<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Lance Armstrong says it helped scare him off performance-enhancing drugs forever. It's already been implemented in track and field as well as cycling, and world tennis authorities are now considering adding it to their arsenal as well. \nIt's called the \"biological passport,\" a DNA fingerprint of sorts that may well be the next high-tech weapon to gain widespread use against doping in sports. \nIn his recent highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong pointed to the biological passport as one of the main factors that thwarted his ability to take performance-enhancing drugs without detection. \n\"It's a question of scheduling,\" Armstrong said. \"I know that sounds weird, but two things changed this. The shift to out-of-competition testing and the biological passport. And it really worked.\" \nNow Stuart Miller, who runs the International Tennis Federation's anti-doping efforts, tells USA Today that similar testing is \"being considered seriously\" in his sport, and that it could be put in place as early as next year. \nThe recent increase in attention raises a couple of obvious questions: How exactly does the biological passport work? And how effective could it really be? \nIn a nutshell, here's how the technology works: Rather than directly search for evidence of PEDs in an athlete's system, the biological passport method of enforcement uses a more comprehensive overview of athletes' individual biochemistry to search for abnormalities particular to them. Multiple samples are collected over time and stored electronically to create personal profiles, and those parameters are then used to judge future drug tests. \nThat, says the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, allows regulators \"to see the big picture \u2014 any deviations from the athlete\u2019s test-established norm that might result from doping, even if the specific drug or tactic remains unknown.\"\nMany see the biological passport as an important step forward in the war on sports doping. And while it's gained a bit more notice in recent days, the system isn't that new. World cycling's governing body adopted it in 2008, while track and field's regulatory commission followed suit in 2010.\nMany cyclists have been punished for results detected under the program, and the Australian Football League just implemented a passport system of its own. \nIts personalized and \"big picture\" nature, supporters say, make it better and more effective than other forms of testing. Many believe that the passport's high level of science acts as a powerful deterrent and detection tool. Armstrong, one of the most notorious dopers in sports history, seemingly confirmed that last week.\nNonetheless, skeptics do caution that one be-all-end-all drug test will likely never exist in sports. As hard as regulatory bodies work to kill doping, athletes and their handlers will just as feverishly try to gain a competitive edge through whatever means possible. \nRoss Tucker, a South Africa-based scientist who specializes in exercise physiology, has analyzed the biological passport on his website, The Science of Sport. He compares it to a set of well-positioned cameras placed in an area known for dangerous, speeding motorists. People will still find ways to drive faster than allowed, he argues, but overall instances of abuse will be curbed.  \n\"Will people still speed? Of course,\" Tucker writes. \"But will they speed less severely, and try to speed only when not being observed? Yes, and the end result is positive. Similarly, cyclists will dope, there is no doubt of this. But they will be more careful, and that has positive consequences.\"\nHow do you think sports doping should best be addressed by regulatory bodies? Give us your take in the comments. \nThumbnail image courtesy Flickr, PoweriPics"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2013/01/22/biological-passport-sports-doping/>