The Biological Passport program took a hit recently when Italian anti-doping authorities cleared Franco Pellizotti of doping charges stemming from Bio Passport abnormalities. While the UCI can still appeal the decision to the CAS, the general perception has been that the decision was a blow to the credibility of the Passport program. Then on Wednesday cyclingnews.com ran an article highly critical of the Passport program, citing Dutch scientist Klaas Faber. I discussed these recent developments with Michael Ashenden, a member of the Bio Passport Panel.

Andy Shen: Do you know why the Pellizotti case didn’t stand up? Is it true that it was based on two abnormal values?

Michael Ashenden: I have not seen the complete decision by the Italian anti-doping tribunal (TNA) so all I can go on is press reports quoting the TNA as finding that there was "…. not a sufficient level of certainty to consider the accused cyclist of the crimes". I’m not placing a great deal of weight on that quote – for example I’m puzzled why the term ‘crime’ would be used in the context of the Passport, which makes me think something has been lost in translation. I’m very keen to read the complete decision to understand the basis of their reasoning, but until I have seen the decision I don’t see any value in me adding to the pool of speculation. 

As far as disclosing the basis of the case, unless Mr Pellizotti puts his blood profile on public record I am unable to reveal that information.

AS: How much damage was done by the Pellizotti and Valjavec cases? Does the Passport revert to being an intelligence tool rather than a sanctioning tool?

MA: It’s interesting that you use the past tense ‘was’, I think current tense is more appropriate. I sense we are in the midst of a turbulent, destabilising phase. But I also anticipate this phase will pass. I feel for riders and teams who could understandably be bewildered by the mixed messages flying around about the efficacy, and perhaps even legality, of the Passport.

Frankly I’ve been shocked at how poorly understood the Passport process is – if observers don’t understand how the Passport works then it is not surprising they will be made ‘jumpy’ by the Valjavec and Pellizotti outcomes. I won’t pretend to be able to salve all those concerns in one interview – but I’d like to point out the elements I feel are most misunderstood.

First, it is asking a lot of a national hearing body to be the first to ‘ratify’ the Passport in the face of a concerted legal challenge by an athlete. I would observe that any uncertainty whatsoever could be seized upon by a national hearing body wishing to be hyper-conservative, and so be used as the basis to find in favor of the athlete. In effect this would pass responsibility for ratifying the Passport from the national hearing body to the ultimate hearing body, CAS.

Second, before Valjavec there was no ‘jurisprudence’ to guide prosecutors on how to present Passport evidence to the hearing panel. On the face of it that may sound like a lapse of common sense on our part, but rules and laws are open to interpretation and I think its fair to say the first time ‘we’ misjudged what level of detail had to be presented to substantiate our opinions. Those lessons have been quickly learnt and have influenced the manner – although I hasten to add not the facts themselves! – in which subsequent evidence will be presented to CAS.

Third, there seems to be an over-emphasis on what role the statistical software plays in the Passport process. The software flags abnormal results, which are then discussed and deliberated on by a panel of experts to satisfy themselves whether the data were caused by doping or not. A case cannot proceed unless the experts conclude it was caused by doping. There is an interplay between software & experts, but my sense is that most people focus too much on the statistics and not enough on the experts’ evaluation. And on that point – that the experts’ opinion is crucial – I’d suggest that athlete’s lawyers will generate an ocean of fanciful explanations in an attempt to drown the experts’ opinion and thereby excuse their client! That level of argy-bargy is not typical of a case brought under analytical positives, but I foresee athlete’s arguments will be put on steroids, stimulants and growth factors in an attempt to persuade the arbitrators.

And finally, to address the last part of your question – yes of course the Passport will continue to be an intelligence tool. If we go back to first principles, that’s what the Passport concept began as – a tool to intelligently interpret a list of results obtained from a particular athlete. We proposed that notion to the IOC in the lead up to the Sydney 2000 Olympics, it was part of Malcovati’s founding publication in 2003, and its been a part of the Passport ever since. I acknowledge that its use as a ‘sanctioning tool’ has been preeminent in recent years, however I sense the pendulum is now returning to a more sensible balance between ‘intelligence tool’ and ‘sanctioning’.

AS: If the UC loses the appeal to the CAS, what will be next for the Passport?

MA: I cannot predict the CAS’ verdict – and I’m guessing they would get pretty grumpy if I tried! Those hearings will obviously be crucial in shaping how the Passport progesses. I remain optimistic that the Passport concept will play a vital role in sport, probably re-shaped and re-defined by experience and hearing outcomes, but always a vital role.

AS: What’s your reaction to the Faber article in cyclingnews?

MA: I was dismayed when I read Klaas’ interview on cyclingnews. Not because he questioned the science and legality, but because he knowingly misrepresented how the Passport works. I spent four days recently in Geelong, and several weeks prior to that, sharing views with Klaas. At the time, I was taken aback by how poorly he understood basic concepts of the Passport program – on many things he was plain wrong, on some others just misguided. I accept that someone who had never used the Passport software nor attended an expert’s meeting could have misunderstood the process, so ignorance may have been an excuse beforehand. However I explained to him how it all works in the lead up to Geelong, so I am at a loss to understand his current statements.

As I said earlier, we are in the midst of a turbulent and destabilising phase, and although criticism should be expected and dealt with, irrational and unfounded statements are going to unnecessarily inflame the situation.

It saddens me to say, but a tell-tale signature of Klaas’ statements are the presence of hyperbole ("It’s an invitation to dope at an earlier age") and the absence of a justification. I hope that future publications insist on him appending a justification to each hyperbole. And similarly I think an onus should be put on us to properly explain the Passport, how it works, and why it works, so that journalists, arbitrators, riders and teams can reach reasoned conclusions for themselves.

AS: Can we address two of Faber’s specific charges then? First, that it’s circular for the same values that aroused suspicion to also create a sanction. Do you need further evidence to confirm suspicious profiles?

MA: Klaas is not a lawyer, nor can I see the immediate link between his work during the 1980’s and 90’s, and sports law circa 2010. So I’m reluctant to place too much weight on his opinion on what constitutes evidence. Instead I rely on the advice of sports lawyers who’ve been presenting cases to the CAS for decades and who drafted documents like the World Anti-Doping Code – their position is clearly that the Passport as it stands is a validated and reliable approach to impose an anti-doping rule violation.

AS: His charge that it’s an invitation to dope is certainly provocative, but given what we’ve heard about micro transfusions, is it so far fetched?

MA: You call it provocative, I call it half-baked. I agree with Klaas that riders have learned to adjust to the Passport – but that adjustment illustrates that the Passport serves as a shackle to restrict doping. If the mindset of a rider is to adopt a microdosing strategy to evade the Passport, that same mindset would lead the rider to use a macrodosing strategy if the Passport wasn’t there.

Certainly I’m uncomfortable at the prospect of catching only a handful of riders while many more slip through the net – and I can understand the intense frustration and anger the few who are caught must feel not just toward the antidoping authorities but also to the culture that lured them into that trap. But I don’t agree that removing the shackles is the solution. I’ve long argued that the Passport is best utilised as a no-start rule – it’s up to the sport federation not WADA to make that change – but let’s remember the 50% haematocrit rule required the agreement of the teams and riders so perhaps we should be inviting the teams and riders to start taking that argument to the UCI. Right now, I don’t have a sense that the riders would have sufficient trust in the Passport to take a position, and part of why I object to Klaas’ hyperbole is that it will only inflame the distrust and serve to drive the wedge deeper. As I said at the conference in Geelong, and I reiterate here, I would like to see the riders have a voice in drafting any no-start rules which govern their sport.