Comments on: The Radcliffe conundrum – Is the biological passport fit for purpose?

By: Dr Tom Bassindale

Dr Tom Bassindale — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:38:16 +0000

In reply to cb.

Thanks very much for those comments, very helpful. Let’s not forget the reason we are here in the first place is that it was alleged the IAAF had not followed correct protocol and had not investigated any of these ‘suspicious’ samples. Yes it should be that her samples were investigated and cleared but have they been? This is unclear currently. Her release of one parameter for each test does not help, as you say it is three outside values needed. Therefore can we guess if these three tests have been flagged then at least two more parameters for each test were also not normal? Should she release them all? How do you feel about that?
The false positive negative thing to me is very troubling: relax the criteria to exclude false positives and you risk missing loads of real positives or tighten up and you are getting lots of innocent people drawn into suspicion.
Is the ABP (haematological module) really no more than a screening tool and should it only be used as such?
Thanks again!

By: Anatoly

Anatoly — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:07:43 +0000

No surprise really. It’s all in one old good saying: “…The thief shouts loudest…”.

By: cb

cb — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:20:03 +0000

Hi Tom. A few thoughts: I certainly believe Paula Radcliffe has never doped. She has been made to look slightly foolish by changing her stance on whether testing data should be made public or not (for others under suspicion in the past yes, but for her now, no).
Each of these 3 samples would have been looked at in the context of her previous samples. For a sample to flag as suspicious, 3 of the parameters measured have to be outside the calculated normal range for that athlete at a probability level of 99.9%. Then the data may get referred to the expert panel, who would view the profile and take into account all the extra information – medications/altitude training/medical intervention (legal)/transport temperature/lab analysis etc – could any of that explain the one high value? Having ruled all these out, then the onus is on the athlete to come up with an explanation – if they can’t then they may face a sanction. I assume if Paula’s data was scrutinised the panel would have taken her time at altitude into account and decided this did provide an adequate explanation.
As for fitness for purpose, the passport has been shown to have reduced extreme values in the peloton (see 2010 paper by UCI’s Mario Zorzoli, himself later investigated). Maybe microdosing could be detected if the probability thresholds were lowered say to 99% – meaning more samples would flag as suspicious – but at greater risk of the false positives you mentioned.
In answer to Si’s 3rd question, the effects of prolonged training at altitude are identical to the effects of taking EPO, i.e. increase in HGB = greater O2 carrying capacity = great benefit to endurance athletes. One is legal and one is cheating!

By: Dr Tom Bassindale

Dr Tom Bassindale — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:12:55 +0000

In reply to Si Lane.

Thank you, very good questions. The more I think about it it does show some considerable flaws in the methodology which I don’t think have been answered. In answers to you questions:
1. it has been proposed fairly often by some that all data from all tests be released. I think in cases such as this (see similarities to Chris Froome in the Tour de France this year), it is the selective release that makes things worse. The athlete is then accused of covering up therefore being a cheat. If you put it all out there the argument goes that it will let everyone see the complexity. However, in a legal case the evidence is first presented in detail in court, though often you know that for instance fingerprints were found in the press prior. There is merit it keeping things ‘hidden’. A forensic example would be that your fingerprints were found on a laptop known to be stolen from your friends house. If this is published in the press it may be thought that you had stolen it, rather than simply having had legitimate access to it to last time you met your friend for coffee! In that case (as in the altitude excuse) the circumstances are most important. A rather long way of saying I am not sure which is better, either all published or none!
2. Standard data is only one of the criteria for that very reason, elite athletes have an elite physiology which is not always identical to the general population. This is supposed to be the beauty of the passport though, you are compared with your own values longer term. We need those longer term values in each case to make a judgement.
C. Training does have an effect on the values. Tests have been done on cyclists riding three weeks races and the blood values have been seen to change significantly (not always predictably but there are patterns). Unpredictable results mean that results hold less evidential power..
Thanks for your questions!

By: Si Lane

Si Lane — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:15:32 +0000

Very interesting. Initially I thought this was just another allegation but I agree with you that it is actually seismic whatever the truth may be. You raise important issues about both the biological passport and transparency. I have two broad questions.
Noting your comments on false positives, what are the pros and cons of test data for elite athletes in all sports being made routinely available for public scrutiny? Paula seems to have made matters worse as you suggest by releasing partial data.
The other question concerns the populations used to get the ‘standard numbers’ for suspicious samples. Who are they? My concern is maybe naïve but I would expect even non-doping world champions and record breakers to show extremes in tests. In the Guardian today Paula’s ‘physical therapist’ for 17 years was adamant that she was clean. The third of my two questions now occurs to me. Can extreme and dedicated training have a similar effect to doping and if so could we ever tell the difference?