"French TV shows how micro-dosing can beat ABP"

The_Boy

Only seen the CyclingNews report so far, and not sure if the producers will be publishing their actual data, though i doubt it.

Disclaimer: Not posting this up for anything other than information purposes, as it is an actual study (of sorts) on doping methods 'in the wild' as it were.

edit: A link might be hand, mightn't it?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french- ... l-passport

iainf72

It's interesting stuff. I think you'd need a longer test to actually test if the ABP works properly.

So if you get done for passport there can be absolutely no doubt you're as guilty as sin.

RichN95.

While I'm sure that you can take dope and not get flagged up by the passport, I would have question about the findings with regard to actually performance gains.

1. Where are the control subjects?
There have to be subjects who were given a placebo - with subjects not knowing what they actually took, Other factors could contribute to the performance gains - placebo effect, familiarity with the test, training between tests, form on the day of the tests etc
The lack of controls effectively invalidates the entire study.

2. Is eight people a sufficiently large testing pool? I think no.

3. Where they submitted to standard drug tests as well?

4. Why measure VO2? It's a lousy measure of actual performance.

joelsim

iainf72 wrote:

It's interesting stuff. I think you'd need a longer test to actually test if the ABP works properly.

So if you get done for passport there can be absolutely no doubt you're as guilty as sin.

That's the thing Iain. Random testing has a miniscule chance of catching anyone who's not a fool. The passport has a miniscule chance of catching anyone relatively sensible. Certainly with the more effective doping products for cycling anyway. Add in some knowledgeable, highly-paid, expert doctors whose whole raison d'etre is to advise on how to beat the system...

When that is the case there will always be plenty of cheats. This is exactly why I think cycling is a long, long way from being clean. And that's without any new products appearing.

disgruntledgoat

Joelsim wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

It's interesting stuff. I think you'd need a longer test to actually test if the ABP works properly.

So if you get done for passport there can be absolutely no doubt you're as guilty as sin.

That's the thing Iain. Random testing has a miniscule chance of catching anyone who's not a fool. The passport has a miniscule chance of catching anyone relatively sensible. Certainly with the more effective doping products for cycling anyway. Add in some knowledgeable, highly-paid, expert doctors whose whole raison d'etre is to advise on how to beat the system...

When that is the case there will always be plenty of cheats. This is exactly why I think cycling is a long, long way from being clean. And that's without any new products appearing.

But you don't set any store in increasing the ease with which you can get caught, thus lowering the advantage that can be gained before you cop your 2 year ban?

joelsim

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

It's interesting stuff. I think you'd need a longer test to actually test if the ABP works properly.

So if you get done for passport there can be absolutely no doubt you're as guilty as sin.

That's the thing Iain. Random testing has a miniscule chance of catching anyone who's not a fool. The passport has a miniscule chance of catching anyone relatively sensible. Certainly with the more effective doping products for cycling anyway. Add in some knowledgeable, highly-paid, expert doctors whose whole raison d'etre is to advise on how to beat the system...

When that is the case there will always be plenty of cheats. This is exactly why I think cycling is a long, long way from being clean. And that's without any new products appearing.

But you don't set any store in increasing the ease with which you can get caught, thus lowering the advantage that can be gained before you cop your 2 year ban?

OK let's say Ferrari says to you. I can increase your performance by 3% and you have less than 1% chance of being caught (in reality I suspect the chance of being caught is much less than 1% if you follow tried and trusted methods). You may analyse that and think ok, what will that do. That will get me 3 additional wins per season, or that may make the difference between finishing 20th and 10th in a GC or whatever. Knowing that there are others already taking advantage of this. Or more to the point in a buyer's market, this may be the difference between me being employed or not next year. It's a no-brainer.

joelsim

We already know that micro-dosing EPO overnight isn't detectable up to a certain threshold. If this doesn't affect the passport, which is what has been suspected too, then it doesn't take a genius to work out that the chances of being busted are almost nil.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

OK let's say Ferrari says to you. I can increase your performance by 3% and you have less than 1% chance of being caught (in reality I suspect the chance of being caught is much less than 1% if you follow tried and trusted methods). You may analyse that and think ok, what will that do. That will get me 3 additional wins per season, or that may make the difference between finishing 20th and 10th in a GC or whatever. Knowing that there are others already taking advantage of this. Or more to the point in a buyer's market, this may be the difference between me being employed or not next year. It's a no-brainer.

OK. Say the rider takes him up on his offer and the improvement doesn't actually happened, the wins don't come? Then what? Just because someone says that it will give a 3% it doesn't mean that it will.

Just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is worthwhile doing it. A rider who's job is on the line is not going to make himself more employable with an unmeasured 3% gain. He'a a domestique and will be employed for his attitude as much as anything.

Do you think the passport should be abolished because it is not perfect? Should be disband the police because they don't solve all crimes?

This TV report is of most use to doping doctors who can use it as 'evidence' of big performance gains without the inconvenience of adhering to rigorous scientific standards (the sort of thing the homeopathic medicine industry does).

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

OK let's say Ferrari says to you. I can increase your performance by 3% and you have less than 1% chance of being caught (in reality I suspect the chance of being caught is much less than 1% if you follow tried and trusted methods). You may analyse that and think ok, what will that do. That will get me 3 additional wins per season, or that may make the difference between finishing 20th and 10th in a GC or whatever. Knowing that there are others already taking advantage of this. Or more to the point in a buyer's market, this may be the difference between me being employed or not next year. It's a no-brainer.

OK. Say the rider takes him up on his offer and the improvement doesn't actually happened, the wins don't come? Then what? Just because someone says that it will give a 3% it doesn't mean that it will.

Just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is worthwhile doing it. A rider who's job is on the line is not going to make himself more employable with an unmeasured 3% gain. He'a a domestique and will be employed for his attitude as much as anything.

Do you think the passport should be abolished because it is not perfect? Should be disband the police because they don't solve all crimes?

This TV report is of most use to doping doctors who can use it as 'evidence' of big performance gains without the inconvenience of adhering to rigorous scientific standards (the sort of thing the homeopathic medicine industry does).

Not saying it should be abolished at all. Simply that cycling is far from being clean under the current testing science. I have no idea how to make it better. I bet there will be plenty of riders looking at the likes of Zakarin and Kristoff and pondering.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

Not saying it should be abolished at all. Simply that cycling is far from being clean under the current testing science. I have no idea how to make it better. I bet there will be plenty of riders looking at the likes of Zakarin and Kristoff and pondering.

But it's another weapon in the armoury. With every new step, it becomes harder and more people decide it's not worth it. Cyclists aren't compelled to cheat. And they won't seek out every advantage regardless. Give them an opportunity to succeed clean and most will go down that avenue.

Things are made better by every advancing improvements, not by a single magic bullet.

And who's looking at Kristoff? He's doing what people tipped him to do a few years ago.

RichN95.

Also with regard to scientific studies (proper ones, not shoddy ones for TV), it is important not to take one in isolation as proof of anything. Repetition and consensus are important.

Here's a graph done by the American Journal of Nutrition showing the claims of various academic studies into the impact of various food stuffs on cancer rates;

kfinlay

the Inner Ring ‏@inrng · 3h3 hours ago
28 day TV trial can fool bio-passport http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french- ... l-passport … passport more about long term data, not one-off changes: good TV, bad science?

frenchfighter

You can watch it here:
http://api.dmcloud.net/player/pubpage/4 ... autoplay=1

In French though with no subtitles.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

Also with regard to scientific studies (proper ones, not shoddy ones for TV), it is important not to take one in isolation as proof of anything. Repetition and consensus are important.

Here's a graph done by the American Journal of Nutrition showing the claims of various academic studies into the impact of various food stuffs on cancer rates;

A similar graph could be plotted by analysing the front page of the Daily Mail over the course of a year...

iainf72

kfinlay wrote:

the Inner Ring ‏@inrng · 3h3 hours ago
28 day TV trial can fool bio-passport http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french- ... l-passport … passport more about long term data, not one-off changes: good TV, bad science?

This was my exact though. They seemed to treat the ABP like a conventional drug test rather than something that improves over time with more data

joelsim

iainf72 wrote:

kfinlay wrote:

the Inner Ring ‏@inrng · 3h3 hours ago
28 day TV trial can fool bio-passport http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french- ... l-passport … passport more about long term data, not one-off changes: good TV, bad science?

This was my exact though. They seemed to treat the ABP like a conventional drug test rather than something that improves over time with more data

This goes back to the theory that a rider's passport readings need to be consistent across the years. So those who were still doping in 2008/9/10 etc need to continue. As we know there are many who are still getting away with it. There's another report due out in a couple of weeks I gather on the passport, let's see what that says. It's also been reported that rider values in general are flatter than they were in 2008/9 etc, does that suggest tinkering and topping up?

iainf72

Joelsim wrote:

This goes back to the theory that a rider's passport readings need to be consistent across the years. So those who were still doping in 2008/9/10 etc need to continue. As we know there are many who are still getting away with it. There's another report due out in a couple of weeks I gather on the passport, let's see what that says.

It doesn't have to be consistent though, it needs to be biologically normal. So your HCT could go up, that's normal. But if it goes up and you've got less young red blood cells, that's a problem. Take blood out and you'll have too many young blood cells etc etc.

It's a tool, not a silver bullet. RichN95 has already done his Ben Goldacre'esque questioning of the technique used by the TV programme. I believe a more scientifically rigorous paper saw different results.

joelsim

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

This goes back to the theory that a rider's passport readings need to be consistent across the years. So those who were still doping in 2008/9/10 etc need to continue. As we know there are many who are still getting away with it. There's another report due out in a couple of weeks I gather on the passport, let's see what that says.

It doesn't have to be consistent though, it needs to be biologically normal. So your HCT could go up, that's normal. But if it goes up and you've got less young red blood cells, that's a problem. Take blood out and you'll have too many young blood cells etc etc.

It's a tool, not a silver bullet. RichN95 has already done his Ben Goldacre'esque questioning of the technique used by the TV programme. I believe a more scientifically rigorous paper saw different results.

I agree with you Iain, but what is stopping some older blood cells being added. Surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility that everything is mapped out beforehand, with topping up as a back-up. Do we not think that Ferrari and others of his ilk don't know the science like the back of their hands and put the rider on a tried & tested plan that accounts for the abnormalities?

If Ferrari didn't know this he wouldn't have a business or an income.

iainf72

Of course there are protocols you can use Joel, you're right.

Broadly it's a blood transfusion (small), bit of EPO, bit of plasma and that should allow you to walk the tightrope. But it's higher risk, lots of moving parts, and you need to understand how your body would / should react to training and racing.

For sure there are some doing it, but we're at a stage where you can get those gains through other means. Nobody has no life in their teenage years cycling, wanting to be a pro, and hoping they get to shoot up with some Chinese EPO to keep a crappy contract.

CCalculus

iainf72 wrote:

It's a tool, not a silver bullet. RichN95 has already done his Ben Goldacre'esque questioning of the technique used by the TV programme. I believe a more scientifically rigorous paper saw different results.

Which paper was that? The following one is consistent with the study being discussed:

Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951)

sloppyschleckonds

You've got to be an idiot to get caught taking EPO, I see why JTL is so bitter about it.

above_the_cows

I'm not saying that that ABP is foolproof, nothing is... But it is important to consider that not only is the ABP designed to build up an individual profile over time with 'normal' parameters set that correspond to the individual athlete, but as the ABP data is kept in the ADAMS system it is supposed to be cross-correlated with whereabouts data, so that biological blood data that pertains to the individual can be understood in accordance also with what that individual was doing e.g. a three week GT and where e.g. at altitude.

If you're a geographer it is really a wonderful example of topological and topographical data being used in conjunction.

mechanism

Yup, chuck some "altitude training" into your doping program to cover any odd fluctuations.

ddraver

Mechanism wrote:

Yup, chuck some "altitude training" into your doping program to cover any odd fluctuations.

Except no

disgruntledgoat

ddraver wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

Yup, chuck some "altitude training" into your doping program to cover any odd fluctuations.

Except no

Exaclty, if altitude training produced exactly the same physiological results as a big bucket of drugs then why would people spend all the money on drugs?

RideOnTime

disgruntledgoat wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

Yup, chuck some "altitude training" into your doping program to cover any odd fluctuations.

Except no

Exaclty, if altitude training produced exactly the same physiological results as a big bucket of drugs then why would people spend all the money on drugs?

Big buckets are more than they used to be as well.

ddraver

immigrants I tell you, coming over here, standing on the sides of our roads, taking our altitude...

TheBigBean

disgruntledgoat wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

Yup, chuck some "altitude training" into your doping program to cover any odd fluctuations.

Except no

Exaclty, if altitude training produced exactly the same physiological results as a big bucket of drugs then why would people spend all the money on drugs?

Armstrong spent lots of time sleeping in altitude tents whilst at the same time using big buckets of drugs. The reason was that it masked drug use.

shinyhelmut

As usual, INRNG has it covered

http://inrng.com/2015/05/stade-2-bio-passport-old-news/#more-24681

mididoctors

strikes me that the ABP has certainly reduced the efficacy of doing gear even if the tv piece is taken at full face value..which is debatable anyway.

there is just less incentive to get in that mould now. reduced effectiveness plus increased chances of getting caught...the pay off is limited.

frenchfighter

Barguil retweeted this:

barguil retweeted
Guillaume Boillot @Guillaum_B · May 3
Zakarin tu en penses quoi du reportage de #Stade2 ?