When Pat McQuaid let it be known last week that the International Cycling Union’s (UCI’s) first anti-doping cases based on the new biological passport program were in the offing, one couldn’t be blamed for being skeptical. McQuaid had said so twice before, and nothing happened.
This time, he wasn’t just blowing smoke. Today, the UCI actually announced the names of five professional cyclists who may face anti-doping charges based on the new program’s results. The five are: Igor Astarloa, Ruben Lobato, Ricardo Serrano, Pietro Caucchioli and Francesco De Bonis. Astarloa, Lobato and Serrano are Spanish cyclists, while Caucchioli and De Bonis are Italians.
To say it’s been a long time coming would be a bit of an understatement. But it has. It may be a bit disappointing to some, but the first cases don’t involve any household names — at least, not on this side of the Atlantic. In an interview with the UCI’s chief anti-doping officer, Anne Gripper, published at CyclingNews.com, Gripper addresses a question about these particular individuals.
Question: None of these riders named today are big names of cycling. Have you taken people purely on the evidence of the passport or has there been a weeding out of names?
Anne Gripper: Absolutely not. I would not be here if that was the case. I know people are looking for big names but we can’t artificially create data. We check everyone in exactly the same way and I can guarantee I would not be in this job if there was any other attitude from within the UCI on that matter.
Seems pretty reasonable. It certainly wouldn’t be good to fabricate evidence just for the sake of getting someone that “everyone knows” is cheating. Glad to hear that Gripper and company wouldn’t stoop to such methods.
In a different article on CyclingNews.com comes word that two of the riders named — Caucchioli (Lampre), Serrano (Fuji-Servetto) — were suspended by their teams. One rider, Francesco De Bonis, responded to some questions. According to Gregor Brown’s story, De Bonis was surprised when the reporter told him the news.
“I have not yet heard anything. I have been out, someone called today while I was out, but I still have not yet responded to the number. Maybe they were searching for me.”
De Bonis was unaware that he was being targeted by the UCI, and said he had heard nothing from them about his passport values. He said that all of his anti-doping controls have been negative throughout the season.
“All the tests I have done throughout the year, including the Giro d’Italia, have been all negative … all of my samples taken at home, via ADAMS, were all negative.”
Brown’s article notes that the test results in question for both Caucchioli and Serrano come from the 2008 season, when the riders were employed by other teams. One of the riders named today, Ruben Lobato, has been completely without at team in 2009. Astarloa had been racing for the UCI Continental team Amica Chips this season, but the team folded in May.
While the UCI’s announcement said that the cases are based on the “apparent violation of the Anti-Doping Rules on the basis of the information provided by the blood profile in [the five cyclists’] biological passports,” there is no specific information on what anomalies existed and what type of doping those anomalies might indicate. That information may not come out until the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) and Italy’s Olympic Committee (CONI) actually launch anti-doping cases against the riders.
As Gripper noted in the interview today, none of the cyclists named by the UCI have admitted guilt. It’s a reasonable bet that one or more of the riders will contest the charges all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. If that comes to pass, it will be interesting to see exactly what standard of proof the CAS will require for this new form of doping detection. With the “non-analytical positive” that was pioneered in the Balco cases, the first arbitration panels to hear the cases required that the proof rise to a higher standard than the usual “comfortable satisfaction” of the arbitrators.
Will that be the case this time, too? Will any of the cyclists make their test results and information related to the case publicly available? What particular values were “out of whack” and what other possible explanations might there be for those results? How thoroughly thought-through is the actual implementation of the biological passport system?
As Gripper noted today, the passports require human interpretation.
To give you some background: The passport software actually interprets the raw blood results and it provides information for the experts to review. It also requires the human touch and knowledge of an expert to look at the data and interpret it. Just because a profile exceeds certain limits we’re looking at doesn’t mean that the rider is doping. The experts then decide if the results can’t be explained by anything pathological or physiological or if the rider has been doping through manipulation of his blood.
Human interpretation, though, is only as good as the humans doing the interpreting. How many of the experts that Gripper refers to are involved in the evaluation of each case? All of them? Some of them? One of them? By her comments, it’s more than one, but it’s not clear to me if it’s all.
Meantime, Anne Gripper also noted that there are several other cases in the works.
But at the same time, she also noted that:
[W]hen I look at the 840 riders in the passport programme the vast majority of the peloton have very normal blood values. So I’m really confident that we have a far higher number of clean riders than ever before.
Given the relative paucity of data about the actual number of riders who were doping in years passed, I’m not sure whether the results the biological passport program appears to be showing are a change, or whether they are the historical norm. But if the current program is showing that most cyclists have normal blood values, that’s a good thing. Unless Bernhard Kohl was right, that is, and the cheaters have already found a way to beat the system.
Exactly how this will all play out is yet to be determined. Clearly, the UCI has been working to make sure the first cases are as air-tight as possible. That will work in the anti-doping authorities’ favor. Will all five be found guilty of doping? Time will tell.
As it was be said others cases would come out. But at that state it seems a joke because a lot of riders seems to have used CERA last year, at least until TDF, and none of the alreadry caught riders, like Kohl or Schumacher, have been named. Maybe later.
Should we remember that McQuaid said earlier that he was sure that no big names will be caught that year.
Jean,
With McQuaid’s statement, I would take it to mean that he knows who is under investigation at the moment and that he is having a hard time restraining himself from saying who those people are. He’s letting out a little bit about who’s under investigation, without quite saying their names. McQuaid is not exactly well-known for being able to keep confidential matters confidential (think about his “pre-emptive leak” of Landis’ name in 2006, for example), after all.
As for catching the riders using CERA, at the time it was being used, the biological passport was just getting started, so it would naturally take a bit of data gathering to see some results. That said, it’s an indirect method of detection, so it may not be able to discriminate between CERA, EPO or any other blood doping technique. Rather, it would point in the direction of such a technique being used. Perhaps Kohl and Schumacher would have eventually run afoul of the biological passport. Kohl claims he was able to beat the system already, though. Maybe Schumacher did, too. If either one actually does know how to beat the new testing system, then eventually that knowledge will spread throughout doping circles and the biological passport will not be much of a deterrent or very effective.
Am I to take it from Gripper’s comments that the blood passport system only detects “blood manipulation”? I may have misunderstood (not an unlikely situation), but I was sort of under the impression that the BP was supposed to detect all sorts of doping violations. Or perhaps the idea of “blood manipulation” has a wider meaning. Almost anything you might take, PED-wise or otherwise, will probably have some sort of effect on blood, at least until the substance is eliminated. But I don’t consider taking an illegal stimulant or steroid or the like to be “blood manipulation”.
I also realize that EPO, CERA, etc. are considered by many to be either the most widely used type of PED and/or the most dangerous. But hopefully, officials are not letting other forms of doping slide.
William,
One of the articles I looked at yesterday seemed to indicate that the current bio-passport only deals with blood doping, but there is a protocol for the detection of steroid use in the works. Probably other protocols, too. So, if that article is correct, then yes, the bio-passport is only looking at blood doping right now.
Thanks for the clarification. I sort of recall, or maybe I read more into things, that the BP program was being touted as catching all sorts of things. But perhaps, with other protocols in the works, we should think of it as more a work in progress.
I hope the UCI can interpret blood values better than Danish expert Rasmus Damsgaard. Consistant with the continuing woes of Astana, it was found by CAS to have been unable to “fire” Vladimir Gusev for his blood “abnormalities” and Astana would have been subject to critisism had it refused to fire Gusov. The CAS ordered Astana to pay Gusev his salary, as well as damages and legal costs for the “wrongful termination”. Interesting!
I hope the UCI can (accurately predict CAS will agree they can ) interpret blood values better than Danish expert Rasmus Damsgaard.
Point taken on the Catch-22 wrt Damsgard & Gusov of the Astana Team.
After a fairly extensive search, I have been unable to find any documentation that explains the reasoning behind the CAS decision in this case. Has anyone else had better luck?
From what quarters would Astana faced criticism if they had not sacked Gusov? UCI/WADA or simply critical public opinion? If the latter, I can see a possible basis for the CAS decision: the blood values, despite Damsgaard’s findings, did not rise to a level sufficient to warrant action (other than possibly more tests and/or a “talk” with Gusov); hence his termination was wrong. However, if there was official pressure to fire him, then it is another story altogether.
BTW, wasn’t Damsgaard the one who stated that he saw evidence in blood tests that a large number of riders were doping, but that the “rules” prevented taking any action?
I don’t have a cite at the ready, but do remember Damsgaard being critical along the lines you’ve written.
If Gusov hypothetically pops an AAF or has suspicious blood values, according to UCI/WADA/AFLD (as the case might be), then Astana’s testing program could be a legitimate subject for serious crticism due to not catching one of its own with suspicious values.
A good portion of those who describe themselves as being anti-doping, while describing someone sort of like me as being an anti-doping apologist, believe strongly that the team testing programs, such as Astana’s with Damsgaard, are there primarily to enable the teams/riders to conduct organized doping that cannot be detected.
I think Team testing is a good vehicle to encourage riders not to dope. It’s also a good first step for teams to protect themselves from being at the complete mercy of the Alphabet Soup when it comes to detecting doping. The soup probably doesn’t enjoy the check/blance and wouldn’t be sad to see the other side discredited?
I think life could have been much different for the rightful 2006 TdF Champion, had someone like Damsgaard been conducting a testing program for Phonak.
I’m very curious as to the reasoning behind the CAS decision wrt Gusov and somewhat sceptical because the decision does not seem to be available for public view. The aparent lack of transparency concerns me.
Am I poor at searching, or has someone else been able to find information on the CAS decision?
Jeff,
I get press releases from the CAS every time they announce a decision on a case before them. I don’t even recall getting a press release about the case between Vladimir Gusev and Astana. I know that CyclingNews had a story about a week ago on the subject. In searching the CAS web site, I can’t find either the full decision or the press release about the case.
What I’m curious about is what differences, if any, exist between the program that Damsgaard implemented at Astana and the new biological passport. And, if a program implemented and run by Damsgaard, who’s supposed to be one of the pre-eminent experts in this kind of testing, can fall short of the mark for the CAS, what might that bode for any biological passport cases that get contested at that level?
If I were someone at the UCI and WADA, I’d want to study that decision very carefully, as it may offer clues as to how a case based only on the biological passport program might be decided.
The Gusev case is a difficult case to evaluate because we know very few.
Gusev was fired by Astana according suspicions of blood doping, and the CAS refused the decision. What are the reasons ? technical issue? ethic issue? …
Is it a manipulation to fire a “Russian” to put pressure on an ex soviet republic?
Damsgaard’s program was directly under control of Astana team, is it acceptable by CAS?
Was Gusev a scapegoat after the suspicion of 2008 GIRO?
There has been ample time for CAS to publish the decision, if it intends to do so. That it has not, and because we’ve heard little from the parties involved, it leads me to believe there is some sort of confidentiality mechanism in place. However, I could easily be wrong.
As Damsgaard’s program with Astana has a strong relationship to the bio-passport of the UCI, it would be interesting and instructive to be able to have access to the reasoning behind the decision.
I think Jean C correctly points out that the decision could have been made on any number of possible issues. It’s possible that the decision was made a blood values/bio markers standpoint, for contractual issues, or other topics. We don’t currently know and will not, unless CAS makes the decision available to the public.
This is good news for Gusev, but the CAS decision does not make him whole. He is still without a team to ride for.