 83
UCI Out Of Competition suspicious scores: 59
UCI Out Of Competition positive scores: 8 (!)

BLOOD: (as in blood test, not bio-passport. I believe)
How many blood samples did the UCI collect in competition? 298
How many blood samples did the UCI collect out of competition? 69
How many positives or suspicious? Zero

Lots of data to get through still.

 

[TheSpud]

It is important to note that the number of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) reported by laboratories may not correspond with the number of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) reported by ADOs. This is because all results are subject to a results management process conducted by ADOs, which includes matching results with Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) and longitudinal studies.

This is WADA warning the world the ADO's (anti-doping organizations) are not processing positives.

Really? I read that as WADA saying that although there may be readings / findings that warrant further investigation, they aren't necessarily violations due to various reasons such as TUEs, longitudinal analysis, etc.

Each to their own I guess.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It is important to note that the number of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) reported by laboratories may not correspond with the number of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) reported by ADOs. This is because all results are subject to a results management process conducted by ADOs, which includes matching results with Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) and longitudinal studies.

This is WADA warning the world the ADO's (anti-doping organizations) are not processing positives.

If I'm reading page 7 of this http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/R...-Testing-Figures-TESTING-AUTHORITY-REPORT.pdf right:

Did the UCI issue half or 1/4 of 91 positives in 2013? As the note above makes clear, it's not 91 individuals, it's 91 positives where one athlete can have multiple positives. And this is not national federations, just UCI. That's quite a few TUE's!!!

URINE:
Urine samples collected in competition: 6096
Urine samples collected out of competition: 2967
UCI In Competition suspicious scores:148
UCI In Competition positive scores: 83
UCI Out Of Competition suspicious scores: 59
UCI Out Of Competition positive scores: 8 (!)

BLOOD: (as in blood test, not bio-passport. I believe)
How many blood samples did the UCI collect in competition? 298
How many blood samples did the UCI collect out of competition? 69
How many positives or suspicious? Zero

Lots of data to get through still.

The thing that stood out for me was 100 fewer IC blood samples from 2012 to 2013.

Same number of races, probably the same number of podiums.

But the numbers don't add up anyway - compared to CADF business report so I stopped looking too closely.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Really? I read that as WADA saying that although there may be readings / findings that warrant further investigation, they aren't necessarily violations due to various reasons such as TUEs, longitudinal analysis, etc.

Each to their own I guess.

Oh sh!t! a positive. Where's Dr. Zorzoli?

 

[neineinei]

UCI Registered testing pool list 2013: ca 1020 riders in the pool
WADA 2013 ABP Report-Blood Analysis (p. 18): UCI took 5246 ABP blood tests.

= ca. 5,14 ABP blood tests pr. rider pr. year, of which ca. 3/pr. rider were taken out of competition.

5 tests pr. year is the minimum for a blood profile. Preferably there should be 6-7.

http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU3NzA&LangId=1

 

[zigmeister]

There is still no reliable and inexpensive test for GH via urine sampling.

Only blood tests.

So, with only 300 blood tests taken, and who knows if they were GH tested, there is still a huge potential of easy doping and results taking GH.

Look at the number, 5% of all tests were blood samples. Ok guys...have at it with the GH??

EPO can still be widely used effectively since the detection time and process is a real PITA...with very little OOC done on guys, no surprise if done correctly, not getting popped is still possible, despite what the passport says.

The below is just FYI info regarding the WADA testing...this is a study/response I have to the entire doping testing/WADA process and how it really isn't that effective. Just a few bits taken from an article/study on the matter of several things, including EPO testing.

"The Epo test that has been adopted in World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratories is based on isoelectric focusing (2, 10). Since the introduction of the test in 2000, Epo-abusing athletes have altered their dosing schemes, proving the initial efficiency of the test. By injecting microdoses of rHuEpo, the window of detection can be reduced to as little as 12–18 h postinjection (8)."

"The American WADA-accredited laboratory has performed the direct Epo test on more than 2,600 samples, only nine of them were found to be positive (3). The low numbers of athletes caught by the test are somewhat contradictory to the overall increase of mean hematocrit values since rHuEpo became available (12). Additionally, in some high profile legal cases in the United States, athletes who were clearly doping with a variety of compounds including Epo “passed” hundreds of individual drug tests.

Along these lines, Lundby et al. (11) convincingly demonstrated that the performance of the urinary Epo test is somewhat disappointing. Although the judgment process of “real” doping cases differs from the one applied in the present study, the high number of false-negative results imply a risk that athletes doping with Epo will avoid detection and damage the fundamental goal of fair competition. The earlier reported flaws of the test help to understand the relatively low efficiency of the direct Epo test and the current results emphasize the need for improving Epo testing."

 

[northstar]

The WADA report gives a detailed view of testing conducted by UCI and other ADOs for the sport. The report is based on testing figures reported by WADA labs in ADAMS. I’ve compared some of the figures, 2013 v. 2012.

Total samples 'analyzed' (testing authority UCI):

2013 – 9430 samples (6096 IC urine, 2967 OOC urine, 298 IC blood, 69 OOC blood)
2012 – 8940 samples (5514 IC urine, 3226 OOC urine, 119 IC blood, 81 OOC blood)

Total samples 'analyzed' (no testing authority named, all ADOs incl. UCI):

2013 – 22,252 samples (13,947 IC urine, 7081 OOC urine, 544 IC blood, 680 OOC blood)
2012 – 20,624 samples (12,521 IC urine, 6797 OOC urine, 643 IC blood, 663 OOC blood)

Total number of bio-passport tests (testing authority UCI):

2013 – 5246 blood samples (2280 IC, 2966 OOC)
2012 – 5085 blood samples (1823 IC, 3262 OOC)

Total number of bio-passport tests (no testing authority named, all ADOs incl. UCI):

2013 – 7429 blood samples (2632 IC, 4797 OOC)
2012 – 6424 blood samples (2072 IC, 4352 OOC)

Testing figures for all cycling disciplines combined. CADF business report, which is not out yet, usually gives specific numbers for mens road racing.

Reference: 2013 WADA report see OP, 2012 WADA report

 

[northstar]

Comparing WADA testing figures, 2013 v. 2012 (Part 2)

Number of EPO tests (testing authority UCI):
2013 – 2798 U samples tested (3 AAF/1340 IC samples, 2 AAF/1458 OOC samples)
2012 – 4254 U samples tested (6 AAF/1137 IC samples, 3 AAF/3117 OOC samples)

Number of EPO tests (no testing authority named, all ADOs incl. UCI):
2013 – 7322 U samples tested (23 AAF/3681 IC samples, 6 AAF/ 3331 OOC samples) Note: 2 EPO AAFs were also reported from blood analysis (both IC)
2012 - 7623 U samples tested (22 AAF/3085 IC samples, 5 AAF/4538 OOC samples)

Number of hGH tests (all ADOs incl. UCI):
2013 – 396 samples* (no AAF/ 117 IC samples, no AAF/279 OOC samples) *some reporting delayed
2012 – 573 samples (no AAF/180 IC samples, 1 AAF/ 393 OOC samples)

Number of GC/C/IRMS tests (all ADOs incl. UCI):
2013 - 860 samples tested (22 AAF/566 IC samples, 3 AAF/294 OOC samples)
2012 - 543 samples tested (23 AAF/ 377 IC samples, 4 AAF/ 166 OOC samples)

Number of HBT (transfusions) and HBOC tests (all ADOs incl. UCI):
2013 – 157 HBT tests/no AAF, 84 HBOC tests/no AAF
2012 – 284 HBT tests/no AAF, 190 HBOC tests/no AAF

Number of AAF and % AAF (testing authority UCI):

2013 – 91 AAF/9430 samples = 1.0% AAF
83 AAF/6096 U samples (IC), 8 AAF/2967 U samples (OOC), no AAF/364 blood samples

2012 – 95 AAF/8740 samples = 1.1% AAF
84 AAF/5514 U samples (IC), 11 AAF/3226 U samples (OOC), no AAF/200 blood samples

Number of AAF and % AAF (no testing authority named, all ADOs incl. UCI):

2013 – 277 AAF/22,252 samples = 1.2% AAF
251 AAF/13,947 U samples (IC), 24 AAF/7081 U samples (OOC), 2 AAF/544 blood samples (IC), no AAF/680 blood samples (OOC)

2012 – 234 AAF/20′624 samples = 1.1% AAF
152 AAF/12,521 U samples (IC), 80 AAF/6797 U samples (OOC), 1 AAF/643 blood samples (IC), 1 AAF/663 blood samples (OOC)

Above AAFs are reported by the labs and are subject to UCI/ADO’s results management process (i.e. checking for matching TUE). WADA report contains no details on matching TUEs or sanctioned ADRVs for lab-reported AAFs.

 

[northstar]

Hmm….no comments. zzzzz topic?

Boring data aside, couple of things stand out for me.

There’s a big drop in the number of OOC EPO tests by UCI. 2012→3117 tests, 2013→1458 tests. Why? Granted there is a low detection rate of an adverse finding (3 AAF in 3117 samples) for OOC EPO, but over a 50% reduction in the number of tests seems rather extreme.

The report refers to “Total Samples Analyzed and Reported by Labs in ADAMS” but this amount does not correspond with actual number of tests done for specific substances. For example, for UCI there are 9430 samples ‘analyzed and reported’ and 3291 substance tests conducted. (2798 EPO, 97 hGH, 343 IRMS, 53 HBT/HBOC = 3291). Why the discrepancy? Does it mean 9430 samples are collected and 1/3 of those samples are actually tested? If so, the wording in the report is somewhat misleading.

 

[jens_attacks]

wada kaput. next step: only health inspectors. the fight on peds has been lost since it began. game over

 

[neineinei]

Hmm….no comments. zzzzz topic?

Boring data aside, couple of things stand out for me.

There’s a big drop in the number of OOC EPO tests by UCI. 2012→3117 tests, 2013→1458 tests. Why? Granted there is a low detection rate of an adverse finding (3 AAF in 3117 samples) for OOC EPO, but over a 50% reduction in the number of tests seems rather extreme.

The report refers to “Total Samples Analyzed and Reported by Labs in ADAMS” but this amount does not correspond with actual number of tests done for specific substances. For example, for UCI there are 9430 samples ‘analyzed and reported’ and 3291 substance tests conducted. (2798 EPO, 97 hGH, 343 IRMS, 53 HBT/HBOC = 3291). Why the discrepancy? Does it mean 9430 samples are collected and 1/3 of those samples are actually tested? If so, the wording in the report is somewhat misleading.

The difference between samples and substance tests might be the ABP blood tests.

FIS (skiing) is cutting down on their EPO testing too. Maybe they think they don't have to do them anymore as the biological passport system should catch them. Of course it should be the other way around. The data from the ABP tests should show them who and when to test for EPO. The ABP system leaves room for micro dosing of EPO, but the info can be used for targeted testing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Above AAFs are reported by the labs and are subject to UCI/ADO’s results management process (i.e. checking for matching TUE). WADA report contains no details on matching TUEs or sanctioned ADRVs for lab-reported AAFs.

My reading of WADA's documents are that there is an administrator somewhere passing positive scores to the sport federation. They could be a UCI employee, it could be on Saugy's side.

From those positive scores sent to the anti-doping authority, (ex. UCI) They decide which ones need expert analysis and other sanction pre-processing. We know there are positive scores that go untouched in the system. Some probably for legitimate reasons. But, we don't know how many bio-passport suspicious positives there were in a given year.

+/- 90 urinalisys positives in 2013 from UCI tests. That's quite a few TUE's.

Interested to see how they report the steroid passport in the near future.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hmm….no comments. zzzzz topic?

Boring data aside, couple of things stand out for me.

There’s a big drop in the number of OOC EPO tests by UCI. 2012→3117 tests, 2013→1458 tests. Why? Granted there is a low detection rate of an adverse finding (3 AAF in 3117 samples) for OOC EPO, but over a 50% reduction in the number of tests seems rather extreme.

My comments came before your posts:

1. 100 fewer IC EPO tests
2. number discrepancies from what UCI report.

I'm waiting for the CADF report to be released. It's very late.

 

[del1962]

Could the answer be 2012 - Olymic year, 2013 not

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Could the answer be 2012 - Olymic year, 2013 not

Possibly.

Any idea how many cycling events there were?

And did UKAD do the Olympics testing? If so, we could compare UKAD 2012 to UKAD 2013 and see what the difference was.

 

[northstar]

IOC is the testing authority for Olympics. In 2012, 182 urine samples (IC), 138 blood samples (IC) and zero OOC samples were collected/'analyzed' by IOC. 138 blood samples could explain the higher number of total IC blood tests in 2012 (643 tests) compared to 2013 (544 tests). Less IC urine tests in 2012 than 2013 though.

It is possible UCI intensified its OOC testing as a build up to the games which could account for some of the 3117 OOC EPO tests. Although I’m not sure UCI stepping up testing would have a big impact on the figures because that'd mean only a handful of extra tests. j/k