CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 59 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Focusing on the meat and two veg of the story and not the side dishes preferred by some:
British Cycling and UK Anti-Doping say they are trying to assist the World Anti-Doping Agency’s enquiries after an investigation was launched over the weekend into allegations Ukad allowed British Cycling to carry out its own internal probe into a rider's sample, which allegedly contained traces of a banned anabolic steroid.

Ukad is said to have informed British Cycling of the sample, which dates from the autumn of 2010 and allegedly contained traces of a metabolite of nandrolone, with British Cycling then conducting its own internal follow-up, using a private laboratory, HFL Sport Science in Cambridgeshire, to run tests on four riders.

Lots of teams and governing bodies run internal screening programmes. It is allowed as long as there is full transparency with Ukad and results are shared and it is done to Wada standards. Any positive test and Ukad takes over.
 
And on it moves to what the whistleblower knew and when they blew the whistle on it:
A whistleblower wrote to UK Anti-Doping two years ago raising concerns about British Cycling’s private drug testing of riders.

Sportsmail understands a letter was sent to UKAD in 2019 questioning why the governing body was allowed to conduct their own probe into a potential doper before London 2012.
 
Reactions: 42x16ss
Yet despite all of the confessions of the last decade, not one single cyclist has mentioned using nandrolone. Drug of choice it is most certainly not.
Not for road and endurance track because its used to build fast twitch muscle fibre. Don't forget it's what Linford Christie tested positive for.

Now a pursuiter or points/madison rider might not want the size associated with such an anabolic, but a match sprinter?
 
Your NADO does inform you of any sample that contains traces and are not doping violations. Daily Mail calls it a tip off but this is simply good practice (unless the sample is suspected to indicate doping and then the rider will be monitored through targeted in and out of competition testing). As the body can produce the metabolite traced and was such low amount, it seems UKAD ruled out Nandrolone use. BC then got 3 riders supplements tested (assume the 2 other sprinters were using the supplements too) and then sent their urine to be tested a month later. Both came back negative for the metabolite so the only conclusion possible is a trace in some food in Australia before the test or the rider produced it naturally under the stress of competing in the World Cup races.

I think the easiest thing to do by BC and UKAD would have been simply nothing. Afterall it was only a trace. Why would you only test 3 riders out of 60 in the BC Program doesn't suggest internal testing to detect doping before UKAD. This all happened post-trace detected OOC.
Which article of the code states that a national governing body should be made aware first via unofficial channels (that's what the term 'tip off implies) about an atypical finding?

Upon receipt of an A Sample Atypical Finding, the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management shall conduct a review to determine whether: (a) an applicable therapeutic use exemption has been granted, or (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding. If that review does not reveal an applicable therapeutic use exemption or departure that caused the Atypical Finding, the Anti-Doping Organization shall conduct the required investigation.

After the investigation is completed, the Athlete and other Anti-Doping Organizations identified in Article 14.1.2 shall be notified whether or not the Atypical Finding will be brought forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding. The Athlete shall be notified as provided in Article 7.2.
and 7.3.1, but I am not going to quote that

I am probably missing something, but the way the DM article is written, it does not seem that UKAD investigated anything, so I am not sure how you can come to a conclusion that UKAD ruled out nandrolone use. Doing nothing is not the same as ruling out. And doing nothing is not in line with the code.

It's also a question why test 3 riders when there was an issue with only 1 rider? And why 20 specimen bottles if there were only 12 tests (unless of course it wasn't possible to order less)? And how do you know that BC did not test riders after training? Or why do you assume that it was produced naturally after competing in the WC if it was an OOC test? And why do you assume it was an issue with food if that did not seem to have been investigated?
 
Not for road and endurance track because its used to build fast twitch muscle fibre. Don't forget it's what Linford Christie tested positive for.

Now a pursuiter or points/madison rider might not want the size associated with such an anabolic, but a match sprinter?


But there have also been plenty of revelations in athletics, and baseball too Again no-one's ever mentioned taking it as drug they used. To call it a 'drug of choice' seem like typical Mail sensationalism. (Unless Ross Tucker is knocking it out to South African gym bunnies)
 
Focusing on the meat and two veg of the story and not the side dishes preferred by some:
I think the confusion is, the code at the time allowed an amount of the metabolite in the urine if it was consistent with the range produced by a human. This metabolite is. A trace would suggest an amount very low so probably consistent and no AAF or ATF result.

So, that means there's no results management needed. If not needed WADA article numbers quoted to be UKAD in violation by Daily Mail legally were not. They were passing on the result a trace amount was found with the lab test and this can be due to various reasons unrelated to doping, but BC decided to test riders and supplements anyway. Harris seems to claim years of internal testing but only references 3 single tests related to this Australian OOC test.
 
Last edited:
Which article of the code states that a national governing body should be made aware first via unofficial channels (that's what the term 'tip off implies) about an atypical finding?



and 7.3.1, but I am not going to quote that

I am probably missing something, but the way the DM article is written, it does not seem that UKAD investigated anything, so I am not sure how you can come to a conclusion that UKAD ruled out nandrolone use. Doing nothing is not the same as ruling out. And doing nothing is not in line with the code.

It's also a question why test 3 riders when there was an issue with only 1 rider? And why 20 specimen bottles if there were only 12 tests (unless of course it wasn't possible to order less)? And how do you know that BC did not test riders after training? Or why do you assume that it was produced naturally after competing in the WC if it was an OOC test? And why do you assume it was an issue with food if that did not seem to have been investigated?
The short answer is the code existing at the time allows an amount of the metabolite to exist if consistent with that produced by humans (plenty of evidence what the levels can reach to naturally) Therefore the trace amount detected doesn't automatically generate an AAF or ATF. So no result to report, simply lab test result like any other negative test result the NGB can see on ADAMS anyway. Remember, the NGB controls the athletes ADAMS profiles. They set it up and often maintain it for them too.
 
The short answer is the code existing at the time allows an amount of the metabolite to exist if consistent with that produced by humans (plenty of evidence what the levels can reach to naturally) Therefore the trace amount detected doesn't automatically generate an AAF or ATF. So no result to report, simply lab test result like any other negative test result the NGB can see on ADAMS anyway. Remember, the NGB controls the athletes ADAMS profiles. They set it up and often maintain it for them too.
No supplement contamination. No evidence of a naturally occurring high level of nandrolone:

Sources say the results of the batch testing of the riders’ supplements came back negative for contamination. Then the results of the HFL-tested urine came back showing no indication of naturally occurring levels of nandrolone.
 
But there have also been plenty of revelations in athletics, and baseball too Again no-one's ever mentioned taking it as drug they used. To call it a 'drug of choice' seem like typical Mail sensationalism. (Unless Ross Tucker is knocking it out to South African gym bunnies)
They may not have mentioned it, but a good number of athletes have still taken it. So you also have to wonder how many didn't get caught.
 
Dailymail used to have ridiculous headlines and I was in doubt whether I should read the article because I usually avoid them but they may actually be right on the money on this one.
 
No supplement contamination. No evidence of a naturally occurring high level of nandrolone:



Unfortunately DM gives no indication what the test involved in terms of following the same pharmacological
protocol as the Aus World Cup races provided. Typically the metabolite is released by the body due to extreme exercise. Was the November test done under similar conditions or simply an ad-hoc urine test? Did they conclude contamination from something else such as food, or simply accepted the stress of the racing created the trace? Even if they assumed the rider had doped, a trace isn't an ATF because the WADA lab protocol has to find >2ng but most labs can find traces from 0.2ng upwards, because that's how sensitive the equipment is.




So the above fact that a WADA lab has to find >2ng suggests the Daily Mail article is seriously overlooking an athlete can test for a trace of the substance and not be an ATF or AAF. Therefore there is no result for UKAD to manage any differently than any other negative test result, the lab simply include the trace amount found of e.g. 0.3ng/mL and that's simply part of what ends up on ADAMS for the NGB & athlete to see anyway. UKAD have informed BC a trace can be caused by supplement or health issues.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 42x16ss
Dailymail used to have ridiculous headlines and I was in doubt whether I should read the article because I usually avoid them but they may actually be right on the money on this one.
There's several errors and assumptions in it. The most glaring is Harris describes the Sample as being Anomalous, when in fact a trace would be handled as a negative, because the lab has to find > 2ng of the metabolite in the urine. There is no way >2ng would ever be described as a trace, unless UKAD are actually covering up an ATF/AAF for a sample with more than 2ng in it. If that were the case, Harris wouldn't be going all around the houses patching this story of testing supplements and 3 riders. The story is already disproved simply looking at the technical docs.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 42x16ss
Unfortunately DM gives no indication what the test involved in terms of following the same pharmacological
protocol as the Aus World Cup races provided. Typically the metabolite is released by the body due to extreme exercise. Was the November test done under similar conditions or simply an ad-hoc urine test? Did they conclude contamination from something else such as food, or simply accepted the stress of the racing created the trace? Even if they assumed the rider had doped, a trace isn't an ATF because the WADA lab protocol has to find >2ng but most labs can find traces from 0.2ng upwards, because that's how sensitive the equipment is.




So the above fact that a WADA lab has to find >2ng suggests the Daily Mail article is seriously overlooking an athlete can test for a trace of the substance and not be an ATF or AAF. Therefore there is no result for UKAD to manage any differently than any other negative test result, the lab simply include the trace amount found of e.g. 0.3ng/mL and that's simply part of what ends up on ADAMS for the NGB & athlete to see anyway. UKAD have informed BC a trace can be caused by supplement or health issues.
No, they didn't conclude contamination from food. They didn't conclude that the 'stress of the race' created the trace either:
Sources say the British Cycling probe ended when supplement contamination was ruled out and the samples came back clean.
There is also no mention of 'health issues' in the article, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Perhaps you should try reading the article instead of misleading people.
 
Is Robin Parisotto obsessing over the specific gravity of a particular pot of piss? No Robin Parisotto is not obsessing over the specific gravity of a particular pot of piss.

Is Robin Parisotto obsessing over what rules were in force when concerning the operation of internal anti-doping programmes and what labs were allowed to be used and what information should be shared with the authorities? No, Robin Parisotto is not obsessing over what rules were in force when concerning the operation of internal anti-doping programmes and what labs were allowed to be used and what information should be shared with the authorities

Why is Robin Parisotto not obsessing over these things? Cause Robin Parisotto knows they are not the issue at hand here. What does Robin Parisotto think is the issue at hand here? The perception that UKAD colluded with BC in contravention of WADA's guidelines on how they should operate:
"What they’ve done is totally unsatisfactory because even if the test wasn’t registering a level of nandrolone that was consistent with doping, there’s certainly evidence that it should have been investigated independently of British Cycling," he said.

"That’s where the big drama is because where’s the independence if British Cycling are investigating their own cyclists? Legally they probably weren’t bound to do anything but ethically and morally to just say British Cycling could do their own thing just isn’t right. It’s just not right. They should have been proactive so that there was an arm’s length review of the situation. It’s a terrible failing in what their charter is. If they can't stick by their charter then they’re not fit for purpose and if that’s the case then the whole of UKAD needs to be reviewed and reborn."
If people are to have faith in anti-doping then organisations like UKAD don't just have to do the right thing. They have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Because in all walks of life, perception matters. And WADA at least understand that enough to investigate this matter and not just dismiss it out of hand the same way UKAD appears to dismiss complaints brought to it.
 
Reactions: MartinGT
Parisotto seems to be under the impression that UKAD outsourced the drug testing to BC, which is incorrect. What BC was supplementary and entirely allowed as far as In can see. Any organisation should be doing internal audits, but they are not replacing the official authorities.
 
And WADA clearly agree 100% with you. Which is why they're investigating the matter and not just dismissing it out of hand.

They made a statement based on what a tabloid journalist told them. They are not going to dismiss it immediately. But they soon will do.

If they don't then I look forward to the sanctions against Garmin, HTC, Sunweb, MPCC etc. I remember back in 2010 people demanded to know if Sky/BC had internal testing.
 
Why don't people listen to those raising issues?
Telling hard truths about British sport in the post London 2012 era, during which British Cycling was feted as a model organisation and athletes hailed as superheroes, became “a very dangerous thing to do”, according to David Pond, the highly regarded chief executive of GB Wheelchair Rugby.

Pond, an influential voice who has been at the helm of GBWR since 2009, told the Guardian that anyone raising concerns about the way things were done risked marginalisation – and that unpicking UK Sport’s “blunt and aggressive ‘no compromise’ approach was seen as a betrayal of Team GB” by those inside the system.
 
If they don't then I look forward to the sanctions against Garmin, HTC, Sunweb, MPCC etc. I remember back in 2010 people demanded to know if Sky/BC had internal testing.
Didn't Garmin et al all share their data with the UCI? Seem to recall that being a very, very important aspect of all those internal anti-doping programmes, that the UCI was involved, even reluctantly.

Furthermore, isn't it odd that in 2010 British Cycling appears to have had an internal testing programme which Sky completely forgot to mention when talking about why they implemented one in collaboration with the UCI? Was there something about the BC programme they weren't quite happy with?
“The UCI said ‘you don’t need to be that rigorous; and if you’re that rigorous it’s extremely costly and it won’t pick up any more data than the biological passport’. It wasn’t that we rejected Roger [Palfreeman]’s plan or that we wriggled out of it. That’s so far from the truth. Roger was perfectly happy with the system we put in place instead, where we do take extra tests but we do it in collaboration with the UCI and WADA”.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY