Leaked IAAf report on doping

IAAF reply to ST articles.

RayCun wrote: »

The blood off-score doesn't vary randomly, it follows a normal distribution. Most scores should be within a fairly narrow range. The further you get from that narrow range (up or down), the less likely it is that the results are 'natural'.

(That doesn't rule out reasonable explanations for the off-score to increase. Training at altitude and racing at sea-level is not 'natural')

Some more info

One of our experts queried whether the result could be instrument error, but there were 29 other tests with the same device that were at normal levels.

A second high test several years later did spark an investigation by the IAAF. The British athlete said that 12 experts from the IAAF had viewed the data on these tests and 11 had concluded that the results were consistent with an athlete training at altitude.

The Sunday Times has not seen the 12 experts’ assessments, but other experts we have spoken to say that altitude training has only a limited effect on an athlete’s blood scores.

The athlete’s results had varied by as much as 47%.

The British athlete’s off-score was 40% higher on the day of the race than in a test taken two days before the race.

Pherekydes

RayCun wrote: »

The blood off-score doesn't vary randomly, it follows a normal distribution. Most scores should be within a fairly narrow range. The further you get from that narrow range (up or down), the less likely it is that the results are 'natural'.

Normal values are those that fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean. This covers 95% of the observations and implies that 95% of the population is normal. Measurements will follow a random distribution:

In probability theory, the normal (or Gaussian) distribution is a very common continuous probability distribution. Normal distributions are important in statistics and are often used in the natural and social sciences to represent real-valued random variables whose distributions are not known.[1][2]

The blood passport profile of an individual will follow their own distribution and may or may not be normal. Further, these blood passport profiles may be extrapolated from just a few initial measurements, which could imply very large natural variations that are not being considered.

Pherekydes

RayCun

Pherekydes wrote: »

The blood passport profile of an individual will follow their own distribution and may or may not be normal.

Yes, but compare to weight or body fat %. Athletes will have a lower body fat % than non-athletes. Athletes will have an even lower body fat % as they get closer to competition. % body fat is something athletes can control through diet and exercise, and those two factors alone will explain the difference with non-athletes, and the change as competition approaches.

The % of new blood cells in your blood isn't trainable. And if that value changes on the day of competition, that is something that requires explanation.

There may be perfectly reasonable explanations. Maybe certain athletes have had an unusual blood profile from birth, and this has played a part in their success all along. That's why a single snapshot of blood values doesn't prove anything. Maybe altitude changes the rate of new blood cell formation. Maybe a drastic taper will have an effect. Maybe pregnancy. They could explain changes as competition approaches, I'm not an expert.

KielyUnusual

Interesting rebuttal from the IAAF

http://jumping-the-gun.com/?p=9876

Andalucia

IAAF and Seb Coe gone very defensive - instead of taking this as an opportunity to change, they're attacking the report and its authors instead of the issue - seems they don't want to learn anything from cycling past transgressions

For Seb Coe to question the credentials of the experts is just insane

dna_leri

KielyUnusual wrote: »

Interesting rebuttal from the IAAF

http://jumping-the-gun.com/?p=9876

More detail here.
Worth reading the final pages

kennyb3

Andalucia wrote: »

IAAF and Seb Coe gone very defensive - instead of taking this as an opportunity to change, they're attacking the report and its authors instead of the issue - seems they don't want to learn anything from cycling past transgressions

For Seb Coe to question the credentials of the experts is just insane

They are the UCI mark II

Andalucia wrote: »

IAAF and Seb Coe gone very defensive - instead of taking this as an opportunity to change, they're attacking the report and its authors instead of the issue - seems they don't want to learn anything from cycling past transgressions

For Seb Coe to question the credentials of the experts is just insane

This is the same approach cycling took. Looked at what happened there.

robinph

Forget which of the multitude of links it was on, but somewhere it said they had tested over 5000 athletes and had 11000 test results regarding the blood passport data. Now my understanding on that blood passport was that you could only tell something once you had done several tests per athlete and then looked out for changes that were not explainable over time.

11000/5000 makes only a couple of tests per person, and they have presumably done far more than just 2 tests on a large number of athletes especially any that have been banned due to the blood passport date, that means they have only done one test on a huge number as well. Which means that data on athletes they have done just one test on is completely useless at that stage.

Any out of range results on people that they have just one test done on mean nothing other than to test that athlete again. If these are the results that the journalists are latching onto as being dodgy then they have not understood the process properly and are trying to find a conspiracy that isn't there.

Inquitus

robinph wrote: »

Forget which of the multitude of links it was on, but somewhere it said they had tested over 5000 athletes and had 11000 test results regarding the blood passport data. Now my understanding on that blood passport was that you could only tell something once you had done several tests per athlete and then looked out for changes that were not explainable over time.

11000/5000 makes only a couple of tests per person, and they have presumably done far more than just 2 tests on a large number of athletes especially any that have been banned due to the blood passport date, that means they have only done one test on a huge number as well. Which means that data on athletes they have done just one test on is completely useless at that stage.

Any out of range results on people that they have just one test done on mean nothing other than to test that athlete again. If these are the results that the journalists are latching onto as being dodgy then they have not understood the process properly and are trying to find a conspiracy that isn't there.

There are plenty of signs of doping that can be picked up from blood samples even without continued testing over time. The blood passport program just sets norms over time to make it easier to detect manipulation. Given athletics history these results are not surprising in the slightest.

shels4ever

kennyb3 wrote: »

They are the UCI mark II

Problem here is in cycling it was the people in power taking this stance, I'm more disturbed that it's the people who want to get in making this statement, doesn't bode well for the future.

robinph

Inquitus wrote: »

There are plenty of signs of doping that can be picked up from blood samples even without continued testing over time. The blood passport program just sets norms over time to make it easier to detect manipulation. Given athletics history these results are not surprising in the slightest.

Absolutely.

I think the IAAF are simply saying that they know full well about all of the blood results, and they have take the action where required. Just looking at a list of numbers and then claiming that x'%age of people have failed tests which has not been followed up on is not correct as there is far more to the data than just a pass or fail line on a spreadsheet.

They need more resources to tackle doping in sports, that is something everyone agrees on. To accuse the IAAF of not doing anything due to some blood results in a report from before when the blood passport came into force is not fair on them though and they are just defending themselves from that accusation.

Did the leaked data also include information on all of the relevant athletes TUE details which would account for certain out of range results for instance?

I don't doubt that there is lots more doping going on than people are currently being caught. The IAAF are just saying that they know this also, but don't read that leaked report and think you have the full story is how I saw their response.

menoscemo

Some really interesting posts from Renato Canova on Let's run on this thread from page 5 onwards.
He basically argues that EPO would have a negative effect on top distance runners used to training hard at altitude.

shels4ever

menoscemo wrote: »

Some really interesting posts from Renato Canova on Let's run on this thread from page 5 onwards.
He basically argues that EPO would have a negative effect on top distance runners used to training hard at altitude.

He doesn't believe top Kenyans are doping , even in Kenya they know there is an issue prior to the current issue. Seems there are a lot of people with heads in the sand now hoping it will blow over.

robinph wrote: »

Forget which of the multitude of links it was on, but somewhere it said they had tested over 5000 athletes and had 11000 test results regarding the blood passport data. Now my understanding on that blood passport was that you could only tell something once you had done several tests per athlete and then looked out for changes that were not explainable over time.

11000/5000 makes only a couple of tests per person, and they have presumably done far more than just 2 tests on a large number of athletes especially any that have been banned due to the blood passport date, that means they have only done one test on a huge number as well. Which means that data on athletes they have done just one test on is completely useless at that stage.

Any out of range results on people that they have just one test done on mean nothing other than to test that athlete again. If these are the results that the journalists are latching onto as being dodgy then they have not understood the process properly and are trying to find a conspiracy that isn't there.

I'm also interested to know more details about the breakdown of tests done per athlete. It's known they target the top athletes far more than those down the line.
I'd presume the ST journalists who confronted the British athlete (after consulting experts who were involved in setting up the bio passport) aren't stupid enough to think its noteworthy based on one abnormal off-score.
They even write the athletes blood scores increase in line with their performance improvement.. so we know we're not just talking about one or two tests.
The worrying thing is that the athletes score was highest out of 500 blood tests done on British atheltes. If that score is combined with multiple other abnormal off-scores then you really have to wonder.

Krusty_Clown

shels4ever wrote: »

He doesn't believe top Kenyans are doping , even in Kenya they know there is an issue prior to the current issue. Seems there are a lot of people with heads in the sand now hoping it will blow over.

Reading that thread, he specifically called out that there was a doping issue in Kenya, and raised it himself with AK a couple of years back (2011). He seems to be distinguishing between two types of Kenyan runner though:
1) Those that are world class (implying that they are clean)
2) Those that are good Kenyan standard, that suddenly improve and have big international wins (having previously not run sub 30, or sub 2:25).

I think there are more than 100 athletes in top 20 in the World (so in regime of whereabouts), about other 300-400 athletes who can run at not high international level, and 3,500 that "hope" to have one opportunity in the future. These athletes competes in small local races, sometimes one of them becomes better and can go to run a competition abroad : this is the real field where there is doping.

shels4ever

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Reading that thread, he specifically called out that there was a doping issue in Kenya, and raised it himself with AK a couple of years back (2011). He seems to be distinguishing between two types of Kenyan runner though:
1) Those that are world class (implying that they are clean)
2) Those that are good Kenyan standard, that suddenly improve and have big international wins (having previously not run sub 30, or sub 2:25).

Yes i've see that, but if you look at Kenyan Athletics and specifically at marathon does that really add up? There are very few going from 2:25 to world class , most debuts are sub 2:10 these days or in that area. Ok these maybe the so called world class type he is talking about but i would have major doubts that all these are clean.

I suppose at least the IAAF have this level of data in the first place. Could you imagine such documents even existing in FIFA headquarters in the first place.

A thread like this attracts those who pop in and leave the usual "they are all at it" slander. I don't have a problem with people thinking athletics is dirty, but when these same people also maintain their own sports are clean, that is hard to take as an athletics fan. I hate the fact that our sport gets dragged through the mud, when the same or worse in other sports gathers no publicity. I hate that our sport is a scapegoat for doping in general. I hate the ignorance people show towards the issue to assume that wealthier sports than athletics which have a bigger financial incentive to cheat, are drug free. I hate that our sport loses popularity because of this, while others remain as popular as ever.

Here's a great piece put together by somebody who clearly feels passionate about this topic. Time to remove the heads out of the sand and accept that all professional sport is dirty. Imagine how prevalent doping amongst footballers would be if we had the same data available to us.

http://www.4dfoot.com/2013/02/09/doping-in-football-fifty-years-of-evidence/

Chivito550 wrote: »

I suppose at least the IAAF have this level of data in the first place. Could you imagine such documents even existing in FIFA headquarters in the first place.

A thread like this attracts those who pop in and leave the usual "they are all at it" slander. I don't have a problem with people thinking athletics is dirty, but when these same people also maintain their own sports are clean, that is hard to take as an athletics fan. I hate the fact that our sport gets dragged through the mud, when the same or worse in other sports gathers no publicity. I hate that our sport is a scapegoat for doping in general. I hate the ignorance people show towards the issue to assume that wealthier sports than athletics which have a bigger financial incentive to cheat, are drug free. I hate that our sport loses popularity because of this, while others remain as popular as ever.

Here's a great piece put together by somebody who clearly feels passionate about this topic. Time to remove the heads out of the sand and accept that all professional sport is dirty. Imagine how prevalent doping amongst footballers would be if we had the same data available to us.

http://www.4dfoot.com/2013/02/09/doping-in-football-fifty-years-of-evidence/

Not sure if you notice or not, this is an Athletics forum and not any other sport. So why bring other sports into it when its has nothing to do with this thread.

Also no one on here has said any sport is drug free

average_runner wrote: »

Not sure if you notice or not, this is an Athletics forum and not any other sport. So why bring other sports into it when its has nothing to do with this thread.

Yeah, strange. Theres a thread on doping in the soccer forum anyway and the general consensus posted in it is that its rife in the sport.

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto responded:
http://www.news.co.uk/2015/08/blood-experts-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/

And for the avoidance of doubt, we based our judgments on the entire blood test profile for the athlete not just on individual scores.

Giruilla wrote: »

Yeah, strange. Theres a thread on doping in the soccer forum anyway and the general consensus posted in it is that its rife in the sport.

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto responded:
http://www.news.co.uk/2015/08/blood-experts-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/

Yeh but only the educated sports follower posts on that thread. Compared to most threads on that forum it wouldn't reach a lot of posters. Most don't want to know.

average_runner wrote: »

Not sure if you notice or not, this is an Athletics forum and not any other sport. So why bring other sports into it when its has nothing to do with this thread.

Also no one on here has said any sport is drug free

When it comes to doping I believe it all to be relevant. Attitudes like yours is why only cyclists were pinned in Operation Puerto, as the case was strictly to "only be about cycling".

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh but only the educated sports follower posts on that thread. Compared to most threads on that forum it wouldn't reach a lot of posters. Most don't want to know.

That's true.

Chivito550 wrote: »

When it comes to doping I believe it all to be relevant. Attitudes like yours is why only cyclists were pinned in Operation Puerto, as the case was strictly to "only be about cycling".

No, my attitude is when there is money to be made in sport, drugs will be a problem. I have always said soccer was rife with it.

I just dont want to bring other sports into this thread as it takes away the importance of this thread

Also some sports are going the right way, Tyrone had to wait till 8pm in Croke park to be tested after their last match, didn't complain either. If that was a professional sports person from other sports, there would of been tantrums especially soccer

ThisRegard

We all know all sports are dirty to some degree or another. Some people just can't accept this without deflecting to another sport though.

average_runner wrote: »

No, my attitude is when there is money to be made in sport, drugs will be a problem. I have always said soccer was rife with it.

I just dont want to bring other sports into this thread as it takes away the importance of this thread

Also some sports are going the right way, Tyrone had to wait till 8pm in Croke park to be tested after their last match, didn't complain either. If that was a professional sports person from other sports, there would of been tantrums especially soccer

If you want to talk domestically, Irish athletes are tested far more than GAA players, and openly welcome the testing too. I don't think it's a case that GAA is going in the right direction, any more than Irish Athletics doing likewise. You can't compare an amateur sport played in one country to a global sport. The only fair comparison is to compare it to athletics in Ireland only, a sport that is also amateur in 99.9% of the cases (more amateur than GAA I would add, in the true sense of the word).