Log in:  

Register

Brits don't dope?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky

19 Jan 2018 09:45

For anyone who's actually interested, here is the method they used in the London lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967313004299

The instrumentation used was a Waters Acquity UPLC coupled to a Thermo Scientific Exactive Mass Spectrometer (I don't think it's open access and this isn't stated in the abstract). I'm happy to outline that technology's place in 2012 if people really are interested in terms of what was state-of-the-art, what wasn't and how this is applicable to the testing.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,707
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

19 Jan 2018 10:22

the thread is about british doping. quite straightforward and simple, isn't it.

a russian wistleblower whose whose credibility is considered by the wada of the highest order is now coming out and reported in the premier English media in the plain English language that many brits doped their way... that the british lab tasked with olympic testing that boasted from the roof tops turns out used an outdated equipment.

the implication is that many (dozens, hundreds ?) of british and other nationals may have been tested inadequately. the implication is that the british claims may have been unwitting or deliberate lies.

sounds simple enough for any doping hunter with the zeal of mr seppelt to IMMEDIATELY start an investigation into the british doping lab.

where is wada / where is ioc ?

python wrote:
iejeecee wrote:At this rate Grigory Rodchenkov will be inspecting the ocean floor from a very close distance in the near future. It's all good and well being in a witness protection program outing those dirty ruskies, but when you start outing the people providing the protection.....
interesting point...the alleged doping was british, the protection is american...

if you are correct, it is a conspiracy. then mr seppelt and his ilk need very urgently start digging. where are they ? :rolleyes:

btw, unlike some obsessing reading the tea leaves in stead of the prime source, rodchenkov directly and specifically accused the lab of using the outdated equipment
Apparently a lot of the equipment that was in the London laboratory was not the most state-of-the-art equipment. Apparently there were a lot of older testing machines.

this is enough (if not plenty) for wada and the ioc to immediately start the massive retesting program like they've done already on some athletes who lost their london medals.

but none of the sort is urged by the likes of sepplet. why ?

added; as far as i know, the german and swiss wada labs dont suffer the technological edge and their scientists would love to find out those british and other dopers...whether their wada and ioc overseers want THAT, i very much doubt.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,601
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

19 Jan 2018 10:28

Here's the history covering the Orbitrap Mass analyser and iterations up to the 2011 release of the Q Exactive. The Exactive was released in 2008:

http://planetorbitrap.com/history#.WmHHuSNdl24
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,707
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

19 Jan 2018 10:47

just to add. i mentioned some place that i knew rodchenkov and corresponded with him directly on many occasions wrt some testing results that one wada lab was interpreting differently from another lab...even then, way before the current scandal with he russians, he appeared to me as too voluminous, too talkative addressing and volunteering issues i never had asked about not cared about...

my point is the guy was fishing for something even though he knew my real name and credentials...

people like that, at least in my world, are acting strange, suspicious. what they say, what they allegedly gut-spill and particularly what they claim as evidence needs a very careful check.

including what he claimed about the brits.

it is rather curious that i hear nothing about verification of the british doping but everything about the well know culprits who appear a convenient scape goat atm.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,601
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re:

19 Jan 2018 11:05

macbindle wrote:Confusing Rodchenkov remarks with the UKAD letter highlighting chaos at BC/Sky dope store maybe?


No. I just read the BBC article rather than just the quote and it's in there. For the 2012 lab it wasn't the case unless you are going to really stretch the definition of old and out-dated. The iteration of the instrument employed in the 2012 lab (I was actually under the impression it was Q Exactives though) is still being used by many labs with data produced published in Nature group journals, PLoS group journals etc.

It's perfectly possible that the lab procedures were a mess, sample receiving, processing etc. and even the operation of the instruments, I'm afraid I have no knowledge of this and no evidence has been presented. But in terms of those instruments, he's being very liberal with his definitions. It's possible he is referring to other instrumentation being used, but I believe these were the instruments that were used for the bulk of the testing.


The problem is this kind of thing is very easy to check and lessens the impact of other things he might say. I don't think anyone here would question the suggestion that many athletes, including British athletes, were doping for the Olympics, there's no need to embelish. And of course the main problem is the lack of understanding from many in the press and the general public with respect to how and when athletes dope and how and when it can be detected. No matter how good the lab was, it wasn't going to catch the people who knew how to dope properly.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,707
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

30 Jan 2018 10:58

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/30/ukad-receive-6m-cash-injection-government-review

UK Anti-Doping Agency gets £6m cash injection after government review
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,781
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re:

30 Jan 2018 11:51

TourOfSardinia wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/30/ukad-receive-6m-cash-injection-government-review

UK Anti-Doping Agency gets £6m cash injection after government review


As the article points out the extra funding is welcome but unless UKAD is given full investigative powers nothing will change

Ideally doping would also be made a criminal offence in the UK but even if there was the political will that's not going to happen while legislative paralysis endures due to Brexit
Wiggo's Package
Junior Member
 
Posts: 268
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re:

30 Jan 2018 11:57

King Boonen wrote:For anyone who's actually interested, here is the method they used in the London lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967313004299

The instrumentation used was a Waters Acquity UPLC coupled to a Thermo Scientific Exactive Mass Spectrometer (I don't think it's open access and this isn't stated in the abstract). I'm happy to outline that technology's place in 2012 if people really are interested in terms of what was state-of-the-art, what wasn't and how this is applicable to the testing.
More detail on what Grigory Rodchenkov is claiming about London, from an interview for Deutschlandfunk-Sportgespräch conducted by Andrea Schültke and Hajo Seppelt:
Schültke: How was the quality of testing in the doping control lab in London 2012 Olympics?

Rodchenkov: Very poor. Honestly laboratory in Harlow was not ready to detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. For me it is absolutely strange why London laboratory disregarded the latest approaches and analyses. It was already published. But again. You know to confirm my words, you see how many positives were reported after the reanalysis of London samples. And it speaks for itself. The laboratory was not prepared. Then could you imagine: would laboratory be prepared during the London games it might be twenty positives in athletics and twenty positives in weightlifting. What does it mean? It means that weightlifting should be withdrawn or suspended from the Olympics games for let's say eight years.
Have to confess, I am somewhat agnostic about Rodchenkov - call me a cynic, I don't trust even the people saying things I want to hear - and am not sure if what he is saying is fair. It would be useful here to know how many labs in 2012 could detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. And how many labs now can do it.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,110
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

30 Jan 2018 13:40

fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:For anyone who's actually interested, here is the method they used in the London lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967313004299

The instrumentation used was a Waters Acquity UPLC coupled to a Thermo Scientific Exactive Mass Spectrometer (I don't think it's open access and this isn't stated in the abstract). I'm happy to outline that technology's place in 2012 if people really are interested in terms of what was state-of-the-art, what wasn't and how this is applicable to the testing.
More detail on what Grigory Rodchenkov is claiming about London, from an interview for Deutschlandfunk-Sportgespräch conducted by Andrea Schültke and Hajo Seppelt:
Schültke: How was the quality of testing in the doping control lab in London 2012 Olympics?

Rodchenkov: Very poor. Honestly laboratory in Harlow was not ready to detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. For me it is absolutely strange why London laboratory disregarded the latest approaches and analyses. It was already published. But again. You know to confirm my words, you see how many positives were reported after the reanalysis of London samples. And it speaks for itself. The laboratory was not prepared. Then could you imagine: would laboratory be prepared during the London games it might be twenty positives in athletics and twenty positives in weightlifting. What does it mean? It means that weightlifting should be withdrawn or suspended from the Olympics games for let's say eight years.
Have to confess, I am somewhat agnostic about Rodchenkov - call me a cynic, I don't trust even the people saying things I want to hear - and am not sure if what he is saying is fair. It would be useful here to know how many labs in 2012 could detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. And how many labs now can do it.



With regard GW1516, the Harlow lab could detect it with the kit they had. An initial method was developed in 2009 by Thevis (and Rodchenkov among others) using tandem MS at the Colonge lab. According to what I can find the Harlow lab didn't have tandem MS (I think this is wrong, I think they had Q-Exactives too but I can't find the info), however Thevis (and Rodchenkov again among others) developed a method in 2010 using LC-ESI-HCD/MS on an Exactive orbitrap mass spectrometer based on their tandem MS work. The same instrument the Harlow lab had according to the press I can find. It would be very strange if they weren't testing for it. I can't comment on their limits of detection, time scale of detection etc. without reading the literature.

It's fair to say every accredited lab in 2012 should have been able to test for GW1516 (I would have thought it was a requirement by then).

Ostarine I don't know about. First positive in 2013 so maybe a test existed but wasn't approved so wasn't implemented? I'd have to check the literature. I would think they could have though. SARMs were banned in 2008 and Ostarine (first discussed in 2009) is not endogenously produced meaning detection of it or its metabolites should be a fairly simple test to develop. 1 week to have a decent crack at it (ignoring time for ethics etc.).

Long term metabolites, he'd have to define but again, I think he's talking about method implementation rather than available instrumentation.


I still think his comments about instrumentation are wide of the mark, but those comments, if true, I'd agree with.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,707
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Brits don't dope?

30 Jan 2018 17:43

Rodchenkov was invited personally to tour the London facilities prior to the 2012 Ganes, his observations were that Russian athletes would be “clear” (and all other athletes with the inside preview of the treating center).
Last edited by thehog on 30 Jan 2018 23:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,699
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

30 Jan 2018 22:57

fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:For anyone who's actually interested, here is the method they used in the London lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967313004299

The instrumentation used was a Waters Acquity UPLC coupled to a Thermo Scientific Exactive Mass Spectrometer (I don't think it's open access and this isn't stated in the abstract). I'm happy to outline that technology's place in 2012 if people really are interested in terms of what was state-of-the-art, what wasn't and how this is applicable to the testing.
More detail on what Grigory Rodchenkov is claiming about London, from an interview for Deutschlandfunk-Sportgespräch conducted by Andrea Schültke and Hajo Seppelt:
Schültke: How was the quality of testing in the doping control lab in London 2012 Olympics?

Rodchenkov: Very poor. Honestly laboratory in Harlow was not ready to detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. For me it is absolutely strange why London laboratory disregarded the latest approaches and analyses. It was already published. But again. You know to confirm my words, you see how many positives were reported after the reanalysis of London samples. And it speaks for itself. The laboratory was not prepared. Then could you imagine: would laboratory be prepared during the London games it might be twenty positives in athletics and twenty positives in weightlifting. What does it mean? It means that weightlifting should be withdrawn or suspended from the Olympics games for let's say eight years.
Have to confess, I am somewhat agnostic about Rodchenkov - call me a cynic, I don't trust even the people saying things I want to hear - and am not sure if what he is saying is fair. It would be useful here to know how many labs in 2012 could detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. And how many labs now can do it.
here's what is strange. very strange indeed. a mind-boggling affair in fact if one was to transfer all the anti-russian credibility ascribed to rodchenkov to him thrashing the british anti doping lab work. anyone reading the elementary english can deduce what fmk Rol posted....

specifically. the single and only accuser of the mass russian doping found super credible by the wada and the ioc comes up with clear black on white accusations of the british anti doping lab inadequacy.

these are just allegations, no more, yet given the rodchenkov super cred (not with me b/c i delt with him personally) there is no, none zippo drive to investigate them. none in britain. none in the wada. (if i fell behind the curve, pls, feel free to correct me)

why ? isn't the british society priding itself on democracy and debate interested in their own cheats to the same degree they are interested in the cheats in russia ?

i have seen some clumsy attempts to scientify (if not to deflect) the simple matter by one poster, but the rodchenkov accusations (and the questions to be answered as a result) are serious enough for the investigation to get an urgent kick asap.

why do we see none ? perhaps wiggo is right - the brexit legal paralysis...

but the fear of the findings is equally likely, while the russians are so easy to throw the mud at in the mean time...
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,601
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

31 Jan 2018 00:04

python wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:For anyone who's actually interested, here is the method they used in the London lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967313004299

The instrumentation used was a Waters Acquity UPLC coupled to a Thermo Scientific Exactive Mass Spectrometer (I don't think it's open access and this isn't stated in the abstract). I'm happy to outline that technology's place in 2012 if people really are interested in terms of what was state-of-the-art, what wasn't and how this is applicable to the testing.
More detail on what Grigory Rodchenkov is claiming about London, from an interview for Deutschlandfunk-Sportgespräch conducted by Andrea Schültke and Hajo Seppelt:
Schültke: How was the quality of testing in the doping control lab in London 2012 Olympics?

Rodchenkov: Very poor. Honestly laboratory in Harlow was not ready to detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. For me it is absolutely strange why London laboratory disregarded the latest approaches and analyses. It was already published. But again. You know to confirm my words, you see how many positives were reported after the reanalysis of London samples. And it speaks for itself. The laboratory was not prepared. Then could you imagine: would laboratory be prepared during the London games it might be twenty positives in athletics and twenty positives in weightlifting. What does it mean? It means that weightlifting should be withdrawn or suspended from the Olympics games for let's say eight years.
Have to confess, I am somewhat agnostic about Rodchenkov - call me a cynic, I don't trust even the people saying things I want to hear - and am not sure if what he is saying is fair. It would be useful here to know how many labs in 2012 could detect new targets like long-term metabolites or ostarine or GW1516. And how many labs now can do it.
here's what is strange. very strange indeed. a mind-boggling affair in fact if one was to transfer all the anti-russian credibility ascribed to rodchenkov to him thrashing the british anti doping lab work. anyone reading the elementary english can deduce what fmk Rol posted....

specifically. the single and only accuser of the mass russian doping found super credible by the wada and the ioc comes up with clear black on white accusations of the british anti doping lab inadequacy.

these are just allegations, no more, yet given the rodchenkov super cred (not with me b/c i delt with him personally) there is no, none zippo drive to investigate them. none in britain. none in the wada. (if i fell behind the curve, pls, feel free to correct me)

why ? isn't the british society priding itself on democracy and debate interested in their own cheats to the same degree they are interested in the cheats in russia ?

i have seen some clumsy attempts to scientify (if not to deflect) the simple matter by one poster, but the rodchenkov accusations (and the questions to be answered as a result) are serious enough for the investigation to get an urgent kick asap.

why do we see none ? perhaps wiggo is right - the brexit legal paralysis...

but the fear of the findings is equally likely, while the russians are so easy to throw the mud at in the mean time...



There was the scene in Icarus when Fogel is telling the WADA scientists how the Russians cracked their system with fake screw tops in a matter of minutes, one of them was almost in tears and visibly upset on how easy her system was compromised. She kept saying “this reflects on me”. Clearly she had no idea WADA was already complicit but sad that her own head work was so easily compromised.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,699
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

31 Jan 2018 07:31

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-anti-doping-receives-6-million-funding-boost
UK Anti-Doping receives £6 million funding boost

Budget increased in the run up to Tokyo 2020 to cement UKAD’s position as one of the leading anti-doping agencies in the world

Sporting Future - Second Annual Report

Second annual report on progress on delivering the aims set out in Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sporting-future-second-annual-report
Salbutamol - Breakfast of Champions!
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"
Choco Loco for all your doping tips!
User avatar Robert5091
Member
 
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

31 Jan 2018 07:43

Well I suppose that is one positive outcome. Sapstead's UKAD were pretty exposed by the DCMS hearings.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Junior Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

31 Jan 2018 19:05

NADO's dont need more money - Their doping figures are inflated by weekend warriors.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

01 Feb 2018 10:00

yaco wrote:NADO's dont need more money - Their doping figures are inflated by weekend warriors.

Huh?
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,707
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

01 Feb 2018 16:13

King Boonen wrote:
yaco wrote:NADO's dont need more money - Their doping figures are inflated by weekend warriors.

Huh?


Go through a NADO's list of positive tests and therefore suspensions - There are many amateur type 'athletes' in the pool - I don't see the value of busting a 52 year old athlete competing on weekends for a small stipend - There are far too many - Surely the mandate of the WADA code is to target PROFESSIONAL athletes - I want to see NADO's give more value for their money before handing out increased dollars.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

01 Feb 2018 16:28

yaco wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
yaco wrote:NADO's dont need more money - Their doping figures are inflated by weekend warriors.

Huh?


Go through a NADO's list of positive tests and therefore suspensions - There are many amateur type 'athletes' in the pool - I don't see the value of busting a 52 year old athlete competing on weekends for a small stipend - There are far too many - Surely the mandate of the WADA code is to target PROFESSIONAL athletes - I want to see NADO's give more value for their money before handing out increased dollars.


There's so much wrong with that I don't really know where to begin so I'll just say that I think you'll find that you feel almost the complete opposite to most people involved in anti-doping.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,707
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

01 Feb 2018 17:57

yaco wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
yaco wrote:NADO's dont need more money - Their doping figures are inflated by weekend warriors.

Huh?


Go through a NADO's list of positive tests and therefore suspensions - There are many amateur type 'athletes' in the pool - I don't see the value of busting a 52 year old athlete competing on weekends for a small stipend - There are far too many - Surely the mandate of the WADA code is to target PROFESSIONAL athletes - I want to see NADO's give more value for their money before handing out increased dollars.

I would expect that almost all the no-mark amateurs that get caught are due to tip-offs rather routine testing. They can't really ignore a credible tip-off.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,344
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: Re:

01 Feb 2018 18:59

Parker wrote:
yaco wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
yaco wrote:NADO's dont need more money - Their doping figures are inflated by weekend warriors.

Huh?


Go through a NADO's list of positive tests and therefore suspensions - There are many amateur type 'athletes' in the pool - I don't see the value of busting a 52 year old athlete competing on weekends for a small stipend - There are far too many - Surely the mandate of the WADA code is to target PROFESSIONAL athletes - I want to see NADO's give more value for their money before handing out increased dollars.

I would expect that almost all the no-mark amateurs that get caught are due to tip-offs rather routine testing. They can't really ignore a credible tip-off.


Most are presence violations - Of course some could be because of tip offs - Then again there would be tip offs and target testing of professionals.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 42x16ss, 70kmph, wansteadimp and 24 guests

Back to top