You just cut and paste the quote into google lol, linking isn't needed these days, but if the rules require it:Mod hat on:
Please provide links to any external quotes. Failure to do so will likely result in posts being deleted and possible suspensions.
This isn't a discussion. Provide links.You just cut and paste the quote into google lol, linking isn't needed these days, but if the rules require it:
En quoi consiste le prélèvement biologique ? Au cours de l’année, vous serez prévenus par mail de la période durant laquelle vous devrez effectuer un prélèvement biologique (prise de sang), avec la liste des laboratoires agréés et une ordonnance. Prise de RDV : Il n’est pas nécessaire de prendre...www.ffc.fr
No, but you're persistent, I will give you that.Isn't topcat suggesting the propaganda machine is Daily Mail? That's how I read it! Their track record of all these huge scandals published each week never come to anything as reported and headlined. If their story had legs it wouldn't begin in the Daily Mail & require their cash 4 story journalism business type imo, it would just happen organically and randomly. They're just on a mission to find something, anything to justify the 1000's of hours they spend focusing on British Cycling that's all.
The biological monitoring is part of the FFC's 'SMR' (Regulatory Medical Surveillance). The SMR as described on the FFC website:You missed the point they worked with independent labs . Working with UCI who at the time is your own ADO is no different than working with your own ADO as an NGB anyway lol! WADA allowing non-WADA labs is in violation of their own code - this is going nowhere for WADA legally is it haha!
Any opinion on how French Federation do their internal testing fmk?
Oh look FFC-Approved Labs FMK, not WADA-approved labs! I wonder what happens if a rider AAFs in a non-WADA approved lab? You couldn't even take it to AFLD, the AAF wasn't in a WADA lab, so void as a legal prosecution anyway defined by WADA 6.1!
A list of labs to choose from which is paid for by FFC, but 'if' the rider uses a non-FFC approved lab they can pay for their own test it seems?
WADA has one approved lab in France - Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage .
I wonder who is approving this internal biological monitoring (often described as the foundation for WADA Biological passport). Could it be AFLD? France's equivalent to UKAD?
How many other Federations do internal testing/monitoring under the guise of health checks by paying independent non-WADA labs? Didn't UKAD tell BC the metabolite trace might be a 'health issue' or supplement 'contamination' even though negative? Sounds like monitoring that would be good to do like the French and I assume most of the major Federations perhaps? Has Daily Mail simply got too excited again at what would appear standard practice by the larger NGBs anyway? They've turned health monitoring into doping monitoring, because lets face it, nobody has been bothered about this forever until Daily Mail.
The objective is to prevent any health risk linked to the intensive practice of physical and sports activities and to educate the athlete to stay in good health, to prevent injuries and to manage his state of form.
The SMR obliges runners who are subject to it, for the validation and maintenance of their license, to carry out; a stress test, a medical examination, a cardiac ultrasound (the first time the runner has undergone PMS) and biological monitoring during the year
Please provide a link for the bolded sam, as I'm not sure what you're referring to.Not at all.
Yes, SMR is a stress test, a medical examination & a cardiac ultrasound.
The Biological longitudinal blood profiling will at minimum provide FFC the following 'health' report on each rider:
Full Blood Count
Total Testosterone Level
TSH level (thyroid stimulating hormone )
Can you tell me what FFC's protocol is when any of those are found at a level indicative of doping from a non-WADA approved Lab they or the rider themselves are paying for? Clearly they can't go to AFLD or WADA!
To be clear, this is entirely a good thing re. health, but health and doping analysis is largely looking at exactly the same blood and urine data, lets not kid ourselves! If FFC wanted to include this data into each athletes biological passport, such data would come from a WADA-approved Lab as per 6.1.
None of the bolded text appears in the linked article, so I'll assume you just made it up.Dopage et santé : Le suivi longitudinal en danger : Moins de budget, moins de prélèvements pour le « suivi médical réglementaire » en France, plus connu sous le nom...www.directvelo.com
As I said originally, WADA's Biological Passport was born out of the FFC's longitudinal monitoring system which happened because of Festina Affair. That's why this article refers to it as 'Longitudinal' - because health isn't simply a moment in time, to fully understand health and performance it has to be profiled like a biological passport, as does training data and much like how e.g. Training Peaks works. They compliment each other in sports science over a period of time.
You'll even read the FFC Dr describes the system as 'protecting their health and prevent the use of doping'
During the year, you will be notified by email of the period during which you will have to take a biological sample (blood test), with the list of approved laboratories and a prescription.
fmk you really are reading too much into Daily Mail's nonsense. It's clear as day, WADA are perfectly fine with NGB's & UCI & Teams blood testing athletes and identifying potential doping through the use of non-WADA protocols and therefore before/outside the authorities under the guise of health monitoring, just as UKAD asked BC to do too with a negative trace result 'already' passed through a WADA lab and themselves below threshold they believe might be health issue or supplement explained. I've just given a clear as day example on FFC's website they test riders that are subject to WADA Code outside of WADA Code. The Pro Teams do almost exactly the same too. I've given links to FFC's Dr even claiming (in 2016 post WADA & Bio Passport) the FFC monitoring is an anti-doping tool and complaining it will be less-effective if FFC can't afford IGF1 testing to spot growth hormone doping (outside of AFLD & WADA Biological Passport). Do you honestly think that AFLD did not have any say in FFC's blood monitoring set up outside of WADA labs, after Festina and which helped create WADAs Biological Passport too?Are you so distracted at this stage that you've forgotten what all this is really about? You need a quick reminder!
WADA are investigating UKAD. They are not looking into the specific gravity of an unnamed athlete's pot of piss. WADA aren't even investigating British Cycling. UKAD is the initial subject of WADA's investigation.
Why are WADA investigating UKAD? Because UKAD may have breached WADA guidelines by encouraging British Cycling to create something that looks a lot like a Soviet-era screening programme, designed to keep the authorities in the dark as to the results of doping tests carried out by British Cycling apparently with the aim of preventing anyone popping a positive.
This is not in and of itself about British Cycling using non-WADA accredited laboratories though this is about British Cycling using non-WADA accredited laboratories insofar as that choice was determined by the desire to keep the authorities in the dark.
This is not about the internal anti-doping programmes operated by other teams - including the one implemented by British Cycling's road squad, Team Sky - which shared their data with the UCI and WADA and did not seek to keep the authorities in the dark.
This is not about a health passport implemented by the FFC even before WADA came into existence.
It is about UKAD. It is about what UKAD did and what UKAD did not do and what UKAD should and should not do and be seen to be doing.
UKAD. Clear? Great.
Now, look over there! It's a dinosaur on a bicycle wearing a clown costume! Let's spend the next three pages arguing over what kind of dinosaur it is!
Is there some reference that says 'positive test for threshold substance below threshold - do nothing' or is it your interpretation to put UKAD in the most favorable light?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.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|A||Hypothesis - Could Tom Danielson have been Innocent of Doping in 2015?||The Clinic||25|
|H||Olympics 2020 (2021): Harder to dope in Japan?||The Clinic||238|
|B||Most memorable doped performance? 2010-2020||The Clinic||131|
|2020-2021 new doping methods||The Clinic||11|