Two err.. Three for the Fourth

Lab B, Wherefore Art Thou Lab B?

Yesterday, the identity of the “Laboratory B” where Danish researchers sent samples for their study of EPO testing effectiveness came to light. Apparently, the lab in question is the German anti-doping lab in Cologne. And the lab’s directory is none too pleased with having been a subject of the researcher’s experimentation. In fact, he wants the article detailing their study and its findings withdrawn from the Journal of Applied Physiology.

As reported by Laura Weislo at CyclingNews.com yesterday, lab director Dr. Wilhelm Schänzer claims the study is “scientifically unacceptable” and says that the study’s results are factually wrong, demonstrate great ignorance regarding the criticised method and the operations of doping control laboratories, and are based on a serious lack of careful examination of provided data.”

Weislo’s article goes on to say:

Schänzer emphatically denied the accuracy of the study, saying that the Danish scientists misrepresented why the samples were being sent to “Laboratory B”. In a letter to the editors of the JAP, he explained that the lab was not aware that the results would be published, and was under the impression that the samples did not come from athletes. The results, he said, “were not obtained by means of the accredited method for urine analysis,” which means they were not subjected to the normal procedure for anti-doping controls.

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well, he would [say that], wouldn’t he?”

Here’s the thing. If the Danish researchers had told Dr. Schänzer and the lab that the samples were for a study to determine whether or not the urine EPO test does what it is said to do, the results would have been affected by that knowledge. This is not to cast aspersions on Dr. Schänzer or his lab’s employees. And it’s certainly not meant to cast into doubt the lab’s overall competence. It’s human nature to be much more careful and much more thorough, in a situation like that. In fact, this is a variant of a well-known phenomenon called “experimenter bias.”

The point of the Danish study was to see what happens under reasonably normal circumstances. To do that, the lab should receive samples just as they would in a regular case. In other words, they shouldn’t be told what the sample contains or why it’s being tested. They merely need to be told that a certain test should b run.

The study’s results, for those who don’t remember, suggest that there is something about the urine EPO test that isn’t quite right. That different labs, given the same samples will come up with different results. A good test should produce the same results regardless of the lab where it’s performed — as long as the staff are properly trained in how to perform such a test.

Going back to Dr. Schänzer’s argument that they should have been told what the samples were being used for. In being told that the results would be used for a study on the effectiveness of the EPO test, you can be pretty sure that the lab would have scored much better than it did. They would have taken the time and been very thorough in how they did the work. And, most likely, the results would have matched what the samples contained much more closely. In other words, the lab would have tested clean, so to speak.

As my wife pointed out when we spoke about this a short while ago, this is a double-standard. If the labs should be told when they’re going to be tested and evaluated, and what tests are going to be evaluated, shouldn’t athletes also be told ahead of time when they’re going to be tested, and what they’re going to be tested for, too? The Danish study was a bit like what the athletes are subjected to, only turned around on the anti-doping labs, themselves. What do you bet if athletes knew ahead of time when they were going to be tested and what specific tests would be run that there would be many fewer positive doping tests? I’m just asking…

The Curious Case of Andrei Kashechkin

Last year, shortly after the Astana cycling team withdrew from the Tour de France (following Alexander Vinokourov’s positive test for homologous blood doping), fellow Astana rider Andrei Kashechkin also tested positive for the same thing. Kashechkin was tested late at night while on vacation in Turkey, and the results were announced in the media about a week or so later.

His story has not gotten a lot of press lately, and much of his side of the story hasn’t been published at all. Until now. John Wilcockson of VeloNews has a two-part article (part 1 and part 2) about the Kazakh rider’s trials and tribulations in their pre-Tour coverage. It’s a fascinating story, which at times makes Inspector Clouseau look like Albert Einstein compared to the people charged with anti-doping testing and results management.

While the articles are clearly Kashechkin’s side of the story, and have little commentary about what happened from the other side, they paint a disturbing picture of how the Kazakh rider has been treated for the last 10 months. Among other things, Kashechkin says that:

• The blood sample wasn’t properly handled by the vampires who came and tested him in Turkey (they didn’t properly transport it in a cool, refrigerated container)
• The B sample should have been tested within three days after the A sample result, but instead was tested 3 weeks later
• He had one blood test done after the A sample result was announced which refuted the test’s result, but attempts to get additional tests performed within the 3 months after the result (the time in which he would have still been positive, had he been blood doping) were rebuffed once the labs found out who he was
• He has never received the test results (a/k/a the lab documentation package required to be delivered to an accused athlete)
• The UCI failed to cooperate with the Kazakh cycling federation when they looked into the matter initially (and because of the UCI’s lack of cooperation, the Kazakh federation declared him eligible to race), but now, under pressure from the UCI, the national federation is trying to change their ruling in his case to a two-year ban

Whatever the truth of the matter is — whether Kashechkin tested positive and whether he doped — there is no excuse for the way he claims to have been treated. He should certainly have received the lab documentation package in a timely manner, and the UCI should certainly have cooperated with the Kazakh cycling federation in their investigation of the case. If even half of what Kashechkin says is true, it casts the UCI and the anti-doping system in a very bad light.

Kashechkin sums up his situation this way:

“Well, I am for the system, and I am for the normal anti-doping controls, but with the system it is very difficult to prove there’s been an error, and everybody makes mistakes, right?”

Ain’t that the truth. And, in his case, it’s hard to know who made the error — the anti-doping labs and the UCI, or the rider who’s sitting on the sidelines right now, waiting to get back in the game.

OK, A Third Item…

Tomorrow the Grande (de)Boucle (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun) begins. That’s right, it’s Tour de France time, and with it, the inevitable speculation on … who’s going to win? And who’s going to win the race to become the first doping violation during the event? I won’t hazard a guess on who the eventual winner will be (Evans, Valverde, Menchov, ??) And I certainly won’t hazard a guess on who will with that other competition.

Despite the bad taste that certain stories have left, the Tour is a spectacle unto itself. I’m not sure how much of the coverage on Versus that I’ll watch. Johan Bruyneel’s commentary during the last week should be pretty interesting to hear, however.

Floyd Landis (who is not forgotten) said this about the Tour earlier this week in an article written by Bonnie D. Ford on ESPN.com:

“I hope people who are interested in bicycle racing forget about me by the end of the week and turn on the television and watch the Tour, and give those guys the respect and attention they deserve.”

Well, we won’t forget about you Mistah Floyd, but we will be taking the time to follow the Tour over the next few weeks. With no returning champion, the race should be very interesting and wide open, indeed. Check out Peloton Jim’s prognostications on Endless Cycle. He gives a good run-down of who he’s looking for to win the Tour.

———-

And now, it’s time to go ride a bike. Have a happy holiday everyone.