Imagine that some group oversees an important aspect of your life. A professional credentials panel. A union. A sporting federation, perhaps. The group has certain rules, such as a requirement that you can’t use drugs in the workplace. Every once in a while, you get tested, and those test results get recorded and stored somewhere. Someone has the bright idea that you could indirectly determine whether an individual is breaking the rules by looking at those results over time and taking note of the variations. Seems like an interesting idea, if it’s done properly.
The catch is that last part — if it’s done properly. What would “properly” be? Depends, in part, on what you’re looking for, I suppose. Once upon a time, I had to submit to a drug screening as a requirement for starting a new job. As part of the screening, they took hair samples. I casually asked the person giving me the “trim” what they might be looking for. Traces of illicit drugs, like marijuana or cocaine, the “barber” replied.
“Good thing I haven’t been to any parties for a while,” I quipped.
“Why’s that?” the “barber” inquired.
“Wouldn’t want any traces of someone’s smoke lingering, would I?” I replied.
“I see your point.” the “barber” said.
There are the results, and then there are the reasons behind the results. Sometimes, what something appears to be isn’t what is. Like if my hair sample showed traces of marijuana exposure. Could have been from direct intake. Or indirect intake (second-hand smoke). Either way, I probably wouldn’t have gotten the job.
So, when there is a program like the UCI’s biological passport program, which looks at test results over time to spot tell-tale signs of doping aftereffects, it’s all in how the data is interpreted. To do that, the UCI depends on a panel of nine experts to look over any suspicious trends in a rider’s biological passport, with an eye to seeing if the results indicate doping. Fair enough, to a point. If a majority of the experts were to suspect doping, then a closer look — like targeted testing for the suspected doping method — might be in order. And, if those test results indicated a possibility of doping, I could see a case being pursued.
So how does the system work? I’ll confess, I haven’t been digging as zealously into such matters lately. But thankfully, a story by Juliet Macur in The New York Times this weekend gives us a clue.
… the process of making the biological passport program solid enough to endure potential lawsuits by riders is lengthy, [Pat McQuaid, the head of the International Cycling Union (UCI)] said.
McQuaid said that process began with a scientific panel flagging a rider’s profile as irregular. The cycling union contacts that rider and gives him or her 30 days to explain the reason for that irregularity. A panel of nine scientific experts then studies the rider’s reasoning.
OK. Not a bad process, in theory. I’m not sure that 30 days would be enough time for a rider to receive the results, hire experts to explain what they mean, and then determine how they came about, and then forward an explanation back to the UCI. But for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s easily done. (In the case of someone who’s been fairly caught, the news won’t be a shock, and he or she will know what happened. But for a rider who’s actually innocent, this does present a bit of a challenge.)
Macur’s story goes on:
Three of the nine experts must sign off on any case found to be a legitimate doping case, McQuaid said.
“By that time, and that doesn’t happen overnight, the riders involved have very big dossiers that show there has been some manipulation and that there has been some evidence of doping,” McQuaid said.
Hang on a second. How many experts have to sign off on a case to declare it legitimate? One-third of the experts reviewing the data (and, if I’m following correctly, the rider’s explanation)? Doesn’t that seem just a bit, well, absurd? The majority of experts don’t have to agree? Not even close? Twice as many can be convinced there’s no case to pursue, and the case could go forward. That doesn’t seem right. If we’re asking experts to review, shouldn’t we follow the opinion of the majority?
Now, I’m not sure whether the news articles about the latest cyclists charged with doping violations courtesy of the biological passport program go into enough depth to tell us how many of the experts actually signed off, but if it was less than a majority, I think the cases should be dropped — unless and until such time that there is more direct evidence to charge the riders with breaking the rules. Destroying a cyclist’s career when even the majority of experts think there’s no case is not the way to proceed.
If the UCI is going to insist on the pretension of a “presumption of innocence,” shouldn’t they at least require that more than half of the experts agree that a rider cheated before pursuing an anti-doping case? Apparently not. Guilty or not, given how the system works, it’s only a matter of time before Franco Pellizotti, Tadej Valjavec and Jesus Rosendo Prado will be handed suspensions.
And now for something completely different …
On an entirely different note, here’s wishing Christian Vande Velde a speedy recovery from injuries suffered at the Giro d’Italia this year. This is the second straight year VdV was knocked out of the Giro as the result of a crash. A whole lot of tweets today noted the tricky conditions during the race. VdV, like a number of riders, must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe next year he’ll race the Tour of California, instead.
Interesting. In the defence of the agency (really?), let me speculate.
I work at a large bureaucracy monster of a company. Change Management processes, will have a list of approvers and reviewers. Reviewers get to read/see the data in question, approvers have to say yes/no. On that approval list, its not done at an individual named person basis, its done based on role. Within that role, could exist 8 or 9 individuals. In order for the approval to goto the next phase gate in the stated workflow, there can’t be any “dis-approves”, but there must be at least 4 “approves”.. depending on the artifact being reviewed.. reasoning being most of these folks, although approvers, don’t really want to take the time to review-then-vote.. or let others go first.. but the system works that at “least” 4 must do so.. or all 9 get repeated email msgs, finally escalating to their boss, etc.. to force someone to read it and vote.. So, the system for the passport may be similar…. however, the main difference is we’re dealing with documents, change orders, etc.. and this passport is dealing with ppl’s lives.. I should hope that if 3 vote guilty.. but 2 vote not-guilty.. that it would be stopped until a majority was reached.. I doubt that’s the case… as we’ve seen in hte past, the system is rigged in favor of the system.. as the folks that wrote the policy/workflow, probably work for the system..
You may ask yourself
Where does that highway lead to?
You may ask yourself
Am I right?… Am I wrong?
You may say to yourself
My God!… what have I done?
The Alphabet Conspiracy continues.
Hello,
It was a long time.
Propably that article is not right about 3 experts can put a doping case.
Last year, Dr. Morkejberg, Dr. Belhague, Dr Ashenden, Dr. Parisotto and Dr.Dine who are all members of 9 experts agreed that Lance blood values were fishy but we have seen no doping case! Maybe it was because of the cost of a such case… so no surprise that UCI just go after small fishes, the biggest and richest riders can still dope.
For me, just 3 experts are needed to question a rider about his blood values, then his case would be investigate by all members before opening a doping case.
AC,
No indication in Macur’s article whether what you suggest might be how things work in the bio passport realm. I know someone who might shed light on just how things might work, however…
Bill,
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was…
Jean,
I wouldn’t be shocked if McQuaid had spoken incorrectly. He has rather a penchant for that, after all. Not sure just how “fishy” Armstrong’s results might have been. Perhaps it wasn’t fishy enough for the members to feel there was a case to be made. Or, it could be like you say, the rich and powerful can do what they please while the lesser folks aren’t immune to the ravages of the anti-doping system.
Rant, I’m not following the biological passport as closely as I used to. I now focus on other sports that are probably 10 years behind cycling when it comes to drug testing, and when I post on PED issues involving these other sports, I seem like I’m 5 years ahead of everyone else! But when I last looked at the biological passport, the issue that had everyone scratching their heads was how to articulate a standard for an adverse analytical finding.
It SOUNDS like this issue still has everyone scratching their heads. Only instead of articulating a standard, the powers that be have decided to submit the question to a committee. Nice! There are no rules here? No way to determine that Rider A’s test is being evaluated consistently with Rider B’s?
Really?
The idea that the evaluation is submitted to a group of nine is pretty funny (or sad, depending on your point of view). I know that it matters whether it’s three people on this committee that are required to act, or five people, or six. To me, the bigger issue is that there are nine people on this committee. Nine! It takes nine people to review the bio passport results and reach a judgment.
If the powers that be knew what a bio passport adverse finding was supposed to look like, they wouldn’t need nine people on the committee.
Larry,
Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit odd that it would take nine experts to determine that a bio passport indicates that an athlete doped. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, “We may not have been able to define when a bio passport shows doping, but we know it when we see it,”
I’ll admit I’m speculating here, but I think that the bio passport idea is not well enough developed to be able to make anything approaching a definitive assessment that a rider is doping. I just don’t think there has been any research in this area, at least not enough. There are just too many variables: genetic factors, any disease a rider might have, perhaps diet, how hard he is training/racing, what drugs are used (both legal and illegal) etc.
That being said, I think that the bio-passport can be of use in the manner that Rant suggests: as a kind of “probable cause” for further investigation, be it targeted testing or whatever. The athlete in question should be given the opportunity to explain the anomalous values, and his name should be cleared either if such explanation is accepted, or if nothing is found after a given period of time (say a couple of weeks or so).
Then there is the flip side of the issue: do we know that because a rider’s blood is not ichthyous, is he clean?
Rant,
I’ve also been required to submit to drug screenings, so this general subject is more than an academic exercise for me, as well.
I’ll agree with Rant and William that the bio passport could be an appropriate vehicle to zero in on suspected Code violators (I don’t think I can call them suspected dopers anymore. Too much uncertainty for that. I’m more comfortable with suspected Code violator). It seems reasonable that “suspicious values” would trigger increased or targeted testing. While I’m personally against law enforcement getting involved in aspects of anti-doping that don’t involve illegal use/possession for the rest of the population under their jurisdiction, I could be persuaded to turn the other cheek if the laws of a particular country allow that. However, I remain highly skeptical of using bio passport info as a stand alone for determining a sanction, as there seems to be far too many mysteries and irregularities inherent in the system, based upon the information we have available today. If the bio passport is good enough to positively identify nefarious athlete actions, then it should also be accurate enough to predict a time period where targeted testing would back up the assumed bio passport data. But then again, that the “standards of proof” offered in WADA World seem to be accepted in general by the casual observer, is a mystery to me.
A committee of nine makes little sense. Three out of nine makes less sense. You can’t accurately describe the bio passport system as lacking transparency. That’s damning with faint praise, on steroids. The process seems much more like it is conducted in a remote fortress with double the guards, machine guns at the gates, and blackout curtains covering all windows. Alternately, it could mirror Dean Wormer and his Double Secret Probation. Of course, most systems that work in secrecy are universally trusted, and with good reason??? Bio Passport: Peer reviewed research? No. Published standards? No. Eyeball test? Check! “We know it when we see it”. Where have I heard that before? Might it have been at Pepperdine ~3 years ago? Yep, same as it ever was Bill Hue & Rant. (WRT UCI/WADA, I’d suggest a little Burning Down the House is in order)
Then, the athletes get 30 days to explain suspicious values before the sanctioning process begins? Is that 30 days from when the committee designates a suspicious value or 30 days from the athlete actually being notified, as in – the athlete is delivered actual written notification – not when notified via the press or a story on a cycling website – and not when written notification is dispatched to an athlete’s home address, when he/she is training/racing hundreds or thousands of miles away??? Even then, 30 days seems short notice to defend a serious charge that will get an athlete fired and suspended from earning a living at his/her chosen profession for two years, or more. Early reports from the three implicated just before this year’s Giro indicates the committee is not particularly receptive to explanations, anyway.
I’m left speechless. Best advise to the riders might be to practice bending over and grabbing their ankles???
Jean C,
Just curious, do you have a cite regarding, “Last year, Dr. Morkejberg, Dr. Belhague, Dr Ashenden, Dr. Parisotto and Dr.Dine who are all members of 9 experts agreed that Lance blood values were fishy”? I’m not as well acquainted with the others, but Dr. Ashenden hasn’t shown a reluctance to be vocal about LA, yet this does not seem to have been widely reported.
I was thinking perhaps the idea was 3 out of 9 make some preliminary determination, but then I re-read the McQ quotes here. Assuming I am understanding them correctly, the process is that a scientific panel makes a preliminary finding, the athlete is notified and is given 30 days to come up with an explanation, and then the panel of 9 considers the explanation. If 3 out of the 9 find that the athlete is doping, he is thus convicted. This, if true, would mean that only 3 votes are necessary to convict, but 7 are necessary to acquit. Six of the experts could either consider that the evidence isn’t sufficient to convict and/or that the athlete’s explanation is valid, and still the athlete is sanctioned.
Now consider what seems to me to be the strictest standard: a jury in a US criminal case must be unanimous in its verdict, either guilty or not guilty. The same number is needed for each possible verdict. If a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it is a mistrial: no verdict. The prosecution then has the option to either re-try this case or not. I am sure there have been cases where the prosecution has decided that it isn’t worth it to retry the case, and if so, this would result in a sort of backdoor acquittal. However, as I understand things, it wouldn’t necessarily be the end of the case. Perhaps the prosecution would do some additional investigation hoping to uncover more evidence to make a stronger case. But in most cases, the same number of votes is needed to either convict or acquit. This part of the burden is equal for both sides, which is how I, at least, think such things should be.
Hey Rant ….
Breaking news
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-drug-revelations
Landis drug Revelations?
By: Greg Johnson
Letter claims of widespread drug use
Cyclingnews.com has been sent a letter purportedly from Floyd Landis to a senior cycling official with revelations of drug use in cycling in the period up to his Tour de France victory. We are awaiting responses from individuals involved and hope to bring you full details shortly.
Landis had won the 2006 Tour de France when a urine sample showed the rider had an unusually high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio from a test taken on Stage 17. The Phonak rider was eventually found guilty and disqualified – the first rider to be stripped of the yellow jersey – but not before a drawn out legal battle.
USA Cycling transferred Landis’ case to the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which called a hearing committee to try the Landis case. Landis’ legal team argued that the French National Laboratory for Doping Detection (Laboratoire de Chatenay-Malabry) had been incompetent in its handling of the rider’s sample.
On September 21, 2007 the American Arbitration Association overturned Landis’ appeal against his sanction. The three member arbitration panel, led by president Patrice Brunet along with Christopher Campbell and Richard McLaren, was split 2-1 in the guilty verdict, with Campbell dissenting.
Following the AAA decision Landis exercised his final right of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS announced in June 2008 that it had upheld the findings and Landis would serve out the original two year ban.
Landis returned to racing after the conclusion of his suspension in early 2009, riding with United States of America domestic team OUCH-Maxxis. The team parted ways at the year’s end and Landis joined the OUCH-Bahati Foundation Cycling Team for 2010.
Jeff and ORG,
Thanks for the tip. Interesting. Seems a bit out of character, though. I’m following up to see what I can find out. No guarantees, but perhaps I can get a comment or two.
Dear people, it has been a while since I have been here last.
My comments is also off-topic but I hope you don’t mind.
I heared on the Dutch news that Landis has confessed to the UCI that he used doping for a part of his carrier.
Do you know anything about this?
Karuna,
Maybe you could try by this :
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/05/19/2010-05-19_floyd_landis_says_lance_armstrong_others_were_involved_in_blood_doping_during_to.html
Good to see Landis confessing. Thanks to him.
I just heard of this on the radio this morning and was rather surprised. I’ll admit that I have always felt that Landis would not admit to doping, at least not for a long time, based on his vigorous and expensive attempt to clear his name. I’ll also admit that I interpreted this as a sign of his innocence.
It will be interesting to see what comes of all this. Will Armstrong resort to litigation? Will UCI, WADA, and/or ASO seek to DQ Armstrong from his historic 7?
On the other hand, regardless of Landis’ guilt or innocence, the general issues raised regarding WADA still remain.
“If no one is innocent, who can be guilty?”
— Killing Mister Watson, by Peter Matthiessen
Thank you Jean, I think it is sad!