Retrospective Testing - In Retrospect, Not All It's Cracked Up To Be
by fmk on Mar 15, 2010 10:22 AM EDT
34 comments
So, farewell then, Anne Gripper. You chased the Men in Black. You acted as mid-wife to the Biological Passport. And now you've left the UCI 'for personal reasons.' We must in future pin our hopes on your replacement, Francesca Rossi.
Introduced to us with an interview in CN, I was struck by some comments Rossi made about retrospective testing.
For the last few years the UCI and the IOC have been boasting about the power of retro-testing to catch old cheats in the future when new tests are developed. The AFLD's success in going back again and again and again to the 2008 Tour samples in order to get the result they wanted - and the way the IOC similarily subjected Beijing samples to retrospective analysis months after the last athletes had left China - were held up as shining beacons of the future. You can cheat, we were told, but you can't hide. The truth will out when we retest your stored samples. Even Pat McQuaid came out as a fan of retro-testing. Though curiously he manged to do this even as he refused to call for the re-testing the 2008 Giro samples.
But - it would seem - re-testing is not all it's cracked up to be. According to Rossi:
Retrospective analyses in general are really tricky. You cannot apply this for every sample in every time. So it is really a complicated matter for me, in general.
Heavens to Betsy! The Vrijman report wasn't a total work of fiction after all.
I am not speaking about it being precise or not precise.
I am speaking about the fact that you cannot apply the same analysis on all samples that you have, because it depends if the labs have kept the samples or not.
Going by the rules, they should keep the samples for three months.
By chance, if they have the samples longer, you can make a retrospective analysis.
So it is really a different view in this sense.
Ideally, you'd ask the lab to keep the sample for years, but they don't have the space. They can do it only for some competitions, not for others.
The way retrpospective testing has been hyped over the last few years, you might be forgiven for believing that the UCI had a gigantic underground facility somewere near Aigle which was filled floor to ceiling with beakers of urine and phials of blood dating back years and years. The sort of room you might expect a vampiric Howard Hughes to have lived out his last days in, perhaps.
Reality though would seem to be somewhat different. Dispersed storage facilities with samples dating back mere months. So much for a future in which each new test would see heroes of the recent past have their achievements called into question.
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
logistics...
…always getting in the way of theory.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I hope to see an interview with Ms Gripper in a few months time
Aussies generally seem to be a straight-talking bunch and I suspect there are things she couldn’t say while at the UCI. It would be interesting to see what she might say outside of those constraints.
Of course could be completely wrong
And this...
…just makes my general point about many of the scattered retro-busts happening, namely that there is nothing resembling an equitable system here, or one that has a snowball’s chance of being equitable, so we’re left with scattered enforcement and draconian penalties in order to try to scare people.
And 21 year old kids from poor families in Eastern Europe attempting suicide after their second offense. Lovely.
genevieve jeansson redux, perhaps, or a certain tyler hamilton?
Not everyone acquiesces in the decision to become a doper with quite the relish shown by a ricco or a diluca . . .
Doping cases should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis AND if it turns out that parents or coaches or managers or whatever outside force was involved . . . they should ALSO face sanctions.
As it stands now, there has been very little disincentive projected towards the ‘prepartore.’ Once athlete ‘A’ gets busted . . . they move on to the next athlete.
The ‘system’ reminds me a bit of the "booster system’ that still exists in the big American college sports (Football and Men’s basketball, primarily): wealthy old guys get a kick out of “buying” or “setting up” athletes. Strangely, almost no one has written about THAT system better than Sally Jenkins’s father.
wholly agreed...
…and the parallels with the booster system are exactly right. Often it’s poor kids, or just kids, who are being quite cynically exploited by adults with agendas that have nothing to do with these kids’ well being.
I have rehash my old point again
All law enforcement is random to some extent. Only very few criminals get sentenced for the crimes they committed because cops and courts focus their energies on the cases where they get decent leads and have a chance to prove guilt. I don’t hear anyone claiming they should get more lenient penalties because so many others get away with their crimes? Same goes for these sanctions for me.
The suicide attempt is surely a tragedy but please don’t make it out that it is a result of the authorities enforcing the rules. If anything it is a result of an individual chosing to break those rules twice. As for the mechanism behind that “decision” i fully agree with you and R Mc.
The mechanism behind the decision is a huge part of the problem...
…if this were, in many cases, simply a matter of spoiled rich athletes behaving badly, I’d have a lot less concern. In an awful lot of cases, it’s not, as we all know.
But your point also leads once again to the question of whether a ‘law enforcement’ model is really the one to pursue here. I’m still mightily attracted to tedvdw’s alternative, or some version of it.
Then let's forget the specific analogy
all systems of sanctions of undesired behavior ever in the history of the universe are random unless we have some sort of all-encompassing information system that tells us who is good and who is bad. So how do we come to the conclusion that it is those who are sanctioned that have been wronged?
This “draconian” system has already had this guy caught once and apparently wasn’t more draconian than it offered him a second chance to compete in a fair manner at the tender age of 19. No system is responsible for driving this boy to suicide attempt.
And since we are talking of “poor kids”, imagine if the poor polish kid looking for a way up in the world plays the part of Meeusen in this race. Big favorite who blows himself out of the medals in a vain attempt to follow two doped up guys riding off the front like furies? When his big chance in life is in ruins are we still cursing the system for going after the cheaters, albeit in an imperfect way?
My point is and has been that the increasing juridicalization of this...
…worries me. I’m not suggesting that cheating / doping should just be tolerated, but the focus of a juridical procedure on individual athletes when we all know damn well that it’s very often a systemic problem concerns me.
And, like ted is in what you quote below, I’m less convinced than you that the ‘life is in ruins’ thing has any meaningful deterrent effect. Most of the cases where it gets that far are pretty extreme, but as we’re finding out, the ‘examples’ aren’t stopping younger riders from trying. Worse, that’s happening most often in poorer places where this is a ‘way out’ of a shitty economic situation (which cycling also has been traditionally in Europe) and often with the involvement, or likely involvement, of ‘managers’ and coaches, who stand to gain quite a bit from getting juiced up athletes to post results, especially if they can more or less walk away when the kids get popped.
Broadly, I think that this isn’t being disincentivized in a way that really touches anything but the highest and most visible levels of the sport. On other levels, the game is more or less exactly as it has been, and I’m not sure that juridical solutions have any real chance of touching that. Clearly the governing bodies don’t have anything like the resources to deal juridically at these levels, and are you really suggesting that criminalizing what’s happening at these lower levels is a good solution? Really?
Just to be clear
I’m in no way advocating criminalization and never have. I have merely been using a rules enforcement/law enforcement analogy to point to what I consider absurdities in the reasoning around doping cases.
I'm not sure I buy the analogy.
Rules enforcement isn’t always law enforcement, nor should it be, especially not if ‘law enforcement’ includes a whole juridical process (which it typically has to when you start imposing long term bans).
If you are to have any rules
there must be some kind of enforcement. It would be naive to think that this would not include a juridical process in a professional sport where large sums of money is involved wouldn’t it?
I'm not denying you need enforcement...
…and if you make the rules with only the top level in mind, they’ll only be applicable there; as is the case currently. Back to ‘sporting foul’ in ted’s phrase.
As a rule, in general society, severity of the punishment isn’t nearly as effective a detractor as chance of getting caught. Theft still exists in sharia law countries, in US states with the death penalty the murder rate is just as high as in others. However, increasing the chance of getting caught implies much more and more effective anti-doping controls. That costs a LOT of money. Cycling doesn’t, not even the IOC does, have that kind of money.
Peer pressure is definitely the way to go, in my opinion. No more cost than today, much more effective deterrent. For example, in stage races give the whole team a time penalty if one rider gets caught. In one-day races, relegate the whole team. Prevent any team manager from ever working in the business after 3 of his riders have been caught.
there is nothing resembling an equitable system here, or one that has a snowball’s chance of being equitable
And what, in your view, would ‘an equitable system’ look like?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
One where you had a good chance of being caught if you cheated...
…and penalized in a predictable and timely fashion, rather than a couple or more years after the fact.
Going forward that’s possible, and should be done. Everyone, I think, recognizes that retrospectively, it’s not.
But you accept that there are certain doping methods that current testing can’t find, no? So are you saying it’s ok to use those methods seeing as they can’t currently be detected reliably?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Thomas Dekker must be really happy
that Santa’s elves kept his urine sample for 1½ year…
Gerrie Kneteman: If a football player falls he shouts for his mother, if a cyclist falls he yells for his bike.
The passport can also suggest whose samples you might want to hang onto ...
So that when a test for a new doping agent is developed, you know who might have been using it. If you have evidence that someone is likely to be cheating, but aren’t sure how that person is doing it, save the urine!
by GreylockGrinder on Mar 15, 2010 5:29 PM EDT reply actions
hopefully
the various entities responsible for the samples will develop some protocols and standard practices. At least in the bigger cycling nations where 80% of the pros are coming from, this shouldn’t be impossible.
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
Francesca lead the implamentation of ISO certification at the IAAF.
I think that woudl be ‘ISO 15189:2007’
I find it troubling that the lab wasn’t already certified, but I am happy the UCI picked someone with this background instead of a lawyer.
Anne created a lot of potential, and Francesca might be able to use that potential if she can get protocols and standard practices the same throughout the system.
hopefully the various entities responsible for the samples will develop some protocols and standard practices.
True. But given the way retro-tetsing has been sold to us in recent years, wouldn’t you have assumed that such protocols are already in place?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
No
In fact, that is precisely what I’ve been complaining about for a long time here.
It is totally impossible to have any stable control without standard protocols.
I personally feel Retro-Testing is more about marketing then anything else.
That it has – sadly – been more about the sizzle than the sausage is basically what I’m trying to say here. We’ve been sold a pup.
I suspect that this is one of those rare instances when we’re coming at something from differing agendas but both getting the same answer :)
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
I really dont like your dismissal of what Anne Gripper has achieved
I prefer JV’s tweet than your opening paragraph
Anne Gripper leaving the UCI makes me sad. She’s a great thinker, person, and has incorruptable ethical boundries. I will miss her.
7:40 AM Feb 26th
AG’s partner died, her “personal reasons” are exactly that and shouldn’t be scoffed at. She was “midwife” to a paradigm shifting anti drug use system that all other sports are already or are going to copy and one that is gradually being seen to work.
AG is being replaced by someone from one of the only other (and also deeply troubled) federations that takes anti doping seriously.
The CN article you link to is full of many paragraphs of positive information that are worthy of being block quoted and that are probably accurate. It cites the UCi as being ahead of the game. The fact that Rossi can talk about the problems and flaws in the current system before she takes up her post suggests to me a woman in complete control of her brief from the outset. I like to think AG approves of her successor and that is good enough for me.
Roosistates a reason to move to a UCI job is based on joining a sport that’s inherent advantges means it is ahead of the game on anti doping.
On your specific point on the problems of retrospective testing – the main point I saw her making was that if done properly then it is scientifically OK – it is not the science that is the problem but the space for the storage of the samples. Surely that is a much better problem to have than questionable science and muc easily solved?
Oh andrewwp. You seem to think I should have written something praising Gripper. If you really cared as much as you feign then why didn’t you post something youself? As it is, Gripper was not the subject of my post. Her passing was merely an introduction to her replacement and some comments she made on a subject that interests me.
That the IAAF is “one of the only other (and also deeply troubled) federations that takes anti doping seriously” is something others may dispute. The IAAF has, like cycling, traditionally liked to blow its own trumept about how it has ‘lead’ the fight against doping since the early years of the c20th, but – like the UCI – rarely walks the walk as well as it talks the talk. There are many critics – even from within – of the IAAF’s ‘leadership’ on this subject.
That the article linked to “is full of many paragraphs of positive information that are worthy of being block quoted” is neither here nor there as they weren’t of relevance to the issue of retro-testing (which, if you follow the clue in the title, is what I was interested in writing about). If you think they are so worthy of quoting, then post a piece about them yourself and quit criticising others for not doing what you couldn’t be bothered to do yourself.
On my specific point, allow me to repeat myself as you seem to have missed it. We have been told for several years now that retro-testing is going to save us and yet here we find someone who, when asked if retro-testing for HGH – a drug that is thought to have been pretty commonly used within the pro peloton – will now take place points out that retro-testing isn’t actually an option. We’re told that there is a scientific problem with storing blood and a logictics problem with storing urine. Which made me wonder if the claims that have been made for retro-testing sahouldn’t themselves be sunbject to some hindsight-aided re-analysis.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
We have NEVER been told Retro-testing will "save" us
A very bad straw man. It might catch some dopers later that is all. So it it might increase deterrence. But you are really twisting things out of context here. If it would save us then certainly we wouldn’t need things like the bio-passport. The topic is actually not that important though as money and existing samples are few as you said.
I think the only reason some of the speeches quoted were made were to give people thinking about taking the next CERA some pause for thought.
+1
I think that is what most of the tough talk about retro testing, eight year statute of limitations and “we will get you in the end” is about.
Markk – apps for the delay, is what happens when Paddy’s Day falls mid-week.
I must applaud you on your use of the Broken Kettle defence. Retro-testing’s not been oversold and that over-selling is to the cyclists – the potential or actual dopers among them atleast – and not the fans or anyone else?
Have we never been told that retro-testing will ‘save’ us? Certainly I’ll accept the charge of over-egging the pudding just a little with that wording. But I do contend that it has been over-hyped and sold as a major tool in the anti-doping armoury – on a par even with the passport (which is after all very limited in the type of doping it is capable of indicating) – when in fact it’s nothing of the sort.
Has the the over-selling of retro-testing only been targeted at people thinking of taking the next CERA? I personally find that one hard to believe. They’re usually so well informed – certainly if the testimony of a cheat like Schumacher is to be believed – and I can’t see how anyone would think that pulling the wool over their eyes would be so easy. They seem to know more about what is going on within labs than most of the lab technicians.
But if what you claim were true – why has Rossi now come out and fessed up it was all a big lie? Why tell those you’re trying to dupe that you’ve just been duping them? Especially when you’re the one with responsibility for catching these people.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
¡Viva la Vuelta!
Celebrate La Vuelta a España at Podium Cafe.
Stop by each day for Vuelta updates, live race chat, post-race happy hour, and more.
Visit our Vuelta section for all the latest stories.
Mountains. Many much mountains!
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
