A good interview with Anne Gripper in cyclingnews.com regarding the bio passport.

As an aussie I am hoping that she is as good as her word and I would like to believe that it is her goal and that of the UCI to make this thing work ..... and work well.

I was very interested to read about bringing in the steriod profile and a growth hormone profile at some future point. This could certainly revolutionise the fight against drugs in sport. I hope that the methods will stand up at CAS. They need to.

One area of concern that I do have is that it is the Federations who are left with the task of sanctioning the rider. Now we know that not all countries are created equal in this regard. Yes Spain in particular but not only Spain.

Also the statement.... that all the evidence is available ...... and ...they will have to trust us. Hmmmmm...... that could be problematical for many. Now I would like to belive their experts have done a wonderful job in assessing these passports and hopefully time will show this to be the case.

The problem however is that it will be up to the Federations to pay the cost of the proceedure in sanctioning the riders. Now after the cost of the whole Floyd fiasco you could understand why the US federation would be reluctant to take on a case such as this first out of the blocks.

Perhaps that is why there was no-one from the US named. (yes ok they could all be clean is another reason)

Maybe the UCI wanted to see what the Spanish would do with this passport sanctioning given their amazing non-performance over puerto. The Italians I am sure will jump at the chance. They do seem to be most proactive at the moment.

Anyway .... a big call .... trust us........ yeah but the UCI isn't paying the bill.

The only thing that does give me some comfort is the fact that it was Anne Gripper making the statement and not McQuaid.

Thanks,

Buddy

"It also requires the human touch and knowledge of an expert to look at the data and interpret it. Just because a profile exceeds certain limits we’re looking at doesn’t mean that the rider is doping. The experts then decide if the results can’t be explained by anything pathological or physiological or if the rider has been doping through manipulation of his blood."

This quote by Annie is an issue that I feel will eventually be played out in front of the CAS over and over.

The passport paradigm, and I hope for the sport that it is both accurate and succesful, has a very strong interpretative dynamic.

Attorneys for the well-heeled cyclists will be bringing in their experts to testify for their interpretations on variations in physiology; since the UCI admitted the limits can be exceeded in some cases without accusation, based on their experts interpretation, it opens the door more widely for defenses.

It is harder in court to prove persuasively for interpretative patterns as opposed to the presence of chemical fingerprints on the proverbial smoking gun. limited as that approach is.

If I were a defense lawyer involved here, I would be looking for case studies in the general population evidencing readings similar to those outside of UCI limits and not connected to transfusion or drug use. A few of those and some experts nodding on your side, and the threshold of reasonable doubt is closer at hand.


Caucchioli is the first to say that his individual tests were clean, nothing was found, accused based on presumption, etc.

We will hear this so often in the future that it may begin to sound like a mantra- one that could ring like a cowbell in the jurists' ears of this Swiss-based organization

True, statement!

I have commented on it several times. Apart from the UCI dirty politics and red tape, I generally welcomed the UCI slowness with passport. Level of confidence in the results (approximately two SD - same as with "traditional" testing) must be in line with current legal criteria routinely confirmed by CAS - 95%.

It's rather interesting that if there is a score (cyclists against AD authorities), it is not currently in favor of the authorities. In fact, they lose by 2:0.

As was noted in several older posts, Di Luca's case was essentially about profiling and trending his biological values (different from the UCI passport) and now we just learned that Gusev has fully won his case against Astana/Damsgaard/JB.

Damsgaard, IMO, (and I am not passing a judgement on his competence), has been blemished by the CAS decision on Gusev. And he is one of the 9 experts for the UCI.

Good science can't afford being sloppy. Otherwise, legal system abuses similar to Landis-like cases, will snow ball.

Amen.

And yet we have direct evidence of labs (or at least a particular lab) being sloppy. Funny that.

Heh?

The original panel was Michael Ashenden (Australia), Michel Audran (France), Bo Berglund (Sweden), Giuseppe D’Onofrio (Italy), Pierluigi Fiorella (Italy), Giuseppe Fischetto (Italy), Olivier Hermine (France), Robin Parisotto (Australia), and Olaf Schumacher (Germany) and notably did not include Damsgaard. Was he added at a latter date, and if so, whom did he replace?

On the Gusev decision, I haven't seen any details on the case yet. Until we do, I think it is rather hasty to conclude that this is a blemish on Damsgaard, as we do not know whether Gusev's exoneration is due to judicial contractual details or whether it is the science they object to. In the latter case, it won't be the first time that CAS has decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute for doping counter to the opinions of anti-doping experts. Hopefully, the UCI Biopassport is much more water-tight.

In a way, the timing of this case is actually useful for the UCI, because it puts into perspective the problems that they are facing with the UCI Biopassport.

I will double check this. I could be mistaken.. But the point stands: Damsgaard is one of the most outspoken and prolific (judging by his work) advocates of bio profiling. CAS totally overturning firing of Gusev (forcing Astana to pay all damages and his legal fees etc). It was widely reportedly and based on Damsgaard's advice and testing evidence... thus it's a serious setback if not a blow.


I knew you will jump to Damsgaard's defence. No need to. I never questioned his competence or integrity. Yet, it is unquestionable that the basis for firing Gusev was officially presented as based on Damsgaard-administered internal testing in Astana. Political or legal issues aside (and they may play some role) can't obscure the fact.
Damsgaard signed away his firing which was, yes, part of Gusev's contract ("suspicious values").

It is a blemish, I am sure, he does not deserve. but it' s there...

Yes, we have plenty of evidence that humans can be sloppy.

So where exactly does "sloppy" begin and end? I could probably make a case that any sample handling/testing is "sloppy" if I looked hard enough or really wanted to find it.

And yet we have direct evidence of labs (or at least a particular lab) being sloppy. Funny that.

oh no! you didn't!!!!

If you are not careful, someone will go and leave magnets on an unused machine.

If you are really not careful, another person will be so sloppy with their doping regime that they will actually test positive.

But, the UCI is doing its best to make sure that this person has all the advance notice that they can get to avid evil WADA results. Let's hope the UCI doesn't get sloppy.

Dave.

It begins and ends with demonstrated and clear violation of procedues, esp. like basic ones such as "Don't use white-out on lab documentation."

That was sloppy.

Only if the firing was judged illegal on the science. If the problem is that Astana didn't ensure water-tight legalese wrt to Damsgaard's program in their contracts, it's not really a problem (for anyone but Astana). It's only a problem if CAS is setting a precedent against the use of biopassports in general (unlikely), or the use of internal biopassport programs, which often user stricter parameters than WADA does.



I didn't say you did. I just don't see the drama.

As I pointed out, it won't be the first time that CAS has overturned expert opinion - which is ultimately all that Damsgaard's program is. Given that no case was raised (then or now) against Gusev by the UCI, it seems obvious that whatever caused Damsgaard to send warning to Astana is not likely to be a positive according to WADA rules.

It's all speculation, in any case, until CAS releases the details.

Sloppy, but meaningless with respect to the result.

Dave.

Not from a QA standpoint, it's not.

Sure, a process defect is a process defect. For a process engineer, it is always the same.

But, from the 'customer' perspective, if the defect was caught and dealt with and never affected the customer's result then the 'customer' really doesn't or shouldn't care.

Dave.

So Anne Gripper's "everyone just needs to trust us" doesn't work in either direction, eh?

(1) Trust us that we've got adequate QA standards sufficient to insure the integrity of the results
(2) Trust us that we're doing an adequate job of oversight to be sure the QA standards are applied in all cases
(3) Trust us when we say our analysis of the Passport profiles is sufficient to catch those who are cheating
(4) Trust us when we say based on that analysis, all but a very small number are clean


Sorry to be a skeptic, but I agree with you that Gripper and UCI have not done what's necessary to define sufficient QA standards and methodology in a manner necessary to prevent the sort of screw-ups from the past, and not that you said it, but I especially see no concrete objective basis to trust that they've beefed up their oversight of the various labs entrusted with the data collection to the level necessary to insure true integrity of results. And on the flip side, I find it preposterous that she's using the "working backwards from the results we've gotten thus far" approach to concluding doping's basically out of the sport, save a small handful of insignificant cases. Without any kind of independently verifiable, objective basis, and no specifics, I don't simply accept with a waive of a hand that all of the guys like Kohl who were busted in direct testing, had also already been identified 100% with no exceptions by the methodology of the Passport testing. And without that proof, I see no reason to believe the broad assertion that the Passport system, as currently configured and executed, has a level of fidelity and integrity upon which sweeping conclusions about doping generally, or its effectiveness (as measured in percentage terms) is to be lauded.

AFAIC, it's just more of the same from the UCI. A complete lack of transparency about their methodology, much less their results. Which, living in the real world, leads me to conclude their claims should not be taken at face value, and that no, they have not earned some sort of blanket "trust."

I'm sure Gripper is genuinely committed to doing the best she can. I've met plenty of those types working inside the confines of corporate cultures, and inside the cultures of governmental regulatory bodies, but who exaggerate the truth, if only to rationalize to themselves why it's o.k. to keep taking the paycheck rather than walk off the job. Lots of "good and decent" people bend to the will of the higher ups and make "concessions" internally, deliver less than the truth, all the while rationalizing that "the cause" is better served with them, "the good guys" on the inside trying to improve things over time, than on the outside, having quit in order to protect their own integrity.

No, from a QA auditor's standpoint, when there are problems with very basic lab procedures, it's an indication of other, hidden problems in more difficult tasks. Which is why ISO and other certifications treat them as being important, even if they in and of themselves would have no effect on the outcome.


FL-

Sorry, I think you went on a tangent that I was not headed towards. In general I agree withyour points.

I think that everyone needs to be very careful with the way the passport is used. If there is interpretation, and there is no way to standardize the interepretation, then it is art and not science.

1. We don't have to be so narrow in our thinking then, do we? Further, one incident, by itself, is no indication of other, hidden problems. It might be an indication and it might not. That is pure speculation that programs like ISO are purpose-designed to try and eliminate. A well-desiged ISO process should also be able to surface other problems in more difficult and less difficult tasks.

It should be very clear that by raising the issue of the whiteout you are promoting one of the tenets of the wiki defense - especially when you also insert this kind of speculation. But, the defense was bogus and the whiteout meaningless to the subject of positive or not. Ok, the whiteout bugged you as a process engineer. Great. Some of us understand ISO well enough to understand this. But, this is a minor process detail that can be discussed on the Doping Reform forum.

2. I agree with the points as well - and nicely described and argued. Rather than whiteout, we appear to have a whitewash.

Dave.

What gave me comfort was her comment that she wouldn't be there if the UCI had demanded screening to minimize the big names caught. That's a hard one to go back on if that should ever be the case.

I also thought that the fact UCI had unleashed Gripper to speak showed both their confidence in her, and her confidence in the process. Pat McQuaid is not the expert here, and it might show if he had tried to answer the questions. He deserves some points for allowing her to do this, especially as her motives have so far been untainted.

While I agree with Floridacyclist that the process and 'trust us' claim are as yet unsubstantied , the panel of experts ensures there are a lot of opinionated expert voices to shut up if you want to hide something.

For some reason, CAS considers Gusev vs. Astana case confidential and will not be releasing any details.
I searched the CAS official site in both English and French...short of several crumbs I was able to find in other places, there is nothing of substance at CAS site..

It's a shame because this case contains many keys to understanding both legal and technical aspects of the UCI bio passport. Yes, the UCI bio passport, because, as I am learning, it was Gusev's main technical argument - clean UCI bio passport vs. Damsgaard's suspicions.

It brings to light several important question:

- If the interpretive bio profiling could result in exonerating some and ruining others, who is right and why?
- Was CAS sending a signal that it prefers the UCI conservative punitive criteria vs. the aggressive red flag used by Damsgaard?
- If so, does it mean that CAS has just validated both the UCI legal and scientific standards (as applied to bio passport) and that the first 5 victims have no chance if adjudicating?

For some background, it's worth remembering that when Gusev was fired by Astana (just prior to the Olympics - we still have several threads on that), there was a lot of back-and-forth between the Russian Fed and the UCI. At the time Gripper, first verbally and later via an official UCI letter, confirmed that there was no compromising data on Gusev who had undergone several bio-related tests by then.

From what I'm gathering, Gusev hired some world renown hematologists (never named allegedly due to CAS rule)) who were able to drive home Gusev's defence message - I am clean if the UCI considers me clean.

Who to believe? Was Damsgaard's criteria too aggressive? Or was it Bruyneel too aggressive (covering something else) when he fired Gusev?

or as steve brought up earlier, is it more art than science? seems like a slippery slope to me. looking at the gusev case makes me wonder if any bio cases will hold up to the appeals process if the rider has the cash to mount a spirited defense.

which is why i noted a while back that i thought hwmnbn would never ever be found guilty of bio-passport infringements -- the uci cannot afford the lawsuits.

this is not a very successful program if it can only target the riders already of the fringe of pro-cycling. just reinforces the inequity.

I don't think that they are worried about lawsuits. There is a long cooperation here.

We have already seen that hwmnbn has no difficulty editing the results. He is probably 'working with' the program. And this program is probably a lot easier to 'work with' than that ornery Catlin guy.

Gripper may not even have any insight into this, or may simply see it as something she cannot do anything about anyways and something that does not affect her view of the program as a whole.

Dave.

You're sure? It usually takes a few days for case details to make it on the site. It seems rather strange that they close the case. One would not think that being open about this would harm Gusev (and if it would, what does that say about his defense?)



Or all of the above.

It seems Damsgaard isn't allowed to comment on the case, as there have been no interviews or comments by him in any of the Danish media yet. But, this is pre-Tour time, which means "Doping Time"! I'm sure we will get to hear all the dirty details eventually.

As sure as CAS' actions to date allow it...I am a regular reader of their various cases and it appears they've handled this one in accordance with their "confidentiality" rules. When one of the parties requests non-disclosure and another agrees, that's the way it goes. According to Proskurin and Gusev, the responsibility for non-disclosure lies with JB and his company.

This confirms what I said above...there seems to be a court order not to talk. In one of his local interviews, Gusev also refused to comment on the specifics except confirming that Astana brought over Damsgaard data that was refuted by his experts.

CAS just published Gusev vs. Astana ruling.
It is in French. Below is my understanding of both the technical and legal aspects of the story.

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/3...nale%201643.pdf

The technical/factual side of the story.
(my own extract as there is no clear description)

There was technical deposition and testimony. Gusev was represented by Professor Giuseppe Banfi while Astana/Olympus brought over Damsgaard (in person) and Ashenden (over phone).

According to Damsgaard, on July 16 Gusev tested for suspicious reticulocytes. This necessitated a follow-up urine test for EPO on July 19. . The EPO test appears was suspicious but inconclusive. The lab recommended further testing but this was not done by Astana/Olympus. Per the contract, Astana/Olympus was supposed to give Gusev another test before firing him. Additionally, in violation of his own obligation and WADA practice, Damsgaard, in stead of another test in another accredited lab, merely sent the results of the suspicious analysis for another interpretation (seeking an opinion on the inconclusive, suspicious images showing synthetic EPO). During the hearing, the Panel rejected Olympus/Astana request to seek an opinion of an independent expert that Gusev's July 16 blood test was indicative of blood manipulation. They motivated the rejection by lack of clear violation according to WADA/UCI rules. The Panel avoided mentioning any technical details. Gusev also argued that there was no sample chain of custody, poor records, and that Damsgaard criteria does not meet WADA standards.

Legalese.

The legal dispute appears involved labor law. Astana/Olympus claimed it was a collaboration agreement of free equals while Gusev insisted he was a subordinate employee/employer contract. The panel took Gusev side and ruled that under Swiss Law his rights were unquestionably and crudely violated when he was fired
in clear breach of the contractual obligation by Olympus - give him another test. They also expressed rather strongly that merely a suspicion of doping is not a sufficient grounds for firing.

Conclusion.

It appears that Gusev was cleared because both Astana/Olympus and Damsgaard did not act in accordance with their own contractual obligations and/or testing protocol. From my reading, it appears there was good reason to believe that Gusev was manipulating his blood by some unusual isomer of EPO or CERA but the rEPO images, as so many times before, were highly suspicious but inconclusive on the basis of very strict WADA criteria. We need to be reminded here, Damsgaard harshly criticized WADA/UCI for using too strict a criteria.

My reading is:Damsgaard just was told off by CAS in favor of the less agressive WADA criteria.

I suppose the last sentence was posed as a question. What really do you suppose made the Hog fire Gusev? Why not give a opinion on why the Hog fired him? What were they trying to cover? If you have an opinion why not make a statement?


Gripper has done nothing to change the climate of cycling. She is about the same as the rest who claim that they are working on better detection methods or systems.





So the CAS thinks Damsgaard and Ashenden are full of ####! Some DPF members have been saying that for awhile.

Thanks for the link RH.

Of course I have done a full reading.

Olympus lost because of two main points:
- the contract was considered as an employe contract despite specific clause in the contract.
- Olympus failed to respect the minimal requirement to fire Gusev, they have just used one case of abnormal values that are suspicious and the contract stipulates that they can do more testing in case of suspicious values by sending samples to accredited lab or by more testing.

Because Gusev was using CERA according Damsgaard, and because of the CERA AFLD test recently available, Bruyneel was scared to have one of his riders caught so they acted hastily ! The most important was to avoid a positive case.

There appears, from your analysis, to be no way for Astana / Bryuneel to win. Had they performed and waited on a second test, and Gusev had been caught by the CERA test, what would have been said about them then? They would have been castigated for sitting on their known "positive case."

Steve, I don't think so, Bruyneel was just trying to minimize the bad reputation for his team and his past, but he was not acting like he could have a bad apples in his team, if so he would have done the correct job.

Astana could have send one or more blood samples and one or more urine samples to an WADA lab to test for CERA and confirm their suspicion. Until their final decision they could have stopped Gusev from racing.
They could have send too old samples, but WADA lab could have find different results of Damsgaard.

But we have to dig a bit deeper to understand why they did like that.

Gusev was on Giro, and probably used CERA, of Astana knew what was on, no one comes to Giro a bit out of form and miracoulusly are able to win or to work for their leaders.

So for me they have thrown Gusev like a hot potatoes. Of course, I would have needed all Gusev values to backup more effectively my position, but I think there is enough dots to draw a conclusion

Maybe for you there is enough dots.

From what I can tell and it really hurts to agree with Steve but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it appears that no matter what the Hog done he was opening the team and himself up for questions later.
That is the nature of the beast when you make decisions which are difficult.

I asked before what someone’s post meant or what they thought when referenced to covering up something else. No reply. Go figure.

There is no reason to believe that Ann Gripper is any different than anyone before her and anyone else for that matter involved. The actions taken up until now are similar to previous actions by these organizations.

It appears that you are from the "series of excrutiating jerks" school of Band-Aid removal. I'm more of a "one agonizing rip" man myself.

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=articles

Michelle Ferrari's 4-day-old thoughts on why he does NOT like Gripper's UCI bio passport. He is asking some good questions along with several with obvious answers.

I expect, Armstrong to tweet the Ferrari comments "pathetic" as soon as he reads this post.

Seems like Michelle Ferrari is right on target with his 4-day old thoughts.

Why would Armstrong tweet pathetic?

Thanks for the comments RH (only noticed this now). No big surprises ... though I think you mean that Damsgaard has harshly criticized UCI/WADA for using too lax criteria.

he certainly seems very versed on the limits that -- if crossed -- will cause a red flag or a positive.

but, if you are clean, do you actually need a hematologist taking your blood values?

i would think you would only need one if you were having problems like anemia or something.

i could see the value if you if you had someone who studies nutritional aspects for raising red cells and such, but otherwise no.

no you dont.

your point is what?

go ahead say it. maybe you will have MOH fun.