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.

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.