UCI Bio-Passport: Playing the Numbers Game

by Jen See on Jan 25, 2009 5:55 PM EST in News

The German television station ARD ran a story on Sunday covering the UCI passport. They interviewed Robin Parisotto, who is among the experts working on the UCI program. Parisotto worked with the Australian Institute of Sport and developed a test for EPO back in 2000. The anti-doping expert told ARD that the UCI has collected over a thousand samples from riders since they began the program in January 2008, and that the samples of more than 30 riders suggest the use of doping. "The UCI has collected and analyzed over a thousand blood tests from riders for the biological passport program as of today. Of those tests, more than 30 are suspect. And for some, there is now going to be a sanction," said Parisotto.

When might those sanctions occur? The UCI's apparent delay in announcing the results of the passport program has raised questions and doubts about the program. Back in November, the UCI announced that the results would be available in early December. It's now January, and still no results. What accounts for the delay? Parisotto explained: "I can not give a deadline, when there will be results and which riders have possibly shown suspicious results. This is a very complex business, and before we go to the public, all the right conclusions must be reached for a possible doping investigation."

The German press can never pass up a doping story. At the same time, Robin Parisotto has now gone on record to confirm that the blood passport program has turned up some anomalous results. Will the UCI open proceedings in any of the cases? Do grounds for sanctions exist in the results currently held at the UCI? Impossible to say just yet. As Parisotto said, it's a complex business.

— Source, radsport-news.com.

Read the UCI's Response.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I hope they get this figured out before the VDS deadline.

by brunopitton on Jan 25, 2009 11:27 PM EST reply actions

I'm so tired

of the never-ending rumor and speculation. Am I the only one that wishes the UCI (and/or any of the agencies/people involved) would shut up until they put up?

Remember the speculation around the Tour retests? There were “definitely” two positives from Columbia, five from CSC. Cancellara. Sastre. O’Grady. There would be a total of 14 riders. And so on, and so on, and so on… Are we (and they) going to have to go through all that again?

Google is my domestique.

by majope on Jan 25, 2009 11:39 PM EST reply actions

right there with ya

on the put up or shut up.

by Jen See on Jan 25, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

The reason they’re doing it is because people are questioning whether the Passportprogram is active so they blurt out stuff like this. They should just have said that “When there is an airtight case we will announce it – Until then, let us do our work.”

Instead we are tossed into the rumor-mill.

by Jens on Jan 26, 2009 2:16 AM EST up reply actions

Even if the UCI acts

many are going to wonder if they are telling the whole story. Giving certain riders preferential treatment is something the UCI’s critics have long suspected.

by mysterion on Jan 26, 2009 7:26 AM EST reply actions

UCI

I applaud a cautious approach that insures fairness over speed. I don’t applaud an approach that drags on forever because their lawyers are involved or they don’t have the stones to take on the riders’ lawyers. Which one is the case, who knows? I’ll allow that this is Bio Passport 1.0, so there may be kinks to work out.

CQRanking.com, you complete me.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 26, 2009 10:25 AM EST reply actions

One suspicion might be

that they are waiting for a case of a rider with suspicios bloodvalue-patterns who tests positive. Then they will be able to say “We could detect this in the values and here is the confirmation. You see, the system works”

But most likely you are right, there is a good chance they are trying to work up the stones to actually try a case. Problem is :their credibility is so low to begin with, they can’t really afford to shoot and miss on the first try.

by Jens on Jan 26, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions

heck I'm even more suspicious or cynical

that the passport showcases a few too many riders on big teams for the UCI’s taste and they are trying to sweep it under the rug.

by lyne on Jan 26, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

ja, worry about that also

by Jen See on Jan 26, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

me too

the UCI’s history of corruption and intentional ignorance when it comes to doping does not inspire confidence. I’d feel somewhat better if WADA were still involved in the passport.

by Susie Hartigan on Jan 26, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

harumph

Well, maybe if they exuded any confidence, we’d all have some confidence in them. Not looking too likely…

CQRanking.com, you complete me.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 26, 2009 2:03 PM EST reply actions

UCI denies report

Acording to CW the UCI has denied the rumour mongering of Parisotto.

First of all rather than the 1,000 sample quoted by Parisotto

approximately 8,300 blood samples were collected to compile the biological passports of 804 riders

And the full story regarding the suspicious profiles is as follows:

A first selection resulted in a number of profiles that that could be qualified as ‘abnormal’ and which required further attention from the experts. A thorough examination by the experts of these profiles resulted in a number being considered as not suspect, based on indications that the abnormal profile may have arisen due to reasons other than doping. There were other profiles which justified immediate target testing with normal doping controls and/or the collection of further blood samples for completing the profile in order to exclude any uncertainties. A small number of profiles is now under further scrutiny following high scientific and legal standards.

So it sounds like that 30 riders figure refers to the original group of suspicious profiles, some of which are now perfectly legit.

Remember, the UCI can’t operate the same as the teams internal testing programs. The teams can simply ‘ask’ riders not to punch the clock Monday morning (Gusev and G(H)onchar come to mind). But the UCI, for good reason, need to have a much higher standard of evidence so that this program does not get unnecessarily dragged through the mud on it’s official first case. I think Jens’ comment above nails it. They need the first case to come out of here to be a home run.

VeloNews has the press release

by Hons on Jan 26, 2009 6:21 PM EST reply actions