good post Trish...spot on
Printable View
good post Trish...spot on
Trish,if you are interested,
An athlete biological passport is an individual, electronic record for professional athletes, in which profiles of biological markers of doping and results of doping tests are collated over a period of time. Doping violations can be detected by noting variances from an athlete’s established levels outside permissible limits, rather than testing for and identifying illegal substances.[1]
Although the terminology athlete passport is recent, the use of biological markers of doping has a long history in anti-doping. Maybe the first marker of doping, that tries to detect a prohibited substance not based on its presence in urine or blood, but through the induced deviations in biological parameters, is the so-called testosterone over epitestosterone ratio (T/E). The T/E has been used by sports authorities since the beginning of the 1980s to detect anabolic steroids in urine samples. A decade later, in 1997, markers of blood doping were introduced by some international federations, such as the Union Cycliste Internationale and the Federation Internationale de Ski, to deter the abuse of recombinant erythropoietin that was undetectable by direct means at that time. It is only in 2002 that the paradigm to use biological markers of doping took the terminology athlete passport. The merits of this testing paradigm were exposed in the scientific literature [2] and the terminology adopted by the World Anti-Doping agency.[3]
Many believe[who?] that the athlete passport provides an excellent alternative to ensure fairness in elite sports. While a new drug test must be developed and validated for each new drug, the main advantage of the athlete passport is that it is based on the stability of the physiology of the human being. New drugs are produced at an unprecedented pace today and there is often a lag of several years between the availability of a new drug and the application of an effective detection method. On the contrary, the physiology of the human being remains the same through several generations and all biomarkers developed today in the athlete passport will remain valid for at least several decades. For example, the blood module of the passport is already sensitive today to any new future form of recombinant erythropoietin, as well as to any form of gene doping that will enhance oxygen transfer to the muscles. Also, while a negative drug test does not necessarily mean that the athlete did not dope, the athlete can present his/her passport at the beginning of a competition to attest that he/she will compete in his/her natural, unaltered condition.
The athlete passport has received a lot of attention when its blood module was established at the beginning of the 2008 racing season by the Union Cycliste Internationale.[4] In May 2008 the UCI revealed that 23 riders were under suspicion of doping following the first phase of blood tests conducted under the new biological passport.[5] The blood module of the athlete passport aims to detect any form of blood doping, the steroid module any form of doping with anabolic steroid and the endocrine module any modification of the growth hormone/IGF-1 axis. Each of these modules are however at different steps of development, validation and application in sports.
This is exactly what is needed Ron, lets hope it comes to fruition.
I posted this on another thread but putting it here as well.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/...hange-scrapped
"Sanders said 4710 TCO2 tests had been done in the last 12 months and HRNSW had records of almost every horse racing in the state."
If they have this, cobalt & a RBC passport for every horse then maybe we will get somewhere regarding a level playing field.
I just re read this article from NZ & it states this
Since HRNZ revealed it wanted to raise the TCO2 threshold level but seek mandatory two-year disqualifications for first offenders, five year bans for second offenders and 10 year bans for those with three strikes, there had been widespread comdemnation from trainers
I find it hard to fathom why trainers, if they were running clean, wouldn't applaud this move instead of oppose it.
A remit to this effect was to be put before the annual conference of clubs this past weekend. Trainers and drivers have only one voice at conference.
The remit was withdrawn by the sponsor HRNZ. Clearly more than trainers didn't like the scenario when upon analysis of the proposal...
a.. It is the responsibility of the JCA to determine penalties for rule breaches in NZ.
They are empowered for this within the Racing Act and the NZ Bill of Rights. A standard blanket penalty gives neither RIU nor JCA any movement on penalty considerations on a case by case basis.
b.. To impose a standard penalty as suggested and for such to withstand any scrutiny requires a greater standard of proof than is currently applied.
The makeup of the rule is being reconsidered by those interested parties.
Thanks TeeCee very informative.
Teecee, Am I reading this right, that by going from 35 to 36 mmol of TCO2, i.e. an increase of 1 mmol, that the degree of making a false positive error will reduce from 1 in 15,793 chances to 1 in 2,021,729! I'm no statistician, but that is a massive reduction in the error rate?? That is a 128 times improvement for less errors.......Just imagine if they went to 40..........no one could ever challenge their being an error!
I note that they are also not inclined to go to cumulative penalties!
Figures are renowned as the most manipulative commodity the human race ever invented.
As stated the penalty regime is still under review.
I can only remember one case of multi charges since TCO2 became an issue. In that case the JCA did impose a cumulative disq sentence later reduced on appeal to lesser cumulative time plus a fine.