At the news conference on Thursday, where Michael Rasmussen admitted to lying about his whereabouts to the UCI and the media, the Danish cyclist released a collection of lab data from various tests for samples given by him for anti-doping tests in the last couple of years. The data concerned his hematocrit and hemoglobin values, which Rasmussen claims shows that he has not been blood doping.
Rasmus Damgaard, a Danish anti-doping expert who runs Team CSC’s testing program, however, took a look at the data and concluded that the test results from this year’s Tour show that the Danish climbing specialist had received a blood transfusion at some point during the Tour. As Damsgaard told the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende (quoted at feltet.dk — original here, machine translation here):
“The seven CSC riders [who completed the Tour] had haemoglobin numbers decline by between 12 and 22 percent, and that’s completely normal. When the opposite happens — that the [haemoglobin] number rises during a hard race like the Tour de France — it indicates that one has received a blood transfusion,” Rasmus Damsgaard explains.
“We conclude that only a rise in haemoglobin ought to determine a possible doping offense.”
According to Rasmus Damsgaard during a long stage race like Tour de France more water will get into the blood stream, and that will lead to a decline in the haemaglobin test values.
With all respect due Dr. Damsgaard, it turns out there is another, simpler, explanation for a rising hemoglobin value during prolonged exertion in the summer heat. Dehydration. After reader Sara pointed out Dr. Damsgaard’s remarks when she commented on a previous post, I did a quick search for the hemoglobin tests and what they mean.
Two of the first things that showed up on a Google search were very instructive. First, the normal range of hemoglobin values falls between 12 and 18, according to this site. Notice on the chart on this page showing Rasmussen’s test results that the highest value is 14.4. Well within the range of normal. Another site gives even more detail, saying that for women the normal range is between 12 and 16, and for men the normal range is 14 to 18.
If that second site is to be believed, then Rasmussen’s test results are even closer to the low end of normal. Hardly the kinds of values that one would expect for someone who’s just topped off the tank with an extra pint (or quart) of blood.
What about Rasmussen’s hematocrit numbers? Are they normal, or do they give any indication of doping? One of the theories about the hematocrit values is that, like the hemoglobin levels, they should fall over time during a long stage race. But just like the hemoglobin levels, hematocrit values can be affected by how dehydrated a person is. More dehydrated equals higher values. Hematocrit can also be raised by the use of blood doping or EPO. But just having an elevated level is not proof. It’s merely an indication that more testing needs to be done in order to determine the cause of the elevated levels.
So what is a normal value for one’s hematocrit? According to the NIH, the normal range for a male is 40.7 – 50.3 percent, and for a female is 36.1 to 44.3 percent. Where do Rasmussen’s numbers fall? His lowest value in the data he released is 38.8 percent (below normal), while his highest value is 43.9 percent (still on the lower end of normal). So what conclusion can we reach based on this data? Well, one thing this set of data definitely doesn’t prove is that Rasmussen was doping.
Was he doping at any time during the last several years? Hard to say. Does the data back up his claim that he wasn’t? When put into the context of what normal values are, yes. But, a cynic might argue, couldn’t he have found a way to beat the tests? Sure, he could. But whatever he might have done to beat the tests might also have diminished the effectiveness of the doping, which would lead to this question: If you’re going to dope, and you have to cover your tracks, and by doing so the effect of the doping is minimal to non-existent, why bother doping? It would be a waste of time and money — and potentially dangerous to your health, as Joe Papp found out the hard way.
Well, except for the placebo effect. That’s the “I believe it’s going to help, therefore I will do better” phenomenon. Interestingly, the placebo effect can be very effective. Now, the whole point of releasing that data was to show that Rasmussen hasn’t been doping. Which it only kind of does. As Lance Armstrong once observed, you can’t prove a negative. And that means no matter how hard Rasmussen tries to rehabilitate his image, there will always be doubters.
I am, quite frankly, puzzled by Dr. Damsgaard’s assessment of Rasmussen’s data. Perhaps he saw more than what we’ve been shown, and perhaps within that data something jumps out that doesn’t in what the Danish cyclist has made public. But based on what Michael Rasmussen has put forward, it’s difficult to come to the conclusion that he doped during the 2007 Tour or during any of the other races where he was tested.
Terrific research, Rant. Thanks.
…
It seems like the ADAs reason backwards: they first determine who has doped, and then they look for proof.
As I understand it Damsgaard doesn’t make any conclusive claims. He simply states what everyone is thinking when they see such numbers.
U gotta admit hemoglobin rising during the Tour does look suspicious as hell–dehydration could explain it but what are the chances of a rider dehydrating himself in the midst of the Tour de France?
Besides when u combine it with Rasmussen’s lies about missing doping tests, then a blood transfusion doping strategy looks plausible…in fact highly likely given what we know about the relationship between blood doping and pro cycling victories.
And Rant if u are assuming that you have to sacrifice PED effect in order to avoid positive tests you are not necessarily correct. For example, it could be as easy as putting a solution into a urine sample. When it comes to blood, it is extremely difficult to detect homogenous transfusions, which is why Rasmussen was not flagged for doping.
Rant, you have moments of intellectual honesty. This isn’t one of them. The injustice in cycling is that clean riders can’t compete against the doped ones–not that doped riders are getting busted.
In an other post I wrote that UCI (other federations) should send his vampires just before the start of the races (and just after the finish) to avoid that athletes could beat the test. Today they are collecting blood too early in the morning of the race, transfusions are done after. At the end of the race, it’s easy to take out blood and eventually to have a saline IV to obtain normal values!
Don’t be scary, that’s what are doing every day some riders. That could be done in the team bus.
Thanks Rant for the research!
Im just wondering how could Rasmussen be dehydrated and still perform so well? He never had a bad moment, and he rode the TT like like a bat out of hell, very unusual for him.
OK,
So if I understand this correctly, all things being equal your numbers are lower the more hydrated (or rather less dehydrated) you are. Just going by the facts, the first test was taken on the 5th, two days before the start of the tour. The second on the 17th, the day after the first rest day, and the third on the 24th, the second rest day.
.
His numbers from the tour are:
05.07.2007 – 40,3 – 13,3 – two days prior to prologue
17.07.2007 – 43,1 – 14,2 – day after rest say 1
24.07.2007 – 43,9 – 14,4 – rest day 2
.
From what Rant has given us, I would say that those numbers fall well within the realm of normal and even low for the first test. I would think that we can assume that he would be very well hydrated 2 days before the start of the tour. Now, if the sample from the 17th was taken prior to the stage, I would assume this to be lower than the one from the 24th as there has been more recovery time with it following a rest day, rather than being on a rest day.
.
I’m by no means an expert and do not claim to be, but from what Rant has given us, I would think that these numbers would be plausibly normal for the days they were taken and could by no means be considered conclusively reliable in assuming he received a transfusion at any point during the race. Logic would dictate that to be able to make a good assumption based on longitudal data, you would need more test results from more race days and I would personally think that it would need to be on a daily or near daily basis.
.
If there were test results for a day or two before or a day or two after, and there was a descent discrepancy, I could see him being suspect. I think what we are looking at here is very circumstantial and speculative at best. It’s a bad case of chicken little syndrome in my opinion. If you believe everyone is doping, you will see any evidence as supporting that claim. In the end, the great tragedy will be the end of pro cycling as we know it. I’m not naive enough to believe everyone’s claims that they are clean, nor am I naive enough to believe that the problems is really as bad as the alphabet soup would have us believe.
DDT, great post! As I said, we should avoid backwards reasoning. We suspect Rasmussen of cheating, because he lied about his whereabouts prior to the TdF. (A reasonable suspicion, in my view.) But he passes all of his drug tests at the TdF. So we dive deeper into the data, and we say, the data ALSO looks suspicious. Like DDT, we might wish we had better data, or more complete data, but the data we have looks suspicious.
…
Ludwig, that’s pretty much the thought process you’re describing, isn’t it? And TBH, we all share this thought process on some level.
…
It’s my experience that, once a person falls under suspicion, it’s always possible to examine that person and find additional grounds for suspicion. THINK about every TV news report you see when a person is arrested for a terrible crime, and the TV reporters interview the person’s neighbors to find out what that person was like. The neighbors often describe the person as “kind of a quiet guy, kept to himself”, and given that the person has been arrested, this description adds to our suspicion about the person. Of COURSE he was quiet and kept to himself, he was planning a horrible crime! But standing alone, you can’t say that there’s anything wrong with being quiet and solitary. You couldn’t call the police and warn them to keep an eye on your neighbor, because the neighbor was acting quiet and antisocial.
…
We have Rasmussen’s rising hemoglobin and hemocrit numbers. They seem suspicious to us. But as Rant and DDT point out, they can be explained. There could be dehydration, for example. Sara is right to question how a top-flight athlete performing at the peak of his abilities would be dehydrated, but it’s certainly possible. Rant also points out that it’s only the TREND of Rasmussen’s hemoglobin and hemocrit numbers that look suspicious. The numbers themselves are normal or low-normal. Still, as is obvious from Damgaard’s statement and the discussion here, Rasmussen’s numbers have added to the suspicions we have about him.
…
But it’s a funny thing about suspicions: if we’re suspicious of someone, we tend to pile our suspicions one on top of the other, and we don’t require that our suspicions be linked in any strict logical way. Rasmussen is a great example of this. He lied about his whereabouts prior to the TdF, so we suspect he might have been cheating prior to the TdF. To confirm our suspicions, we look at the up trend in Rasmussen’s hemoglobin and hemocrit numbers during the TdF, and we think, those aren’t normal numbers, it looks like more proof that he cheated. And we fail to see two things: first, Rasmussen’s hemoglobin and hemocrit numbers were LOW at the start of the Tour! If he was blood doping or taking EPO prior to the TdF, he was evidently doing a damn poor job of it. Second, if we’re suspicious of Rasmussen’s rising numbers during the TdF, it’s because we suspect that he cheated DURING the TdF. There’s no doping product I’m aware of that you can take in May and June that’s going to cause your hemocrit and hemoglobin numbers to be low at the beginning of July, and then rise during the course of July! So, Rasmussen’s blood numbers in July tell us nothing about what he was doing (what he might have been hiding) prior to the TdF. And remember, that’s what we were suspicious of in the first place, that Rasmussen was cheating prior to the TdF.
…
The thing we have to remember is, everyone is suspicious. Everyone’s behavior is unusual. Everyone’s biomarkers are individual. If you’re looking for suspicious behavior, you’re going to be able to find it. That’s life and that’s human nature, and if someone as smart as Damsgaard if going to cast suspicions on Rasmussen, I can’t blame any of the rest of us for doing the same. Just be careful. Try to do unto others here.
Larry,
In sport dehydration has a big effect on performance: only 2% of his weight, it’s a little dehydration, it’s 20% less performance. How could have compete Rasmussen if he were really dehydrated?
Damsgaard knows his subject, if we want to contest him we need to take a lot of time to study the matter. And we must give him some credibility I am sure he would never said such accusations without a strong conviction.
Sara,
You ask an excellent question. There are many unknowns about the data that Rasmussen released. First is whether or not the tests were all done using the same types of equipment and protocols. There’s a portable hematocrit test that’s often used during stage races like the Tour which is not as accurate than the tests done in the anti-doping labs. This could also be the same for the hemoglobin levels. Given that Rasmussen’s numbers, by the book, look pretty normal, he may not have been dehydrated at all. The values we are seeing may just be normal fluctuations in his levels.
…
In my own racing (much lower level than Rasmussen’s, admittedly), I’ve had some of my best performances when I was probably slightly dehydrated at the start. And from racing long road races in the July heat (140 km) in America’s Midwest, I’ve often been still slightly dehydrated from the effort a day or two later. Add another 100 km each day for 20 days, and it’s easily possible for the riders in the Tour to be a quart low on any given day. It takes quite a bit of liquid and time to fully rehydrate after such races.
Ludwig,
The point is not to excuse the behavior of someone who’s clearly cheating. (And in Rasmussen’s case, there are things that may appear suspicious, but that’s not solid proof of cheating.) Rather, the point is that when looking for techniques to root out cheating, we have to be careful in interpreting the data. Where there are alternate explanations, those need to be ruled out before pursuing a doping case against someone. And for both the hematocrit and hemoglobin levels, there are a number of alternate explanations for changes in the numbers. Damsgaard is suggesting that the hemoglobin numbers should be a good enough marker to cause suspicion of blood doping. What I’m saying is, if you’re going to use the data as a source of suspicion, then you have to do additional testing that can prove your suspicions. Testing that looks at more specific types of markers or information that can definitely be associated with doping.
Jean C, I don’t know Damsgaard, but the CSC program is highly respected, so I give Damsgaard a good degree of credibility. I certainly don’t lump him in with the guys I don’t respect so much … like Saugy in Lausanne! ;^) But at this point, I can’t completely believe any single expert. The experts seem to be in constant disagreement. I have to evaluate each expert to the best of my abilities (not great abilities, admittedly), based on the information they provide to us.
…
It would be good if Damsgaard could give us more information. For example, we know that CSC has its own anti-doping program. Does CSC look at hemocrit and hemoglobin levels as one of its biomarkers? (I’m pretty sure that they do.) If one of their TdF riders showed a rise in hemoglobin and hemocrit levels similar to Rasmussen’s, what would CSC do? Would they order further testing, or would the results be conclusive enough for CSC to pull the rider from the race? Would CSC fire the rider from the team? IOW, if we ignore Rasmussen’s pre-TdF behavior and focus solely on these two biomarkers, exactly HOW conclusive are these biomarkers on their own?
…
The questions you and Sara raise about dehydration are good ones. I’ve admitted that. It would be great to kick these questions back to CSC and Damsgaard. When CSC look at increases in biomarkers like hemoglobin and hemocit levels, do they also measure the athlete’s hydration levels? CAN they measure hydration levels? Is there data on what levels of dehydration are consistent with strong racing? (By the way, we should all be starting to realize exactly how complicated the new “biological passport” program is going to be to set up. As one example, how great a rise in the hemocrit marker, compared with what changes in levels of hydration, are going to result in what WADA sanctions under the new program?)
…
I’d also love to hear Damsgaard answer my question on what Rasmussen’s rising TdF biomarkers have to do with his pre-race conduct.
…
Please don’t get me wrong. I’ve acknowledged that the numbers are suspicious. They can also be explained, and they might amount to nothing. Unless Damsgaard provides more information, that’s about as far as I can take the information he’s given us.
McQuade said Ras is a liar and everyone who lies is guilty of a non-anaytical positive. You guys who believe this is all about who dopes and who doesn’t should get your heads around the fact that the methods/leadership of the anti-doping movement do as much a disservice to the goal of ridding sport of cheaters as the cheaters themselves. All hail WADA/UCI and anyone who would stone to kill the doper/witches, regardless of the facts, I guess. Shame on them and shame on you for supporting them. Shame on the dopers too. The issues are not as many set them up, as mutually exclusive.
Thank you fellas for the great answers!
I just dont know how to handle all these different informations, some say that the increase of these values during a long stage race are “a red flag”, if so, why the UCI is not acting on this?
Damsgaard said if a CSC rider had shown the rising values as Rass did, he would have phoned to Riis and said that they have a problem…
Since Rass never collapsed (like Floyd did for example) during the Tour, and rode the TTs of his life, I cant help not to get suspicious…
I hate that, I very much believe that you are innocent until proven quilty, but with the current atmosphere it is very hard…
One thing we don’t know about Damsgaard is how closely he looked into the numbers. Did he just look at them, see that they went up and make an off the cuff statement that Rasmussen was dirty? Or did he look at what days the tests were and take that into consideration?
.
Also, we know that dehydration can cause the numbers to go up, but I kinda speculated that perhaps the test prior to the tour was low due to him being very well hydrated. That was just a logical asumption on my part, I haven’t seen anything actually saying that the more hydrated a person is the lower the numbers will be.
.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there are too many variables for anyone to go in and definitively say that Ras doped. It’s all speculation and conjecture, and way too many people are too quick to condemn based on a lack of good evidence. What irks me most is that most of the condemnations come from the very people who we trust to ensure fairness.
.
That being said, I think that there should be at least some consequences for the lie unless he can verify a damn good reason for it. I don’t think it should be a full 2 year ban, but I don’t think 4-6 months would be unreasonable.
ddt,
Rasmussen should be held accountable for lying, no doubt. As long as out-of-competition is going to occur, the UCI or other athletic federations have to be able to find the athletes to test them. The system is only effective if the athletes are honest about their whereabouts. So, by not being honest, Rasmussen should face some sort of punishment. I think your suggestion of a 4 – 6 month ban seems reasonable. A full 2-year ban would be too much. At least, too much for a first offense. For a subsequent offense, a stiffer penalty would be warranted.
Jean,
Your suggestion about when to test makes sense to me. As close to the start of the race as possible, to discourage anyone who might be tempted to “top off the tank.” Transfusions do take time, however, and I suspect that the current testing routine does a good bit to minimize (though not eliminate) such behavior.
Rant, on testing immediately prior to race time, is this a blood test or a urine test? If it’s blood, how much blood are we talking about? I’m not an athlete, so I wouldn’t know, but do you really want to give blood right before the start of a competition?
Larry,
It’s a blood test, and if I understand things correctly would only need about 5 to 10 ml of blood to do the test. Not a huge amount. Currently, the lucky people to get tested are tested about 2 to 3 hours before the start. Logistically, I don’t know that it could be done much closer to the start of a race, but if it could, I don’t think there would be any real physiological harm done.
…
Think about what you face when you go to your doctor’s office and they do bloodwork. I think the most they ever took from me was 3 tubes of blood to do a complete blood workup. That’s about 30 ml of blood. A single tube ought to be enough for their tests, I would think.
Back in the days when I was in law enforcement training, one thing we learned that we should not only look to see if someone’s behavior was consistent with guilt, but if the behavior was also inconsistent with innocence. This is the question we are debating with respect to Ras’ blood data. It is perhaps suspicious, but is it inconsistent with innocent behavior on his part? Or is doping the only possible explanation for the figures? I am no expert, but unless there is some information that doping is the only way to explain these figures, I think we need more evidence that he doped other than the few figures sighted above.
–
Dehydration is not necessarily the only alternate possible. A second possibility is just random variation, especially if the 3 figures sited above are all we have. If each one of us were tested on 3 days, it is quite likely that some of us would show the modest increases shown above (each increase is less than 10%). I rather anyone here is blood doping or using EPo (unless someone here is undergoing chem for cancer, which i hope not!).
Some “basic points” about blood doping.
When UCI put the limit of 50% Hct, it was for safety of riders and avoid the temptation to use to much EPO.
There is very athletes (less that 1% Cunego for example) who have a physilogy close of 50%, and it’s genetic. Rapidly this guys and girls could be known.
In the recent past, team himself have hematocrit testers to check their riders and avoid to be higher than 50%
Now they use it, not to be lower that 50%, but to have an apparent normal value !!!Because we all know now that a rider with a hct level close of 50% is probably a doper especially if he has other recorded levels around of 40%! So today the game, especially for the top riders, is not to be under limit but to try to do similar as normal values!
Okay, Rant,
the numbers are pedestrian, as I posted in the Topix blog, but let’s say he is a lying cheat. Are these guys smart enough to trick the testers?
For instance, say he does a blood doping control 3 hours before the race. Could his doctor take red blood cells out prior to the drug test and then re-introduce them after the drug test and in the 3 hours before the race? Could he have the doctors do the same procedure during rest day 1 and 2?
Far fetched, but we are hearing a lot about blood doping in the peleton. Who knows what science these teams could be refining?
Personally, I agree with you, Rant, pedestrian numbers but not believable because he made the mistake of fudging his whereabouts during an out of competition test period.
Rubber Side Down
RSD,
I have no doubts that there are people out there who are smart enough to figure out how to beat the test. I don’t think they would do so using the technique you describe, but one never knows. What I’ve heard of, anecdotally, amounts to watering down the blood to bring it back in line with the normal range of hematocrit and hemoglobin levels. Blood doping is certainly a technique that has a definite potential performance benefit, when done correctly — unlike certain other techniques allegedly in use.
…
Bottom line is that the tests need to be specific enough to actually prove doping occurred. If, like Jean observes, there are people out there making sure that they are just under the limits, then the only way to catch them would be to use the tests that don’t rely on the hematocrit or hemoglobin as definite proof. The EPO test is one, and the test for homologous blood doping is another. I haven’t heard of a test available yet that can prove autologous (using your own) blood doping, however.
…
If those tests can accurately detect those who are cheating, then perhaps they should just be a part of the standard test runs, and perhaps the hematocrit and hemoglobin tests, while certainly capable of being a screening mechanism for those not smart enough (or who don’t have access to the doctors or resources who can assist them) to cheat in the manner Jean describes, should be ditched.
…
Rasmussen’s behavior certainly raises suspicion about what he was up to. But since he didn’t test positive for anything, we have to be careful about exactly what conclusions we draw from the facts that are available.
Rant – you have defined EXACTLY WHAT A TEST SHOULD BE – “the tests need to be specific enough to actually prove doping occurred.”
–
As it now is – all we have is a daily possibility to find ourselves in confrontation – “who’s interpretation is the correct one” – And if we do not have tests that are concrete enough then people are just going to have to allay their “zeal” to catch the dopers till the tests exist.
–
My main concern is that the new bio-passport is mostly a test to show “indicators that purport manipulation. They can be “interpreted by “experts” to suit the situation.
–
The practice of incorporating such nebulous methodology only leaves loopholes for the bandits – no one else gains from it….well – the politicos do – they can point to it and say – “See – what we are doing!”
Morgan, the biological passport system holds huge promise to make the anti-doping efforts more effective and more rational at the same time.
…
Consider the Landis case, where LNDD and USADA simply showed a Landis’ IRMS delta-delta value that purportedly exceeded the stated limit. From the standpoint of the ADAs, that was the end of the story. FL presented evidence that the reported changes in his delta-delta values made no sense, that his absolute testosterone levels were normal, that his performance in S17 was normal, and so forth. None of it mattered. The rules provide that Landis could be convicted on the basis of the delta-delta measurement.
…
Imagine instead that we had a good biological passport system in place. We’d go into a case like the Landis case with much better knowledge of Landis’ historic test numbers — we’d understand his individual biology much better, and perhaps his individual history would make it clear that his test results were normal. For example, there’s been speculation that Landis’ test results might have been caused by his cortisone injections. We would have been able to check his passport to compare his biomarkers before and after he began taking cortisone. This data might have explained his test results, and put all speculation to rest that Landis was doping.
…
The biological passport system would, hopefully, have us look at a number of related biomarkers, not just one. We’d be required to look at changes in all of these biomarkers, and not just compare a single biomarker against an absolute standard for doping. The potential for avoiding false positives, as well as catching dopers who are currently slipping through the system, is much higher if you look at trends in the numbers, and you look at multiple biomarkers instead of a single biomarker.
…
So for Landis, we might have said, “yes, this delta-delta number is suspicious … but if he’s taking exogenous testosterone, we’d also see a change in his “x” number, and we don’t … and while his “y” number is higher than the average person, the “y” number has actually been dropping over the course of the race … so overall the numbers aren’t consistent with doping.”
,,,
IOW, we’d test for doping the way the doctors run tests on patients. We’d look at everything we could before we’d come to a dramatic conclusion about the patient’s health. Could you imagine a doctor saying that a patient has to have a life-threatening operation, based on the single result of a single test? No one would do that in medicine, and if we can imitate what doctors do in a biological passport regimen, this could be a great thing for all concerned.
…
Your concern is well-taken, because the biological passport system is much more complicated than the existing system. It’s more complicated to evaluate a trend in a number than to see if a single number is higher or lower than some stated threshold. And it’s more complicated still to evaluate trends in multiple numbers. How are the guys at WADA going to rewrite the drug tests to cover all of these possibilities? I’m not sure that they can do it.
…
Will the new system leave the evaluation of the numbers to the opinion of an “expert”, as you’re suggesting? Stay tuned! But don’t dismiss the possibility that, with enough money and a little patience, the biological passport system might be vastly superior to what’s in place today.
Larry – I am not against the bio-passport – what I am fearful of is that you get knuckleheads “interpreting a very complex process. In theory – you are absolutely right – it does make sense – if it is more then merely in the “developmental stage”
–
Maybe I am just overly cautious type – but the revealed circumstances of Floyd’s hearing – does not make me “trusting” of the mediocrity of actual “knowledge” rather then what LNDD and the UCI and WADA are doing with the simpler tests we have now.
–
Did you hear that at the conference – they are trying to do away with having to have a “b” sample double check? It looks to me like they are trying to get rid of one of the few things that actually works in favor of the athlete!
–
In a world where people have the outlook that “everyone is without character” – or every one is a potential doper – the bio-passport has to be made “bullet-proof” if it is to work fairly – that is my only real concern.
–
It is a sad reality that the readers who are of a “suspicious” mind – will stay suspicious. The only way to “fight” such suspicion is to develop the test, as you say.
:
I am not certain that most people realize just what an enormous “ambition” the bio-passport is – If developed – it will change every visit to a doctor in medicine…the potential is wonderful and awe inspiring. I believe it is possible to do such a thing – I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss the particulars about it – BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME TO FRUITION.
–
But in the mean time – we need someway to be able to do and get the job done – Where is Dr. McCoy when you need him? Beam the man down already (;-)))
Larry:
The way you describe it, the bio-passport sounds like a great idea. However, as Morgan says, it is very complex. It will also be very expensive. Every rider will have to be tested for a variety of factors, probably involving collect blood as well as urine and running a number of tests, many times over the course of a year. I suppose that during any one particular race, you could revert to a scheme like that of the TdF to only test limited riders. But for the system to work the way it should be, riders need to be tested during competition to see how their factors vary during competition. You’d want a complete picture. Anyway, how is this going to funded? Or will WADA just do a half-assed job of it, talking big about their great bio-passport system?
William,
You know, you just described the program that the Agency for Cycling Ethics does in conjunction with Team Slipstream. They’ve been doing a number of blood and urine tests over the last year, developing something very much like a biological passport. If the UCI or WADA were the ones to run such a program, I’d have my doubts about how well-thought-out it would be. If they contracted with ACE, on the other hand, I’d have some confidence that the program might be scientifically sound — assuming that they let the folks at ACE do their thing without too much interference.
…
It is an expensive program, but from what I gather, there may be some economies of scale that could make it more affordable when spread over a larger group, like, say, the entire ProTour group of teams.
From my layman’s point of view – what concerns me most is that the bio-passport, which by the way, is being presented in no great detail, other then its name, is not a test that WADA has been researching, and developing. Yet the ASO organization, it would appear, is insisting on it being the “entrance requirement” to race.
–
The process to establish the individual “baseline” numbers for each athlete – has to be established over a period of time – this includes, racing periods and non racing periods. WE HAVE NO ESTABLISHED VALUES of what the “realistic base line numbers are or should be for each individual rider.”
–
The bio-passport is a grand idea – but it seems to be just that. a concept in development. BUT – we are now facing a situation once again whereby the “governing bodies” are once again making claims without proof. Are we not therefore once again left with the situation that the “governing bodies” claim that THEY know what the individual baseline numbers are. HOW?
–
The concept is based on having a massive amount of data to sift through for EACH INDIVIDUAL rider. Is LNDD doing this work? If they are – I have no faith in it, since LNDD has proven itself to be inept, at proper scientific process. Is WADA going to use their past testing numbers and “insert” this into the equation? This is not science – this is the same circus that they have been making of their “testing” to now.
–
If we are earnestly concerned that we have a manner in which to “look at” each individual riders personal numbers so we may see when these “baseline” numbers have changed, do to manipulation – than I have to point out – WADA has no such hard science knowledge – they have had no “real time” to collect such data, nor time to collate such data, let alone to install it to start the 08 season.
–
Which winds us up to be in the same “interpretive” situation we have found ourselves in. WADA will simply claim that its test is correct, without hard science behind it.
–
With all the optimism in the world – expecting Mr Fahey to work with such a situation – is ridiculous. He would have no choice but to “tow the company line” – that being, WE ARE WADA, we know our tests work and NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST IT.
–
In a matter of a few short months – the 08 season begins – logically, one has to ask, “how do you get a spreadsheet of data necessary to accomplish this over a period of mere months?”
–
I am not against the bio-passport – but I am against WADA being the sole judge and interpreter of such a grand concept – their track record has shown them to be scientifically inept to handle such a project. We have 2 months before the new season starts. Think about it.
William and Morgan, your concerns about the biological passport are well taken. At the moment, it seems that the UCI and the ADAs have not gotten much past the naming of the program. I’ll give them credit: “biological passport” is a good name. The program has great potential. But the implementation of this program is complex, and William, you’re 100% right about the money. If this program is not funded properly, it’s worthless, and it may never come to pass.
About the biological passport, there is a lot of question at the moment, many of them were the grounds of the reluctance of the french doctor Megret. For example, he would know if the passeport ould be use to punish riders or to forbid them for a short period as the hematocrit level, riders with hct level under 50% can not raise, they are consider “ill”.
—
In France, we have something like that with many health parameters monitored, but the results could not be use as a sanction directly against an athletes but if his heath is in danger, he could be stop, if there is sign of doping, he is alerted as his federation and he becomes a target for more doping control…
Hey Jean C – can you elaborate more on what is meant by “ill” in this instance? Is it felt that such a level indicates sickness or does it mean it is a uephonism for – “he’s probably doping.”
I say ill because he is not allowed to compete until his health parameters come back in a accepted range. So it’s only a medical prevention.
Jean C, point well taken. The biological passport program could allow the ADAs to respond in different ways to different changes in a rider’s biomarkers. This would be consistent with the way the program works at team Slipstream. If the team notices a disturbing trend in a rider’s biomarkers, the team could respond by calling the rider in for a talk, or by performing additional testing, or by refusing to let the rider perform in upcoming races, or by pulling the rider from an existing race, or by firing the rider. The ADAs might implement the biological passport program with a similar range of options. The range of possible options is a good thing, as it allows the ADAs to respond to different conditions in different ways, but it also adds to the complexity of setting up the program in the first place. Not only do you have to deal with multiple possible combinations of different kinds of trends in the biomarkers, you’ll have to define which of these combinations would lead to which kinds of responses by the ADAs.