Dutch scientist hits out at the biological passport system
Dutch scientist Klaas Faber has hit out at the biological passport system of the International Cycling Union (UCI), saying that the body's case against Italian rider Franco Pellizotti has exposed fundamental flaws in the system.
The UCI found irregularities in Pellizotti's records ahead of this year's Giro d'Italia and handed the rider a provisional ban that was lifted on 21 October, when the Italian Olympic Committee found the evidence against Pellizotti to be insufficient.
The UCI has yet to decide whether it will appeal against Pellizzotti, but Faber, who has analysed scientific data since the 1980's and worked for the Dutch Forensic Institute, told Cyclingnews that the UCI is likely to lose the case should the body decide
to do so.
"They’ll probably lose the Pellizotti case and as soon as people start recognising these things they see that the passport works to the disadvantage of the athletes and that the prosecution has a head start. That makes it legally untenable. This could be
the end of the passport."
The biological passport system, which uses urine and blood samples from all UCI ProTour riders to create haematological and steroid profiles and electronically monitors their results over time, was introduced by the UCI in 2008.
Faber, who is highly critical of the system, said the levels that the system produces are biased against the riders from the outset.
"On a superficial level if you look at how they work with the numbers you can see that they plug numbers into software that overestimates the likelihood of guilt. It’s simplistic software. They ignore the fundamental issues and then even on a higher level
they should work with all kinds of corrections and checks. But what they do is to the disadvantage of the athlete and that’s something that you can prove."
Must produce independent data
Moreover, Faber added that the UCI's charges against a rider have to be proved by using data that is independent from the levels that caused the suspicion in the first place.
"They find one or two abnormal values and on the basis of what they see, they hypothesise and then confirm guilt based off the same data. If you base a suspicion on the same data that you use to prove the guilt, it’s an abuse of the data. You need independent
data to confirm the hypothesis."
Tags: