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.