CIRC report

The_Boy

But is there any evidence that that is a risk? I know Lance got stung, but he consented to his personal information being published and good, old traditional journalism did the rest. Which would suggest to me that the system is quite robust enough.

CCalculus

iainf72 wrote:

I guess it's around how much faith you have in it remaining anonymous.

Why is remaining anonymous important if you have nothing to hide?

No_Ta_Doctor

CCalculus wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I guess it's around how much faith you have in it remaining anonymous.

Why is remaining anonymous important if you have nothing to hide?

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

CCalculus

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

No_Ta_Doctor

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

Yes, but that's the point. If it's used in development of a new test then it's not a proper test, it has no sanction, but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

ddraver

...imagine of a false positive for AICAR was returned and it was linked to a lab in South Africa.

Forget the Clinic, do you think Froome would get a fair hearing anywhere?

Pokerface

ddraver wrote:

...imagine of a false positive for AICAR was returned and it was linked to a lab in South Africa.

Forget the Clinic, do you think Froome would get a fair hearing anywhere?

Of course. His samples aren't sent to South Africa for testing.

ddraver

Ok Peter Pedant, you know what I mean!

No_Ta_Doctor

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

Pokerface

ddraver wrote:

Ok Peter Pedant, you know what I mean!

No, I don't. You're trying to make a leap in logic that can't ever exist. Riders' samples are rarely tested in their own country - majority go to WADA-accredited labs in Europe AFAIK.


People seem to be saying... IF a test for drug XYZ is developed and IF a rider's urine somehow falsely tests positive and IF that rider's name is somehow leaked, it would destroy their good name.

That's a lot of stars that would have to align. The percentages are (IMO) non-existent.

Pokerface

No tA Doctor wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

In neither case were their samples anonymous though? Or certainly it wasn't because of samples they allowed to be used for further research purposes. You're making a connection that doesn't exist.

Plus they were both guilty and had something to hide - which goes back to the argument that if you don't have something to hide....

No_Ta_Doctor

Pokerface wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

In neither case were their samples anonymous though? Or certainly it wasn't because of samples they allowed to be used for further research purposes. You're making a connection that doesn't exist.

Plus they were both guilty and had something to hide - which goes back to the argument that if you don't have something to hide....

Well in Armstrong's case, the epo +ve samples were re-tests made to fine tune the test process, they were never made as part of doping control. So I think that qualifies them as research. They were anonymous to the lab (as all samples are), but were matched by a journalist with a leaked list of athlete numbers.

Hopefully procedures are a little tidier nowadays, but I can see how a clean rider might be at least concerned that the anonymising process wasn't up to scratch.

iainf72

As with all these kind of things, you don't know what you have to hide. Even if the risks are low, if you have an option to opt out I'd always suggest that is the sensible approach.

CCalculus

No tA Doctor wrote:

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

Armstrong's name wasn't leaked (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden):

The UCI had those documents, and an investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l'Equipe, went to the UCI and said, "Can I have copies of Lance Armstrong's doping control forms from the '99 Tour?" Now, the UCI had to go to Lance Armstrong and ask his permission, which he gave them.

I also don't see how Contador's case is relevant given that his positive test wasn't derived from an anonymous sample.

No_Ta_Doctor

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

Armstrong's name wasn't leaked (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden):

The UCI had those documents, and an investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l'Equipe, went to the UCI and said, "Can I have copies of Lance Armstrong's doping control forms from the '99 Tour?" Now, the UCI had to go to Lance Armstrong and ask his permission, which he gave them.

I also don't see how Contador's case is relevant given that his positive test wasn't derived from an anonymous sample.

Whether Armstrong's name "leaked" or was ferreted out by some cunning journalistic subterfuge isn't in any way relevant, the point is, a test that should have been entirely anonymous became public knowledge. I doubt any rider concerned with anonymity is going to be happy with that.

What's relevant about Contador's case is that a test under development, that has never been sanctioned as a doping control and doesn't look likely to be in the future, was used on his sample and presented as evidence at CAS. At the time it was thought it might be a valuable weapon in anti-doping, but it seems to have been quietly dropped, presumably because it doesn't really tell us much as they can't prove where plasticisers entered the bloodstream or what normal variation would be.

Pokerface

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would want to specifically use an athlete's urine for further drug testing as opposed to just random general public urine. Unless they want urine they've already tested and is presumed 'clean' already.

It's not like urine is hard to come by....

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

But as I mentioned above, Armstrong agreed to his data being released. And even that alone wasn't enough to ID his positive tests.

The_Boy

Pokerface wrote:

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would want to specifically use an athlete's urine for further drug testing as opposed to just random general public urine. Unless they want urine they've already tested and is presumed 'clean' already.

It's not like urine is hard to come by....

I don't know for certain, but wasn't the testing which saw the Armstrong positives from '99 an exercise in investigating the 'how' and 'when' and 'why' rather than the 'who' in order to better understand what was going on and try and better target the testing regime?

No_Ta_Doctor

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

But as I mentioned above, Armstrong agreed to his data being released. And even that alone wasn't enough to ID his positive tests.

Armstrong was tricked into releasing his identifying numbers. He didn't willingly release the 2005 re-test results. And that WAS enough to ID his positive tests, by cross referencing with the lab study.

No_Ta_Doctor

Pokerface wrote:

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would want to specifically use an athlete's urine for further drug testing as opposed to just random general public urine. Unless they want urine they've already tested and is presumed 'clean' already.

It's not like urine is hard to come by....

Well if you wanted to do a statistical incidence study within the peloton it could be useful, or if you had access to anonymised cross reference with other tests that had already been performed on it - clean or not. You might also have access to anonymised bio-passport blood data you could match it with.

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

CCalculus wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Because in the event that a new test was in development, with unverified methodology, on an ageing sample with no B sample, no verified custody process, no appeal process (it's the court of public opinion), a false positive could destroy your career.

It wouldn't be a positive test if there was no B sample. Even if there was a B sample, it's extremely unlikely that a clean rider would be the victim of a false positive. Anti-doping tests are designed so as to avoid false positives.

but it's not anonymous and your name could leak.

But is there any evidence that this is a risk? Seems to me that the controls in place are pretty strong.

Well Armstrong's name leaked when his samples had EPO positives. And evidence of plasticisers in Contador's blood samples was used in argument at CAS, despite it not being an approved anti-doping method. So yes, I'd say riders can view this as a risk.

But as I mentioned above, Armstrong agreed to his data being released. And even that alone wasn't enough to ID his positive tests.

Armstrong was tricked into releasing his identifying numbers. He didn't willingly release the 2005 re-test results. And that WAS enough to ID his positive tests, by cross referencing with the lab study.

Whether he was tricked or not (and I'm not convinced that's a fair assessment tbh), he agreed to the identifying data being released - and that is really, really important here. The tests were anonymous, the UCI didn't leak anything to anyone. In fact, nothing was leaked in any meaningful sense of the word.

So what real* risk do innocent athletes face?

*And I'm genuinely not wanting this to become another Lance thread. When I say 'real risk' I mean evidence that the UCI are to be less trusted with sensitive medical data than any other org which hold same - for example the NHS.

CCalculus

No tA Doctor wrote:

Whether Armstrong's name "leaked" or was ferreted out by some cunning journalistic subterfuge isn't in any way relevant, the point is, a test that should have been entirely anonymous became public knowledge. I doubt any rider concerned with anonymity is going to be happy with that.

What's relevant about Contador's case is that a test under development, that has never been sanctioned as a doping control and doesn't look likely to be in the future, was used on his sample and presented as evidence at CAS. At the time it was thought it might be a valuable weapon in anti-doping, but it seems to have been quietly dropped, presumably because it doesn't really tell us much as they can't prove where plasticisers entered the bloodstream or what normal variation would be.

To be clear, the hypothetical situation I originally alluded to was that of a clean rider who has voluntarily consented to his urine sample being used for anti-doping research purposes so long as their identity remains anonymous.

The Armstrong example isn't comparable because he gave the UCI permission to disclose his anti-doping forms to Ressiot. He wasn't concerned about remaining anonymous. Whether or not Armstrong's name was leaked is relevant given that you originally brought it up as a hypothetical possibility.

The Contador example isn't comparable because:
(a) Contador's sample wasn't meant to be anonymous
(b) the positive test wasn't derived from a sample that was supposed to be used for research purposes
(c) Contador had a chance to challenge the validity of the plasticiser test in court.

No_Ta_Doctor

Sorry, but are you both being deliberately obtuse here?

Lance had his anonymity compromised, I'm fairly sure he didn't release data thinking it would identify the positive epo tests. I'm pleased he did, but it points to a weakness in whatever anonymizing process the UCI were using at that time. They could easily have relabelled the vials, for instance.

The point regarding Contador is that the results of the tests performed on his samples were supposedly indicative of using blood bags, but that the test is not ratified, so presumably doesn't show this with any reliability.

All I need to show is that a rider might have reasonable cause to doubt his anonymity would be preserved and that a rider might have reasonable cause to think that results from tests that are under development are of dubious indicative value - at that point even a rider with nothing to hide might be worried about what might happen with his urine in the future, should he sign rights to it away. That's all.

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

All I need to show is that a rider might have reasonable cause to doubt his anonymity would be preserved

Which you have singularly failed to do.

It doesn't really matter though. Riders have the choice.

joelsim

Have been on The Clinic this evening. Wow.

Macaloon

Joelsim wrote:

Have been on The Clinic this evening. Wow.

*Blood bag, aisle 5. Urgent.*

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Have been on The Clinic this evening. Wow.

*Blood bag, aisle 5. Urgent.*

Let's burn the witch!

Jesus f***ing Christ, what are they on.

mm1

Its sort of fun to watch what goes on on there though isn't it?

joelsim

mm1 wrote:

Its sort of fun to watch what goes on on there though isn't it?

It would probably be better off behind a yellow tape.