UCI Biological Passport Problems

After being called an apologist for questioning the UCI biological passport concept I want to set the record straight.

(1) I agree with Anne Gripper that the goal of the UCI biological passport is to reduce doping within the peloton to <99.9%.
(2) I agree with the concept that detection of sophisticated doping methods by rouge doctors who attempt to manipulate biological parameters by introducing prohibited substances with the goal of establishing artificial baseline scores must be detected and those responsible must be punished. The last thing cycling needs is a cheater doping freely in a race because his biological profile has been manipulated to the point where tests appears "normal."

Problems:

(1) Of concern is the expansion by the UCI of the WADA non-analytical positive. If a correlation by Bayesian Statistical Model is to be accepted in place of a positive test for a prohibited substance, then this by implication expands the non-analytical positive concept. If a correlation coefficient is to replace a positive lab result then what is considered acceptable? >.90? Even this high correlation does not explain all of the variance. A 100% certainty is impossible to obtain, so it is certain that athlete(s) will be mistakenly prosecuted.
(2) The UCI must admit the possibility of false positive lab results.
(3) Evaluations of biological profile results must take into account individual differences.
(4) The UCI must establish standardized parameters of what constitute a doping violation. Is this possible when a rider profile is examined by a committee of experts? Very unlikely.
(5) Anne Gripper stated that the biological profile data would be established by tests in ten different WADA laboratories so they could all measure the same thing? Are you serious? In the Iban Mayo case LNDD claimed they found EPO. The WADA lab at the University of Ghent returned a "non-negative" on the same sample even though they consulted an Australian WADA accredited lab for a second opinion. When LNDD re-tested Mayo they confirmed their original finding of EPO. LNDD claimed that their results were correct because they were more experienced in EPO detection. Does the UCI have stringent testing criteria that WADA labs must adhere to? Never seen any reference to the UCI testing criteria, but if we are relying upon WADA criteria, anything goes.
(6) An anonymous cyclist states: "I hope these biological profile results hold up in court." I have no disagreement with this statement except to point out that in all cases the Adverse Analytical Findings that may result from a suspicious profile will be arbitrated. If the UCI would agree to resolve disputes in a court of law instead of in a Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) kangaroo arbitration hearing, with a jury trial and due process rights afforded to the defendant, fine. A court resolution of the case would force WADA to lay all of their cards on the table, including standard operating procedure records, accreditation audits, or any other documents that might be requested to validate their test results. The Richard Young WADA code would have to be abandoned, omerta would be replaced by transparency.
(7) The UCI should be very exacting on plugging leaks of sensitive information pertaining to lab results of an athlete. No more LNDD leaks to L'Equipe before the athlete is informed of his/her test results. No more leaking of identification numbers of athletes to the press as was done by LNDD in the 1998 Tour de France Lance Armstrong EPO "scientific" tests.

Need more reasons? There are thousands of other problems to discuss, but alas, no time. Why don't you think of something?

I am interested in protecting the athlete from abuse only. WADA cannot be trusted, neither their lab work or their agenda. The UCI is aware of this fact, another Vrijman Report is not recommended. If the UCI thinks that action is required against an athlete they should act alone and with prudence.

Floyd Landis Bandwagon Effect

Rant writes an interesting article of press reaction to suspected dopers who protest their innocence too much. In this context it is important to look at the case(s) in detail for items of interest rather than to stereotype people.

Floyd Landis is a different case; compare to a person caught using the new red blood cell receptor activator (CERA) or traditional EPO. A confirmed test for EPO is a far cry from someone with a single suspect metabolite IRMS score above threshold for synthetic testosterone.

Blood doping cases, like Tyler Hamilton, are even harder to be certain about because if you consider the cost/benefit ratio, infections or allergic reactions to another persons' blood, you must ask this question; is a transfusion with the blood of another person worth a small increase in performance considering the risks to your health? There are simpler ways to blood dope. Use your own stored red blood cells. Hard to quantify why a doctor would use two blood cell populations and run such risks, except for a lack of a test to detect such things, of course.

And as is the case with the Floyd Landis testosterone case, the methods used by WADA labs were uncertain and of questionable scientific value in the Tyler Hamilton case.

Even so, in the Landis case, as Oliver Starr pointed out in Floyd Landis and the Magic Water Bottle III why use synthetic testosterone that can be detected when endogenous testosterone can be isolated and used? Is not endogenous testosterone undetectable? And as Oliver Starr so correctly said -- Landis was doping with power gels and water bottles. Hydration and replenishment with glucose at a whim from his team car, while his competition was dehydrated and spent. Very strange tactics from a doper who needed synthetic testosterone to win the Tour de France.

So there is the distinction; known prohibited substances with exact chemical signatures where a known performance enhancement is documented versus exogenous substances where a team doctor is rolling the dice with an athletes' professional career. Alexander Vinokurov caught manipulating his blood and suspended, the Astana team withdraws from the Tour de France in disgrace. Tyler Hamilton caught also, he denies the accusations, is suspended for two years. The Olympic time trial gold medal he won would have been stripped from him except for a frozen blood sample. Hamilton comes back to win the Stars and Stripes as national road race champion then refuses to race in the Worlds. Damn doper. Tyler Hamilton may be a disgrace but he served his suspension so he deserves a second chance with Rock Racing. Last summer at the Tour of Utah I applauded everyone, including Tyler Hamilton and Rock Racing during the downtown Salt Lake City criterium stage. When Floyd Landis returns with OUCH as the bionic man, if they race the Tour of Utah, I will applaud him also.

Because if there are distinctions between those who should be condemned and those who should be pardoned it is all in context. Kayle Leogrande allegedly doped with EPO and then he tried to defeat the test by handling soap. The United States national criterium champion, no less. Rock Racing refused to extend his contract, what a surprise. Disgraceful. Others have admitted their subterfuge and deserve condemnation. Eric Zable, cheated to win the sprint point jersey, retired. David Millar, cheated to win the UCI time trial championship, suspended. Ivan Basso of Operation Puerto fame, blood manipulation, winner of the Giro d' Italia, suspended. Terrible these people who cheated to win but who are allowed to continue in the professional peloton. Others of note who were lauded by cycling fans, Richard Virenque, of Festina Affair fame. Willey Voet caught at the French Border in a team car loaded with EPO and other performance enhancers. Tearful denials by Virenque until he confessed. The beloved French rider continued to race to the cheers of French cycling fans and win several King of the Mountain Prizes, none taken away by ASO, in spite of his crimes. Sure, punish the dopers without exception, they all deserve equal treatment.

Which leads me back to Floyd Landis.

Floyd Landis has signed a contract with OUCH and is ready to race in 2009. But first the Court of Arbitration of Sport has insisted that Floyd Landis pay USADA a $100,000 fine before Steve Johnson and USA Cycling will issue him a license.

Floyd Landis has been dealt a bad hand since the first. An extended suspension of six months because he raced the Leadville 100, although the race was not officially sanctioned by USA cycling and the money raised was donated to charity. After Leadville Floyd Landis signed a declaration that he would voluntarily end competition, thus the additional six month suspension. In most cases the suspension starts at the time the "B" sample confirmation test.

Then Mr. Landis was denied documentary evidence by USADA he requested to prepare his defense. Thus Mr. Landis was required to engage in unnecessary discovery battles at great expense. The AAA Panel said in the Award that this sort of legal wrangling was normal, nothing to be concerned about. The AAA Panel certainly was not prepared to punish Travis T. Tygart and USADA for obstructionist tactics no matter how much Floyd Landis paid his defense team for wasted time and effort to combat the Chatenay-Malabry shotgun approach of adherence to WADA code and ISL standards.

But, the Court of Arbitration of Sport used a different tactic and punished Floyd Landis with a $100,000 fine because he contested Chatenay-Malabry causing USADA to spend large amounts of cash to defend a WADA lab. If the test results and the methods to derive them would have been incontestable there would have been no reason for Floyd Landis to fight. USADA, WADA, and AFLD would have not needed to defend. AFLD would not have had to run to a COFRAC audit to explain away everything. The CAS would not have had to condemn Maurice Suh and Floyd Landis for causing USADA unwanted expense to defend a "defamation" of Chatney-Malabry.

So, who can blame Floyd Landis for suing to restore his honor under these circumstances? Without the International Olympic Committee umbrella which allows approximations to WADA code by WADA labs, who knows, maybe the United States Federal Courts will tell a United States taxpayer funded organization like the United States Anti-Doping Agency to vacate the fine and the award.

Meanwhile people who weigh the evidence first and condemn the dopers based on facts, not speculation, or psychological stereotypes, want to tell you that not everyone who tests positive is a punk bent on deception, greed and avarice. Landis is innocent and deserves respect. David Millar is guilty and deserves contempt. Landis deserves a USA racing license, Millar deserves to be expelled from UCI sanctioned races. Very simple, non?

So, the bandwagon stereotype effect does not work in cycling. The dopers motivations are different, the reactions to dopers are different, the outcomes are different. Some like David Millar, Eric Zabel, and Richard Virenque are praised. Some like Floyd Landis are vilified. Dopers caught red handed and who confess are praised as saints. Cyclists who are caught in a web of bad science and questionable results are spoken of as liars. The innocent doth protest too much. Go figure.

Maybe Floyd Landis should have followed the advice of Pat McQuaid; shut up and take the punishment. Others would have been expected to do the same. All would be suspended, the guilty and innocent. The UCI, WADA, AFLD, and USADA would continue to win cases unchallenged.

Sadly, unlike a convicted murderer who is exonerated after twenty-five years on death row by DNA evidence after untold suffering...life for a "doper" would go on.

Author note: See the action photos of Floyd Landis at the Leadville 100 (see comments) provided by Ultra Rob. Ultra Rob also pointed out an obvious error, the Leadville 100 is sanctioned by NORBA, which is a part of USA Cycling. Since Floyd Landis signed a voluntary non-participation agreement after the Leadville 100 race, this may have been the basis for the extra six month suspension given Landis by the AAA and CAS Panels.

UCI Biological Passport: A Nonstarter

Anne Gripper czarina of the International Cycling Union (UCI) doping prevention has announced that a UCI sanctioned biological passport system is ready to produce results. These results will be based on a collection of in-competition and out-of-competition test measures of athletes conducted to establish "normal" longitudinal parameters considered essential to athletic performance. The biological passport also is intended to pinpoint suspected anomalies that would suggest possible use of prohibited performance enhancing substances.

Anne Gripper explains that the International Cycling Union (UCI) has initiated a "no start rule" where riders may be excluded from competition for fifteen days if biological parameters appear suspect.

Gripper also stated that the biological passport data has been stored on a secure Internet based computer software program; the Anti-Doping Administration Management System (ADAMS).

The biological longitudinal data for riders will be analyzed by Bayesian Statistical Model. The Bayesian Statistical Model will assign a probability of doping by an athlete based on suspect biological parameters. This probability will then be studied by a panel of nine medical experts selected by the UCI. If the panel concludes that the biological anomalies are the probable result of prohibited substance abuse an Adverse Analytical Finding and possible suspension from professional cycling could result.

The UCI biological passport is a dangerous experiment and it is destined to fail. Anne Gripper admits that no action could possibly be taken against a rider unless a probability is 99.9% that a change in a biological parameter is a result of prohibited substance abuse. This probabilistic fantasy of 99.9% can not hold up in court without direct evidence of the suspected substance being present in an athlete, however. For example, CERA (Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator) provides "a potent and sustained stimulation of red blood cell formation with longer dosing intervals" according to ROCHE. CERA has a long plasma half-life and is expressed by identifiable precursors, markers, or metabolites. An exact and detectable chemical signature of CERA is available. Without an identified prohibited substance detected in blood or urine at the time that a suspicious parameter is correlated by a statistical model the "evidence" amounts to hypothetical bunk and useless speculation.

Speculation as to the cause of a change in a biological profile will never result in a suspension from a national cycling federation in the absence of evidence of a prohibited substance. This is a fallacy.

However, as is true in all cycling anti-doping cases, the International Cycling Union (UCI) or the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) could appeal a national federation decision to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). If successful, WADA, the UCI, and the CAS could lower the bar of what constitutes a doping offense. This would be a travesty. The standard for suspension of an athlete would be based on a probability based statistical model and speculation, not on concrete evidence, or on reasonable doubt, or even on comfortable satisfaction.

The UCI Biological Passport is a nonstarter. Protect the human rights of all athletes and end this madness now.