British Cycling anti-doping Q&A

[Roland Rat]

Earlier this year there was the first anti-doping rule violation in British cycling in 2 years. As a result, a number of British Cycling members raised interesting questions and British Cycling's Anti-Doping Officer, Brian Barton has compiled the following Q and A which tackles the main ones.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/news/article/bc20101011-Anti-Doping-Q-A

I read this yesterday and one answer in particular concerned me:

Q. On the UK Anti-Doping Website there are a number of ‘positive' cases that have no rider's name and it says ‘No case to answer'. Why?

A. These are instances where there is an explanation to the AAF. For example, sometimes a rider will have a Testosterone / Epitestosterone (T / E) ratio greater than 4 to 1. On further investigation it is found that there is a legitimate reason for this to be the case. In such a circumstance no violation has occurred and the rider has no case to answer and the rider's privacy is maintained.

Who decides whether it is a legitimate reason?
What process is undertaken to confirm legitimacy?
This seems particularly topical at the moment, how many UK cyclists have been caught after having eaten tainted beef? I think much more transparency is needed here. If BC don't want to release names, fair enough, but we should be told why there is no case to answer. We should at least be told:

1. What was the test result?
2. What was the legitimate reason given?

I find this a little worrying.

 

[python]

roland, it's b/c if they start releasing more details you or me could figure out the names or some journo will publish a half-researched piece that will get a bunch of people implicated possibly for no reason. i'm ok with some room for bc to run their store with some degree of confidentiality but not secrecy...if their integrity is not tainted.

 

[Roland Rat]

roland, it's b/c if they start releasing more details you or me could figure out the names or some journo will publish a half-researched piece that will get a bunch of people implicated possibly for no reason. i'm ok with some room for bc to run their store with some degree of confidentiality but not secrecy...if their integrity is not tainted.

I'm not sure how releasing the test result and legitimate reason would give any more clues to the identity of the person involved. Why could they not say "Rider X was found to have clenbuterol in their system, UKAD are satisfied this was as a result of contaminated beef"?. If it is a legitimate reason, there's no reason to be concerned, is there?