Competitive performance as a discriminator of doping status in elite athletes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.306Keywords:
sports, modelling, biological passport, risk stratification, Bayesian, target testing, data analyticsAbstract
As the aim of any doping regime is to improve sporting performance, it has been suggested that analysis of athlete competitive results might be informative in identifying those at greater risk of doping. This research study aimed to investigate the utility of a statistical performance model to discriminate between athletes who have a previous anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and those who do not.
We analysed performances of male and female 100m and 800m runners obtained from the World Athletics database using a Bayesian spline model. Measures of unusual improvement in performance were quantified by comparing the yearly change in athlete's performance (delta excess performance) to quantiles of performance in their age matched peers from the database population. The discriminative ability of these measures was investigated using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with the 50%, 75% and 90% quantiles of the population performance. The highest AUC values across age were identified for the model with a 75% quantile (AUC = 0.78-0.80). The results of this study demonstrate that delta excess performance was able to discriminate between athletes with and without ADRVs, and therefore could be used to assist in the risk stratification of athletes for anti-doping purposes.
Metrics
References
AIU (2021). Press release: Competition manipulation is a threat to sport integrity: Aiu identifies multiple illegitimate qualifying performances for the tokyo 2020 olympic games.
Allem, S. and W. Hopkins (2015). Age of peak competitive performance of elite athletes: a systematic review. Sports Medicine 45, 1431–1441.
Azzalini, A. and A. Capitanio (2003). Distributions generated by perturbation of symmetry with emphasis on a multivariate skew t-distribution. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 65, 367–389.
Berthelot, G., M. Tafflet, N. El. Helou, and et al. (2010). Athlete atypicity on the edge of human achievement: Performances stagnate after the last peak, in 1988. PLoS One 5, 1–8.
de Hon, O., H. Kuipers, and van Bottenburg M. (2015). Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports Medicine 45, 57–69.
Faiss, R., J. Saugy, N. Zollinger, and et al. (2020). Prevalence estimate of blood doping in elite track and field athletes during two major international events. Frontiers in Physiology 11, 1–11.
Gneiting, T. and P. Vogel (2022). Receiver operating characteristic (roc) curves: equivalences, beta model, and minimum distance estimation. Machine learn- ing 111, 2147–2159.
Griffin, J. E., L. C. Hinoveanu, and J. G. Hopker (2022). Bayesian modelling of elite sporting performance with large databases. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 18(4), 253–268.
Haugen, T., G. Paulsen, S. Seiler, and O. Sandbakk (2018). New records in human power. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 13, 678–686.
Hopker, J., J. Griffin, J. Brookhouse, J. Peters, Y. O. Schumacher, and S. Iljukov (2020). Performance profiling as an intelligence-led approach to antidoping in sports. Drug Testing and Analysis 12(3), 402–409.
Hopker, J., Y. Schumacher, M. Fedoruk, and et al. (2018). Athlete performance monitoring in anti-doping. Frontiers in Physiology 9, 1–4.
H ́ebert-Losier, K. Pamment, M. (2023). Advancements in running shoe technol- ogy and their effects on running economy and performance - a current concepts overview. Sports Biomechanics 3, 335–350.
Iljukov, S., J. Kauppi, A. Uusitalo, and et al. (2020). Association between imple- mentation of the athlete biological passport and female elite runners’ performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 15, 1231–1236.
Laisant, C.-A. (1905). Int ́egration des fonctions inverses. Nouvelles annales de math ́ematiques : journal des candidats aux ́ecoles polytechnique et normale 4e s ́erie, 5, 253–257.
Montagna, S. and J. G. Hopker (2018, July). A bayesian approach to the use of athlete performance data within anti-doping. Frontiers in Physiology 9(884).
Petr ́oczi, A., M. Cruyff, O. de Hon, D. Sagoe, and M. Saugy (2022). Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major inter- national sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 4.
Schumacher, Y. and T. Pottgiesser (2009). Performance profiling: a role for sport science in the fight against doping? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 4, 129–133.
Ulrich, R., H. G. Pope, L. Cl ́eret, A. Petr ́oczi, T. Nepusz, J. Schaffer, G. Kanayama, R. Comstock, and P. Simon (2018). Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys. Sports Medicine 48, 211–219.
Vernec, A. (2014). The athlete biological passport: an integral element of innovative strategies in antidoping. British Journal of Sports Medicine 48, 817–819.
WADA (2021). Testing and investigations international standard. WADA (2023). 2021 anti-doping testing figures.
Downloads
Posted
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 James Hopker, Jim Griffin, Laurentiu Hinoveanu, Jonas Saugy, Raphael Faiss (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
