French television station Stade2’s recent report on how micro-dosing performance-enhancing drugs is allowing professional riders to evade detection under the biological passport protocol is very worrying.
Say what you want about the research, the results were damning and a real slap in the face to the biological passport, which has looked shaky at best during its brief existence.
While it has resulted in the sanctioning of a number of riders, including big fish like Denis Menchov, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke and Franco Pellizotti, it has faced a number of challenges and issues as well.
Roman Kreuziger is a case in point. In June 2014, the UCI cited abnormalities in Kreuziger’s biological passport and provisionally suspended him from racing. He was subsequently cleared by the Czech Olympic Committee and promptly resumed racing. The reason for this was that, while Kreuziger’s results were abnormal, they did not fall outside of the expected range dictated by the biological passport software.
The UCI and WADA have announced they will challenged this at the Court of Arbitration for Sport but despite documents needing to be submitted by early December 2014, all is still eerily quiet on this front. Kreuziger hasn’t returned to his Amstel Gold Race winning form of 2013 but has been recently competing in the Spring Classics.
It’s not all doom and gloom though. It has certainly stopped the blatant systematic doping by teams of the 1990s and 2000s. We no longer have riders like Stefan Schumacher winning time trial stages by enormous margins, or Lance Armstrong riding away from some of the best climbers in the world like they were standing still. Doping has become more subtle.
But is that an improvement on what we already had? Has the biological passport just driven cheaters deeper underground?
We may have made it more difficult to catch the cheaters than it was before. A more extensive study would need to be carried out to lend some weight to Stade2’s claims, but if this is true and micro-dosing can beat the system, then maybe the biological passport has shut one door and opened 10 others.
The UCI and WADA can’t just rest on their laurels. Its not enough to place faith in the current anti-doping tests and the biological passport. The solution to the problem lies at the source – the pharmaceutical companies.
Rumours abounded some years ago that the first bust from CERA, the newest generation of EPO, was due to a chemical marker that was added to the drug that allowed it to be tracked through a person’s system.
I know it’s pie-in-the-sky thinking, but is it possible for WADA to work with the pharmaceutical companies to come up with chemical markers that can be introduced into PEDs that make them easier to detect? Can we find a solution at the source, rather than at the end-user? If we are to curb drug use in sport, particularly in cycling where it has manifested so grotesquely, preventative measures must be sought more highly than the current detective approach.
It’s a challenge that all sports face. The WADA Code isn’t even all the clear on what is legal and what isn’t (see the Essendon AFL saga for that one). But one that has become endemic to cycling over the last two and a half decades. The approach of retrospective testing has clearly failed to curb doping bravado. Maybe a new line of thinking and a change of course for WADA is in order.
sparra
Guest
Perhaps a reason the urine tests were negative was due to synthetic EPO being metabolised out of their bodies - remember the urine EPO test had a maximal window of detection of 48-72 hrs. The other reason is that these athletes were most likely using blood transfusions and there is nothing to detect in the urine that will reveal this practice. I got a headache after reading this gobbledygook so I took a pill and lied down. You should do same sir.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"How well is not known but it has seen more than 50 endurance athletes banned simply on the strength of blood markers and is a step forward any way you look at it (that means that 50 urine tests were negative!). " "...50 urine tests were negative..." For what it is worth. The positivity criteria have been changed several times. Mainly driven by trial & error. In 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7516484.stm "It was very obvious that the gels were very un-natural or very different from natural distributions. But I also saw that they were declared negative because they didn't fulfil the WADA criteria of a positive test; although they looked suspicious and had no natural bands at all, they were still declared negative." And Dr Damsgaard believes that there are many more such samples in WADA labs. "From a little work with a lot of blood profiles, I found maybe five positives. I wonder that maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands of EPO positive samples are lying around in WADA-accredited labs." The decision criteria have never been statistically underpinned. Subjective visual inspection: "But I also saw.." A solution has always been to digitize, model inter-lab variability, convert ALL data to a virtual (global) instrument, classify using a data base with ALL relevant data from ALL labs, and subject a profile to visual inspection in case it is classified as 'positive' with objectively high enough probability. Always check and double-check. Too sophisticated? It works in industry since many years. A company having production plants and labs everywhere? What do you think those people are doing? Visual inspection? Just another example of anti-doping scientifically lagging behind ~20 years. But with secure income.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"I hate to say it, because it’s such an archaic and desperate move, but the only way of really stamping it out is just to hand out longer bans for any sort of infringement." I would say that move is a bit thoughless. A 12-year-old goes to CAS to have his 2-year ban reduced (energy bar): http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/the-last-word-war-on-drugs-guilty-of-wounding-youngsters-2356556.html "Hopefully, once the UCI gets the CIRC kinks worked out, this would provide enough of a “carrot” to break the omerta once and for all." CIRC was just a way to get at the former presidents of the UCI. That did not work out as intended. Verbruggen and McQuaid were pretty good guys after all.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
Not to sound like I'm defending it (I'm not a fan), but it's better than we had prior (that's to say nothing). At least it makes it more difficult for riders to pop up out of the blue and blow races away (e.g. Stefan Schumacher, Riccardo Ricco) just because they're doped up to the eyeballs. But I agree, it's poor and unpolished in its current form. it was clearly rushed in by the WADA to make it look like they were doing something for cycling, without really thinking of the finer details that were required to make this system work properly. It's far too expensive and inflexible to act as a significant policer of the peloton.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
I hate to say it, because it's such an archaic and desperate move, but the only way of really stamping it out is just to hand out longer bans for any sort of infringement. Make TUE's much more difficult to get. I reckon if you need a TUE to take a banned substance, you shouldn't be racing anytime soon anyway. 4 year bans are a good step, but I don't quite think the "stick" is big enough to really discourage people from doping. It certainly takes the rider out for a good chunk of their career, but I'm not sure it's a big enough discouragement. If you're going to go down that route, 10 year bans or longer could be a significant enough deterrent to stop the guys "sitting on the fence" from taking the plunge. But I still don't think that always looking retrospectively is the way forward. I agree, it would cost millions more and is not the pharmaceutical companies' responsibility to prevent anti-doping. But surely there is more preventative action that could be taken in this regard. Surely... Hopefully, once the UCI gets the CIRC kinks worked out, this would provide enough of a "carrot" to break the omerta once and for all.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
I agree. But as I said, I don't think you can just let that be the best thing in the combat against doping. I'm an auditor by trade and we always love to see preventative controls, rather than detective. Otherwise you're always dealing with problems in hindsight, rather than prospectively.
Klaas Faber
Guest
I will put it differently. The methodology, when optimally implemented, has certain inherent weaknesses. Now, we have an ad-hoc method, arrived at after many years of improvization (with private data extorted by violating human rights, let's never forget that), which has additional weaknesses. Why? Because of the people involved. http://www.durangoherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121207/NEWS07/121209650 "An analytical chemist, Mr. Kowalski was a founder of the field of chemometrics, the science of extracting information with data, particularly numerous measurements made on numerous samples. He was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in chemistry." We did different things than the simplistic intervention studies of world experts like Ashenden. We used our brains. To make fundamental progress happen. Elite sport deserves elite science. What we now see, is science in a closet. Secure income for the mediocre. Let Ashenden reply. I guess he will take a dive, as many times before.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"I am sure the anti-doping researchers are ‘all ears’ if anyone out there has any ideas rather than the continued bagging of the biological passport." No, because it has been their secure income for many years now. And they're totally dependent on it. No other expertise. Were you at the anti-doping conference held during the world championships in Geelong 2010? No? I was there and I was not allowed to speak about certain weaknesses. Once I tried nevertheless (rule of thumb: one can always try), I was immediately interrupted. Jonathan Tiernan-Locke. Claudia Pechstein. Those were two good cases for the athlete. And there were more. But this is enough to make a point. 2 against your 50. 1 in 25. With 250,000 conventional tests per year that leads to 10,000 questionable convictions. "...is a step forward any way you look at it..." So, what do YOU know about anti-doping?
Klaas Faber
Guest
Okay, so this instrument works like the biological passport. A rider can be assumed to know his 'normal' range and will conveniently stay within. Or are you going to make the data invisible to the rider? Who do you think is going to cooperate with that set-up? The problem with the biological passport and microdoses? I saw that coming before the passport was introduced and described it in an article in a Dutch legal journal in 2010 as one of many practical problems resulting from the fact that this instrument is adapted from methodology used (and useful!) in fields where fraud does not play a role. Medical diagnostics. Nobody wants to stay under the radar, unless they are suicidal. These researchers have been studying blood values for the UCI since 1996. This could have been investigated through a feasibility study around 2000. Easily. Instead, one gets a publication in 2011, AFTER the introduction: http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/05/news/wada-criticizes-french-tv-doping-report_368963 "The biological passport seemed to be about as good as you could hope for, it’s amazing how quickly the arms race continues to unfold." Really? It's demonstrably poor but expensive science.
sparra
Guest
As we are not aware of the details of the study it is difficult to speculate on any of the outcomes. There are many factors that must be taken into consideration when making inferences. What drug was administered, how much, how often, how well trained were athletes, were urine drug tests performed alongside the blood tests and etc. Like any test the Biological passport has limitations but has been a welcome addition in the arsenal against doping especially when dealing with blood withdrawal and re-infusion. With regards to drug testing in general the WADA is collaborating with various pharmaceutical companies on this front (this is how the test for the new age blood doping drug - CERA came about). Unfortunately you cannot put a chemical marker on such drugs because it would then have to be proven (costing millions extra ) that the drug still works as intended for medical use. As the pharmaceutical companies business is drugs for medical use adding chemical markers is not their core business so it is the anti-doping agencies problem. Also you cannot chemically tag an athletes blood so thats one way the biological passport fills that gap. How well is not known but it has seen more than 50 endurance athletes banned simply on the strength of blood markers and is a step forward any way you look at it (that means that 50 urine tests were negative!). Blood doping by transfusion manifests itself in the blood and will never be detected in urine and there is no drug test that can detect 100% of the cheats either in urine or blood. I am sure the anti-doping researchers are 'all ears' if anyone out there has any ideas rather than the continued bagging of the biological passport.
BRYAN TAYLOR
Guest
This may appear to be a self-interested response as I am the President of Verve Cycling, which designed and produced the InfoCrank. But one of the key reasons that we developed the InfoCrank and worked hard to maintain it's accuracy is the belief that true power data holds the key in the "war against drugs". The InfoCrank is accurate beyond any current power device, which means now that the most inaccurate part of the bike is the head unit, which only records in full watts. (At any cadence below 120rpm, for instance the watts shown on an ANT+ head unit will be within one watt of actual). As cyclists, particularly elite cyclists can only improve incremently by work (or drugs) it is possible to plot the power data and search for anomalies if that data transcends the individual. The InfoCrank data is the same across platforms and different cranks, so with this accuracy available, it may be possible to phase out all drug testing. Pipe dream, I suppose, but one expressed by others before me. I have observed some of Australia's top cyclists since they were kids. I know they do not even take the pain killers that we amateurs take, and they are being beaten pretty comprehensively on the big stage, though they are multiple world champions. Something is still wrong.
Tristan Rayner
Editor
The biological passport seemed to be about as good as you could hope for, it's amazing how quickly the arms race continues to unfold.