Tuesday, September 26, 2006

AAF Statistics

A while back we started looking at the apparent discrepencies between claimed Adverse Analytical Findings by testing labs, and cases and sanctions turning up in ADA statistics.

[more]

Since then, TBV has written to the USADA for the data necessary to figure it out, and the response was a pointer to the statistics in the annual report. After checking it again to make sure we were quoting the numbers correctly, we sent the following letter on September 15th.

Thank you for your response. I have reviewed the annual report again, and I find that the statistics presented don't answer the questions I am trying to resolve.

For example, let's consider 2005. The WADA annual report shows that there were 528 AAFs reported by the UCLA lab, while the USADA annual report on page 15 seems to show 27 AAFs when one sums up the second section that classifies AAFs.

In the previous section at the top of the USADA report on page 15, there are 31 reported cases, of which 6 are referered to non-US federations, and 6 were resolved as non-violations.

I understand that mutiple AAFs may be combined into a single 'case', either by longitudinal study, results from a single event, or being B sample tests of the same case. But there appear to be no statistics documenting what happened.

I believe that all AAFs from UCLA are supposed to be reported both to USADA and to WADA, so I am trying to understand exactly how 538 AAFs became just 31 cases to USADA, and what procedural steps resulted in the conclusion of 6 non-violations. Were these rejected by the review board in response to the athlete's reply, as a result of hearing, by appeal to CAS, or by acceptance of a TUE? Or, are TUE's the cause of the weeding from 538 AAFs to 31 cases? What are the numbers for the disposition of the UCLA reported AAFs?

Of the 538 AAFs, how many were A samples, and how many were Bs? How many total B sample tests were conducted, and how many did not confirm the A?

I don't find the answers to any of these questions in the annual report, and would like to figure out how to get the data that will provide answers.

Your assistance is appreciated.

No answer has been received as of October 2nd.

[updated: or January 9th.]

[end]

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a great blog, though at times somewhat (or a lot) over my head since I'm a relatively new fan of cycling. I'm leaving this comment, hoping that you'll find information about Floyd's surgery. Based on the statement on his website, it was scheduled for the 27th, right? A lot of us would like to know if the surgery goes ahead tomorrow. Thanks.

trust_but_verify@browernet.us said...

Yes, when there is news about the hip operation, I'll link it. The reports I've heard say he's more than ready to do it, and has had a few really hard weeks lately.

thanks for dropping by,
TBV