At the Tackling Doping in Sport conference which I attended in London last week, the emergence of the athlete biological passport program was a primary topic of conversation. The athlete biological passport program measures certain blood markers (reticulocytes, hemoglobin, and red blood cells) in an athlete’s blood samples against those of a normal person and a normal athlete to determine whether there are irregularities in the athlete’s blood markers.
A team of experts analyzes the levels and opines on whether the irregularities in an athlete’s blood markers (if there are any) are evidence of blood doping and/or the use of a banned performance enhancing substance like EPO. The irregularities don’t necessarily mean that the athlete is doping. Irregularities could also be caused by an abnormal or pathological condition of the blood.
Until now, only the International Cycling Union has utilized the biological passport program in an attempt to catch athletes who are blood doping and/or using a banned performance enhancing substance like EPO without evidence of a positive test.
The IAAF, the international federation governing track and field, has also now begun to implement the biological passport program. The IAAF plans “an unprecedented blood-testing program” at the upcoming IAAF World Championships in Daegu, South Korea this summer.
The biological passport program, which has been fledgling to this point, got a huge boost in credibility recently at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) when the Panel presiding over the cases of cyclists Pietro Caucchioli and Franco Pellizotti found that the program is a valid way to demonstrate to a CAS Panel that an athlete has committed an anti-doping violation.
News, commentary, and legal updates from Preti Flaherty's Sports Law attorneys
