Blood passport: MIA?

my thinking is that this is uci's window dressing to keep & attract the sponsors, a "look how serious we are in this fight" act. having yet to produce any results except to fatten the uci's bank accounts, pat should be very proud of this programme.

slovakguy said:

my thinking is that this is uci's window dressing to keep & attract the sponsors, a "look how serious we are in this fight" act. having yet to produce any results except to fatten the uci's bank accounts, pat should be very proud of this programme.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

kennf said:

In mid-February this year:

"Mr. McQuaid would not say how many cases were being prepared or how many athletes were involved, adding that it may be one or three or six riders. He said the doping actions would begin in “the coming days and weeks.”

Are they waiting until July 1, or has this evaporated?

I'd guess they have to be very very certain that a rider has doped and they have to be able to prove it 100%. I saw a small newsflash a while ago about the Blood passport where they interviewed officials from other sports like cross-country, biathlon, etc. and then a guy from WADA. The WADA guy especially emphasized that other sports would follow suit once cycling has proved that busts done based on the blood passport can be defended in court. He also predicted that the first positive (caught with the passport program) would be greatly challenged in court and said that the UCI must have solid facts that can be defended in court. He also added that the first court case would determine a lot about the future of the program.

RdBiker said:

I'd guess they have to be very very certain that a rider has doped and they have to be able to prove it 100%. I saw a small newsflash a while ago about the Blood passport where they interviewed officials from other sports like cross-country, biathlon, etc. and then a guy from WADA. The WADA guy especially emphasized that other sports would follow suit once cycling has proved that busts done based on the blood passport can be defended in court. He also predicted that the first positive (caught with the passport program) would be greatly challenged in court and said that the UCI must have solid facts that can be defended in court. He also added that the first court case would determine a lot about the future of the program.

Cycling seems like a logical test case for this, since one can be fairly certain that resources aren't wasted finding blood abnormalities in professional cyclists.

jimmypop said:

Cycling seems like a logical test case for this, since one can be fairly certain that resources aren't wasted finding blood abnormalities in professional cyclists.

You're probably right 🙂 And other sports aren't willing to throw money at the passport before they see if UCI can find enough proof from abnormal blood values to fight a doping positive in court. They probably didn't care even though the blood passport told them who was doping but only if they could nail someone because of it. Actually the sports themselves probably wouldn't care a [censored] about who's using PEDs (as long as they don't get busted) but I'd think that if the passport was found functional WADA would force other sports to adopt it.

RdBiker said:

You're probably right 🙂 And other sports aren't willing to throw money at the passport before they see if UCI can find enough proof from abnormal blood values to fight a doping positive in court. They probably didn't care even though the blood passport told them who was doping but only if they could nail someone because of it. Actually the sports themselves probably wouldn't care a [censored] about who's using PEDs (as long as they don't get busted) but I'd think that if the passport was found functional WADA would force other sports to adopt it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RdBiker said:

I'd guess they have to be very very certain that a rider has doped and they have to be able to prove it 100%. I saw a small newsflash a while ago about the Blood passport where they interviewed officials from other sports like cross-country, biathlon, etc. and then a guy from WADA. The WADA guy especially emphasized that other sports would follow suit once cycling has proved that busts done based on the blood passport can be defended in court. He also predicted that the first positive (caught with the passport program) would be greatly challenged in court and said that the UCI must have solid facts that can be defended in court. He also added that the first court case would determine a lot about the future of the program.

I'm confused by this. Assume blood parameter 'A' changes by X% between two tests. Assume further (for simplicity sake) that such a change over the given time interval is deemed 'unnatural'. That's it, isn't it? Shouldn't that be sufficient to ban a rider for a given time? What more is there to say? Why would you need to demonstrate otherwise whether the rider doped? If you need additional proof such as a positive doping test, then what's the point with the passport?

The passport makes sense if, and only if beforehand you have a list of thresholds (or percent changes within a given time or whatever) which are considered natural, and everything else would be considered unnatural (which would have as a consequence a ban from riding). In fact, something like that already exists: the 50% crit value. Riders will be banned from participation if their crit value is above that (although currently this is not enough for a doping conviction).

Cobblestones said:

I'm confused by this. Assume blood parameter 'A' changes by X% between two tests. Assume further (for simplicity sake) that such a change over the given time interval is deemed 'unnatural'. That's it, isn't it? Shouldn't that be sufficient to ban a rider for a given time? What more is there to say? Why would you need to demonstrate otherwise whether the rider doped? If you need additional proof such as a positive doping test, then what's the point with the passport?

The passport makes sense if, and only if beforehand you have a list of thresholds (or percent changes within a given time or whatever) which are considered natural, and everything else would be considered unnatural (which would have as a consequence a ban from riding). In fact, something like that already exists: the 50% crit value. Riders will be banned from participation if their crit value is above that (although currently this is not enough for a doping conviction).

Well I guess the problem with the blood passport is that most of the values are like your hematocrit. If you have over 50% it's likely that you have doped BUT there are people who naturally have over 50%. Same with variations in your blood profile. A huge jump would tell the testers that a person is using PEDs BUT if there's even a small possibility that some one could achieve such a hike naturally UCI or WADA can't use it to bust a rider. So there lies the problem. They have to make sure that a cyclist can't use the "I have a naturally high hematocrit" in court.

RdBiker said:

Well I guess the problem with the blood passport is that most of the values are like your hematocrit. If you have over 50% it's likely that you have doped BUT there are people who naturally have over 50%. Same with variations in your blood profile. A huge jump would tell the testers that a person is using PEDs BUT if there's even a small possibility that some one could achieve such a hike naturally UCI or WADA can't use it to bust a rider. So there lies the problem. They have to make sure that a cyclist can't use the "I have a naturally high hematocrit" in court.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/apr/21/drugs-cycling-giro-italia

And there you have it:

"The International Cycling Union (UCI) has clarified its comments regarding the blood passport programme, saying it has no confirmed doping cases under the new programme. The system is still being perfected by scientists and there’s currently no timeline for its active use in the prosecution of suspected doping cases.

UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani clarified remarks that appeared in the Guardian yesterday. "I never said that there were confirmed cases or that anything would be announced before the Giro d'Italia. Never," Carpani told Cyclingnews.

kennf said:

And there you have it:

"The International Cycling Union (UCI) has clarified its comments regarding the blood passport programme, saying it has no confirmed doping cases under the new programme. The system is still being perfected by scientists and there’s currently no timeline for its active use in the prosecution of suspected doping cases.

UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani clarified remarks that appeared in the Guardian yesterday. "I never said that there were confirmed cases or that anything would be announced before the Giro d'Italia. Never," Carpani told Cyclingnews.

What a surprise...the UCI isn't going to bust anyone after all...What/Who was the source of the Guardian article?

This latest news brings only one word to mind where the UCI and blood passport/busting dopers is concerned: farcical.

Total joke, total waste of time, total waste of money, totally inept, total waste of my own time paying what little attention I do to pro cycling, etc...and so on and so forth...

Don't forget why McQuaid refused to retest Giro samples of last year!

More unfair can exist!

poulidor said:

Don't forget why McQuaid refused to retest Giro samples of last year!

More unfair can exist!

....and of course McQuaid calls the AFLD unprofessional ! Go figure.

whiteboytrash said:

....and of course McQuaid calls the AFLD unprofessional ! Go figure.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

bump

Cobblestones said:

bump

ssssssssssss