thank you. Good info and helpful.
Just to try and explain how the passport would work a bit clearer.
Here are three samples from the same athlete that I posted earlier. Note how the levels are all over the place and this is largely because we have at one end, a very very watery sample (1.002) and at the other end a concentrated sample (1.03)
its very hard to get anything from that because theres such huge variance in the numbers.
So lets do some very very rudimentary normalisation. Basically, ive multipled sample 1 data by 4, and divided sample three data by 4 to make them roughly the same concentration as sample 2 (based on the andro data)
remember, we dont care about the levels of each factor, so it doesnt matter if we mess about with those, what we care about is the relationship between the various factors.
now, im going to adjust a bit more by multiplying everything in yellow by 40 (purely to make the chart im doing next readable), again, the levels dont matter, all we care about is the relationships
Now, we can start to see patterns..
Now thats over three samples (and we cant draw any conclusions from three samples, especially ones that have had rudimentary normalisation applied with a spoon). The biological passport for Conor has 30+ different urine samples, thats a mass of data points. So as soon as a new sample is entered the system lays that sample in with the other 29 samples and starts looking at the data.
If theres a spike or a dip, or a change in relationship between two of more factors, then the alarms ring and that tells USADA were to look, which samples to maybe retest with IRMS etc.
But just to demonstrate how basic urine levels for testosterone are useless.
The sample of Jones (the athlete in these numbers) that had the LOWEST testosterone levels, when you normalise it, actually had the highest