collapse


Dim

  • Grand Tour Winner
  • *
  • Country: gb
  • Posts: 7859
  • Liked: 2872
    • Velorooms
  • Awards: Best Post 2012
The full WADA report for 2012 is now available for Download

Link ~pdf

First im going to take issue with this put out earlier.



This chart is a very poor example to be using. This is purely based on blood tests from towards the bottom of the report. Paints an incredibly small picture of the whole issue. It is also only for Bio Passport samples, not ALL blood samples.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 18:06 by Dim »

    Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    So lets get onto some proper results

    1. Total number of tests, in and out of competition, urine and blood, by sport. (this includes retroactive testing conducted in 2012)


  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    2. Adverse Urine samples by percentage per sport. (no figures for blood as the percentages are negligable)



    3. Urine tests by sport, both in and out of competition



    4. Blood tests by sport, both in and out of competition

  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    5. Pie chart by sport showing total number of tests conducted per sport by all testing authorities



    Total tests conducted by authority

  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 19:08 by Dim »

    Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    6. Percentage of tests in each sport conducted by that Sports governing body (or in the case of boxing bodies). This is incredibly telling. More than 40% of Cyclings tests are conducted by the UCI. There is no way, that any sport, should have the bulk of its testing conducted by the body responsible for promoting the sport. That is a clear conflict of interest. In tennis the figure is over 60%

  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Legend
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 20367
    • Liked: 4678
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    6. Percentage of tests in each sport conducted by that Sports governing body (or in the case of boxing bodies). This is incredibly telling. More than 40% of Cyclings tests are conducted by the UCI. There is no way, that any sport, should have the bulk of its testing conducted by the body responsible for promoting the sport. That is a clear conflict of interest. In tennis the figure is over 60%



    http://twitter.com/cycling_jsg/statuses/362611156269023232
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 18:42 by Dim, Reason: twitter auto embed ;) »
    Fignon - In my day, doping methods were derisory and the riders´exploits were massive.
    For the last 15 years or so  it has been the other way rond: there is a huge number of ways in which riders can dope, and any exploits are derisory.

    The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2470
    • Liked: 831
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    And lets not forget blood doping is only a section of doping. The DDR dominated sport for 2 decades without touching the stuff (  they may have at some points used it but mainly they used other drugs)

  • ReplyReply
  • Despite the self-serving data benders and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers, even within 'new age' cycling teams. Personally, I don't accept that the 'dark era' has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.

    chmod_775

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 68
    • Liked: 33
    Buried in that report you'll find that for cycling anyway, the tests ordered by promoters rarely include an EPO test.  Probably plenty of testing going on to meet the letter of UCI regulations, but only running low-budget tests that are easily defeated or just irrelevant at races.

    Any mention of Testosterone testing?  My understanding is no one does the test that detects artifical Test until the athlete fails the simple ratio test.

    I should look at that report again. 
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    Looking at Cycling in a bit more detail.

    Urine samples and types of test conducted on those samples.


    Just EPO testing.


    Blood testing - Does not include samples used for the purposes of the Biological Passport
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    Looking specifically at EPO testing.

    First, refresh, number of samples in and out of competition tested and not tested for EPO.


    Percentage of samples showing adverse analytic findings for EPO

    As you can see, the rate of positive test in in-competition testing is more than five times higher than in out of competition testing.

    Percentage of samples tested for EPO in and out of competition


    And here we have a huge problem. The vast majority of Out of Competition samples are tested for EPO, despite the very low detection rate. The vast majority of In Competition samples are NOT tested for EPO, despite the much higher detection rate.
    The UCI have a big anti doping budget and are responsible for all the out of competition testing, so they can afford to test most of their samples. The in competition ones are handled by NADA's and Race Organisers. Not nearly so much money, result, much fewer tests despite the higher detection rate.

    Solution: For EPO testing, the UCI needs to totally refocus how it tests and where the finances are directed, putting more money to the National anti doping agencies to carry out in race testing.

    It also brings us back to the issue in table 6. Too much of cyclings anti doping is carried out by the agency responsible for governing and promoting the sport.

    As an approximation. If all of the Out of competition EPO test's were changed to in competition testing, we would see an additional 66 postives, raising the total adverse findings to 88, instead of 22 (based on the ratio of .71% being consistent - which obviously scientifically may not be the case)
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    To follow up from that and compare with other sports.

    % of samples tested for EPO returning adverse findings across all olympic sports. Again, in competition testing provides considerably more positive samples.



    bearing that in mind, the solution is very simple. The UCI should focus their effort on out of competition blood testing for the biological passport. The funds used for out of competition urine testing for EPO should be redistributed to the National Anti Doping agencies to increase the number of samples tested for EPO in competition.

    UCI testing for EPO v Others (National anti doping agencies testing for EPO)
    Again, the UCI heavily relies on out of competition testing for EPO


    And compared to other sports (picked at random)
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 01:13 by Dim »

    ting

    • Coach Potato
    • Country: no
    • Posts: 1
    • Liked: 2
    Greetings. I'm a refugee from CN(now using my favored nick). I just wanted to point out that you have to be careful and not "throw the baby out with the bath water".

    The reason you are seeing so much focus on ooc is that this is a long favored strategy of catching advanced cheaters. Remember, making sure you are not glowing when you are competing is very simple. And the advanced dopers should have no problem evading them. This is much more difficult with OOC testing, since you can be tested when you might not expect it. I think the advanced dopers will only get caught in competition when there are new tests available they don't now about, or if they make a mistake.

    So the strategy of focusing on OOC seems much more sensible than IC.

    I haven't read the report, but I fear your view on the work of the CADF is too heavily influenced by your(and mine too :D) negative view of the UCI leadership. I think it's important to separate these issues when thinking about getting most bang for the buck in the anti doping effort.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    The reason you are seeing so much focus on ooc is that this is a long favored strategy of catching advanced cheaters. Remember, making sure you are not glowing when you are competing is very simple. And the advanced dopers should have no problem evading them. This is much more difficult with OOC testing, since you can be tested when you might not expect it. I think the advanced dopers will only get caught in competition when there are new tests available they don't now about, or if they make a mistake.

    So the strategy of focusing on OOC seems much more sensible than IC.

    See this is where I disagree. So far Ive only looked at EPO testing in detail, there are many other aspects of anti doping that I will look at one by one.

    But seperating EPO, it would appear, that the percentage of positive tests Out of Competition in cycling is far lower than the percentage of positive tests in competition, and this appears to be reflected across all sports that test for EPO.

    I guess the question is why?


    Quote
    60-Minute Window
    Any athlete who is in the USADA International Testing Pool (ITP) must provide a specific 60-minute time slot every day between 6 a.m. – 11 p.m. that anchors the athlete to a specific location. The athlete chooses the 60-minute time slot to fit their schedule. and must be available and accessible for testing at a specific location during the entire 60-minute time slot. Please note, USADA can choose to, and does test athletes outside of the their 60-minute window.

    The big question for me, is does the allowance of the athlete to specificy a 60 minute window help combat doping, or facilitate doping. Knowing the half life of EPO, its fair to say that in the out of competition testing a rider could microdose EPO at 2300 and if they specified their window as being 1200 till 1300 there chances of testing positive for EPO would be greatly reduced. If they specified their window as 2000-2100 each day, then their chances of testing negative for EPO would again, be further improved. Yes, they can be tested outside of their window, but its all about odds management.

    Compare that with In Competition testing. A rider microdosing during a race at 2300 at night, could get tested the next day, possibly after the race, but there is also every chance they could get tested at 0700, greatly increasing their chance of testing positive.

    While the risk of being tested at any time is still there, does the whereabouts system allow for a little less risk on the riders part when it comes to microdosing?

    Out of competition has its benefits. For the Biological passport it is crucial, it is also good for testing for products with a longer half life than EPO, that stay in the system for longer, but purely for the testing of EPO, is out of competition testing effective. The numbers seem to point to it not being so.

    In competition testing, despite many less samples being tested for EPO, provides far more positive tests.

    3000 in competition samples provided 22 positives for epo
    4500+ out of competition samples provided only 5 positives

    My suggestion is that solely for EPO testing the focus should be switched. The samples collected would remain the same, as a sport we only actually test about 30-40% of the collected samples for EPO, so the act of collection still acts as a deterrent, but should the balance when it comes to actually testing the samples be re-addressed. We seem heavily in favour of testing the OOC samples, that barely produce any positives, yet not testing the samples that have a high rate of positive result?

    The more I look at just the EPO testing side of it, the more it looks like a school manipulating the gcse results. Take loads of samples, but focus the actual testing on the group that you know will provide a lower rate of adverse findings to keep the numbers looking good.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    Something to note: This is the first WADA report that I can find that breaks things down to such a level, and breaks things down into in competition and out of competition testing.

    Prior to 2012 the reporting was basically

    Sport - Number of Samples - Number of Adverse Samples

    Therefore cycling always came up looking very good due to the sheer quantity of samples v number of positives. Breaking it down into Product, and IC v OOC gives us much more information.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    Away from EPO..

    Positive percent for a range of Drugs in and Out of Competition. Cycling v Others


    And positives by product, all olympic sports.
  • ReplyReply

  • Eric

    • Shabba!
    • Neo Pro
    • Country: yt
    • Posts: 211
    • Liked: 101
    Exactly how long does it take EPO to pass through your system? I can vaguely recall Hamilton's book saying that Ferrari's method of injecting it directly into the vein could disappear over a night's sleep.
  • ReplyReply
  • The best album ever: itunes.apple.com/us/album/riddim-driven-sleng-teng-extravaganza/id76251384

    Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    Exactly how long does it take EPO to pass through your system? I can vaguely recall Hamilton's book saying that Ferrari's method of injecting it directly into the vein could disappear over a night's sleep.

    IV - 6-8 hours
    Blood - 5-7 hours
    Subcut - up to 24 hours, sometimes longer

    Approximately

    And this is why in my mind, out of competition EPO testing is fruitless. In competition EPO testing, more chance of success if you collect the samples very early in the day.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    Tygart Today

    Quote
    “They want to control the results. They want to control who is tested and they want to control what is tested for, so they don’t have any issues”

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15146/Tygart-blasts-UCI-over-refusal-to-let-USADA-do-tests-at-the-USA-Pro-Cycling-Challenge-and-other-top-events.aspx#ixzz2auxzvL7H
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012

    carn soaks

    You cannot remove OOC testing. It was introduced for a reason, and that was the predominate doping occurs prior to competition. Take EPO for example and a GranTour. There's a prologue day 1 and you are a contender. Your need to be using EPO sometime in the two weeks prior, preferably up to 3 days before as EPO starts working at about 3 days and effects can last for two weeks or so. Thats why guys risk micro dosing during an event, because they are worried their RBC's will drop off before the final hard week.

    The true problem with OOC is that you set your availability times to reduce liklihood of a count coming up adverse. You dump hard after they drop by and change your ancillary program to suit. Doping is worst in the Cat 2 teams, where they are performance bonus driven, and testing is less for those competitors
  • ReplyReply

  • Kwibus

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 90
    • Liked: 1
    Tygart Today

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15146/Tygart-blasts-UCI-over-refusal-to-let-USADA-do-tests-at-the-USA-Pro-Cycling-Challenge-and-other-top-events.aspx#ixzz2auxzvL7H

    I really like Tygart.

    It was always fun to see Leipheimer race up those mountains once he was in the US. 100% sure he wouldn't get caught. UCI allready promised him I guess :)

    Let's hope Cookson will live up to what he's saying.
  • ReplyReply

  • wwabbit

    • Sunday Rider
    • Posts: 27
    • Liked: 36
    Compare that with In Competition testing. A rider microdosing during a race at 2300 at night, could get tested the next day, possibly after the race, but there is also every chance they could get tested at 0700, greatly increasing their chance of testing positive.

    While the risk of being tested at any time is still there, does the whereabouts system allow for a little less risk on the riders part when it comes to microdosing?

    Out of competition has its benefits. For the Biological passport it is crucial, it is also good for testing for products with a longer half life than EPO, that stay in the system for longer, but purely for the testing of EPO, is out of competition testing effective. The numbers seem to point to it not being so.

    Well, we know from tweets and blogs that riders in the TDF have been tested at 0700 when the window opens, and we know that much, if not most, of the testing is done at the end of races where riders are brought straight to the anti-dopage van.

    Could it be that EPO testing is only done in the morning samples, and they didn't bother with EPO testing for the after-race samples, for the exact reason as you have posted - that microdosing EPO is undetectable after the race but may still be detectable when the window opens? This would result in a reduction of percentage of EPO testing done during the competition as the figures suggest, but not the probability of a rider being hit with an EPO test at 0700.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 7859
    • Liked: 2872
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Best Post 2012
    You cannot remove OOC testing. It was introduced for a reason, and that was the predominate doping occurs prior to competition. Take EPO for example and a GranTour. There's a prologue day 1 and you are a contender. Your need to be using EPO sometime in the two weeks prior, preferably up to 3 days before as EPO starts working at about 3 days and effects can last for two weeks or so. Thats why guys risk micro dosing during an event, because they are worried their RBC's will drop off before the final hard week.

    The true problem with OOC is that you set your availability times to reduce liklihood of a count coming up adverse. You dump hard after they drop by and change your ancillary program to suit. Doping is worst in the Cat 2 teams, where they are performance bonus driven, and testing is less for those competitors

    Not suggesting removing OOC testing, that would be silly.

    My question is, of the huge amount of samples collected IC, why are we testing bugger all of them for EPO, and of the OOC samples collected why are we testing nearly all of them for EPO (Despite low results)
  • ReplyReply

  • chmod_775

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 68
    • Liked: 33
    Well, we know from tweets and blogs that riders in the TDF have been tested at 0700 when the window opens, and we know that much, if not most, of the testing is done at the end of races where riders are brought straight to the anti-dopage van.

    The type of sample collected matters.  I could be wrong, but my understanding is they normally collect urine after a race. 

    If they collect blood in the morning AND the promoter actually runs an EPO test, then the sophisticated doper is testing to "suspicious" levels.  Remember, the test for EPO is not simple and returns a range of values.  It's not like a clenbuterol test.

    Also remember race organizations get to choose which tests to run.  For example, that T/E test is good and cheap..... and easy to defeat.  Just don't cross the T/E ratio because that triggers the test for artificial Testosterone.  That's awful news for dopers because its use is claimed to be widespread in pro sport.

    If the intent was to discourage doping, then there would be some structured availability in the overnight window.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 20:59 by chmod_775 »

    chmod_775

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 68
    • Liked: 33
    As an example, Tygart states it plainly in the article linked above:
    “We are confident, just like in seasons past, there won’t be CIR testing [a more precise screen for testosterone – ed.], there won’t be human growth hormone testing, there won’t be EPO testing. It is a charade,” he told VeloNation.

    The promoter and UCI get to accurately claim they are testing riders.  But, it's a very, very, low IQ test.  They don't appear to test for anything a doper would really use.  Even if a rider fails the IQ test, the UCI chooses to open the case or not.
  • ReplyReply

  • stanground

    • Sunday Rider
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 10
    • Liked: 7
    The WADA report is full of information.  Just wanted to point out that while the UCI tested nearly all its OOC urine samples for EPO, it appears the NAD organizations did not.  According to the WADA report, there were a total of 6797 OOC urine samples collected.  UCI collected 3236 samples and of that 3117 were tested for EPO = 96% test rate.  NADOs collected 3561 samples and of that 1421 were tested for EPO = 40% test rate.  Dim’s chart titled ‘Number of Samples Tested for EPO - UCI v. non UCI’ in his Managing the Grades article reflects this.  The UCI tested nearly all of its OOC samples for EPO but NADOs tested less than half of its OOC samples.    Keeping in mind the low detection rate of an OOC adverse finding (24 AAFs in 6797 samples), I think the testing rate for EPO by the NADOs at 40% is more practical than the UCI’s rate at 96%.   So why is the UCI focusing heavily on OOC EPO tests?  To target advanced dopers?  To try out new tests for newer EPO products?  Or is it, as others have suggested, a good way to manipulate the test results in favour of the UCI's anti-doping efforts?  More tests, less positives = looks good for UCI. 

    Taking a look at in competition testing, I notice the majority of race testing is managed by the UCI and yet UCI’s actual number of samples collected and tested lags behind the NADO’s IC testing rates.  According to 2012 CADF Business Report, the UCI was in charge of testing operations for 285 out of 381 races in 2012.  [see page 10 of report].   UCI managed the testing at 75% of races, collected 5514 urine samples and of that 1137 were tested for EPO (21% test rate).   NADOs managed testing at 25% of races, collected 7007 urine samples and of that 1948 were tested for EPO (28% test rate).  So comparing the two indicates UCI’s IC testing is much less frequent than NADO’s IC testing even though the UCI manage many more races.  This assumes I’m not misreading the info and my maths is correct (which might need double checking).  As well the number of race days in a race would increase the test numbers; particularly the testing for the GTs would significantly impact the numbers.   In any event, I think the UCI should not be in charge of testing at any races.  IMO a separate independent anti-doping body is needed to organize and handle the testing operations.

    The CADF report indicates the reasons why the UCI takes control of testing at races as:

    “In 2012, CADF was still directly managing the majority of the most important or critical races, where the local organization was unable to implement a satisfactory program or where systematic deviations (non-conformities) from UCI rules have been noted during the past few years.” [page 10 ]

    I guess USADA is not allowed to run the anti-doping program at the US Pro Cycling Challenge as they may actually conduct a high number of doping tests and this would systematically deviate from UCI’s practice of testing only a small number of samples for limited PEDs.   I’m joking (sort of).  Seriously if these are the reasons why UCI is not allowing USADA to be involved with testing during the US Pro Challenge race, I can see why Tygart is upset.   

    2012 CADF Business Report link: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=ODczMTA&LangId=1
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 01:18 by stanground »

     

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.

    Recent Posts

    Recent Topics

    Featured Topics



    Top
    Back to top