CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Around this time we definitely had Garmin, Colombia, Radioshack off the top of my head (and others) running their own internal testing outside of CADF/UCI/NADO/WADA Labs. This was well published and debated at the time using the same arguments Parisotto explains. As far as I can tell WADA Code is harmonized on this between NGBs and Cycling Teams.

Good article on teams internally testing not using WADA labs etc back in this 2010 timeframe here:


I think it's going to be difficult for WADA to even say this is wrongdoing, letalone prove there is a mysterious separation that they allow and appear to continue to allow cycling teams to internally test, but now have an issue with BC doing the same (according to Daily Mails report).

UKAD seem adamant the Aus sample was negative and threshold (2ng/mL) wasn't met to warrant investigation, so clearly from that context, this sample wasn't a matter of anti-doping investigation by an ADO to continue in this case Daily Mail has decided to go public with, because afterall - How can a NADO investigate a WADA Labs negative test from another ADO? It's simply not legally possible or even wise, it will never stick even if you have all the suspicion in the world. You can't investigate a negative sample because if negative, there's no handle within WADA 6.1 for that to happen or even within WADA Results Management because it isn't a result in the first place!

Lets see how it plays out. Initially WADA need the lab reading of the sample to confirm it was negative or not. Then they can decide if UKAD should have investigated under 6.1. Only then, can you determine any following testing of supplements and associated riders with them was an act of wrongdoing by UKAD allowing BC to investigate further this negative test (according to UKAD) and other internal testing Daily Mail haven't expanded on for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Lets see how it plays out. Initially WADA need the lab reading of the sample to confirm it was negative. Then they can decide if UKAD should have investigated under 6.1. Only then, can you determine any following testing of supplements and associated riders with them was an act of wrongdoing by UKAD allowing BC to investigate further this negative test (according to UKAD) and other internal testing Daily Mail haven't expanded on for some reason.

I think on 6.1 people are seeing the word 'Sample' and thinking it means anything that could be seen as a sample. But the WADA code is a legal document and ascribes it a specific definition, namely "Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping Control. " But BC aren't running doping control, so 6.1 doesn't apply.
 
I think on 6.1 people are seeing the word 'Sample' and thinking it means anything that could be seen as a sample. But the WADA code is a legal document and ascribes it a specific definition, namely "Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping Control. " But BC aren't running doping control, so 6.1 doesn't apply.
This is the game of words & twisted context Daily Mail plays on - always do and why their journalism generally gets seen as not credible such as Jiffygate contents was a lie they paid for. Everyone's believed 6.1 somehow mysteriously applies to negative samples. Daily Mail have ignored the fact a threshold has to be met by the lab in order that they can call the sample as if it was in fact an ATF. Note Harris decides to simply ignore WADA terminology and calls the sample anomalous, UKAD called it negative.
Lets see the result. Daily Mails Jiffygate scandal turned into a lie and cost UKAD an alleged £0.5M to close the investigation without any evidence found. Hopefully WADA are not so stupid, to ride on Daily Mails credibility.
 
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.
This is Anne Gripper - the UCI's doping tzar at the time - talking about those internal anti-doping programmes for those too young to remember those long distant days:
Anne Gripper, head of the UCI's anti-doping section, said that "the Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE) assists cycling teams to create a doping-free culture by providing a robust, independent and transparent anti-doping program." She lauded the team's decision to work with this group, saying, "Bob Stapleton and High Road Sports continue to demonstrate leadership in this regard. By initiating a comprehensive team-based anti-doping program delivered by the Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE), by actively supporting the UCI in their broad anti-doping efforts and most importantly, by actively working to create a doping-free culture within their team, they are a role model for other teams to follow."
ACE's programme was also being used by Slipstream (EF) and required sharing of results with the UCI and WADA:
According to the team's press release, each rider on the team will undergo at least 26 random tests each for blood and urine. This high number of tests will allow ACE "to build profiles of each individual rider so that they will be able to detect small changes in the body chemistry that may be caused by blood transfusions or banned substances. The profiles will use blood and urine to build hematological parameters and a urinary steroidal profile. ACE will send test results to the UCI, to WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] and to the team."
While the system Team Sky set up also shared data with the UCI and WADA, for some reason British Cycling's system was designed to keep the authorities in the dark. This is not what is being investigated by WADA, it's a side issue, a distraction. But if we're going to be distracted, let's make an effort to get the facts right and not mislead people. Because misleading people would be wrong.
 
The issues discussed at the time FMK were more surrounding companies like Damsgaard's & Catlin's who were also using independent labs to process the samples such as IDMT and results sent back to Damsgaard's & Catlin being paid for that service by the teams. That was also WADA's main complaint. Even the clinic's friend Bruyneel set-up Damsgaard into Astana. Before that Biver had his Ten Point Internal Anti-Doping plan with additional blood and urine testing.

Probably closer to the UKAD/British Cycling story - is anyone familiar with how French Cycling Federation ran their internal anti-doping and longtitudinal testing at the time in 2010 timeframe? That had some serious money behind it each year & was set-up by Dr Armand Mégret who also helped UCI and MPCC.
How do other National Federations run their internal testing/monitoring alongside their NADO?
 
Damsgaard on working with WADA and the UCI:
"I can say that the UCI supported the Team CSC program immediately: they have never questioned our work or our integrity but only ensured themselves that we are conducting the best possible testing program."

"They were able to certify that program. Mutually, we have called the Team CSC program a 'pilot program', established to see whether it was possible to conduct such an ambitious program and to learn from the problems that we experienced underway.

"Therefore it is so that the UCI 'biological passport' may share identical elements with the Team CSC program. But again, the tools used in the Team CSC program have been present for a long time, so there is no magic in the program - just hard work!"
Let's see British Cycling discuss how they worked with the authorities on their programme. Oh, hang on a minute, they designed their programme to keep the authorities in the dark. And I'm sure they had very good reasons for choosing to do that.
 
Damsgaard on working with WADA and the UCI:Let's see British Cycling discuss how they worked with the authorities on their programme. Oh, hang on a minute, they designed their programme to keep the authorities in the dark. And I'm sure they had very good reasons for choosing to do that.
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!

FFC Biological Monitoring
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.

Making an appointment: It is not necessary to make an appointment, you can go to the FFC approved laboratory (see list attached to the prescription) from Monday to Saturday before 9 a.m.
.
.
.
Payment: at the expense of the FFC, if the sample is taken according to the procedures mentioned above and in an FFC approved laboratory, you do not have to pay anything to the sampling laboratory which invoices the FFC again.

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.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 42x16ss
I haven't got much more. Basically this was all set-up after Festina by the French Sports Ministry & French Cycling Federation by FFC Head Dr Armand Mégret. I think it was expanded more when Lappartient was FFC President.
They don't appear to publish the list of FFC-approved testing labs unfortunately, but it seems well-funded, Dr Armand Mégret & Lappartient were complaining back in 2016 funding for the biological testing had dropped from over €300K per year to around €100K. Looks like it's paid for by French Sports Ministry, so like UK Sport paying for it in UK.
 
Reactions: pastronef
Mod hat on:

Please provide links to any external quotes. Failure to do so will likely result in posts being deleted and possible suspensions.

Cheers,

KB.
You just cut and paste the quote into google lol, linking isn't needed these days, but if the rules require it:

 
You just cut and paste the quote into google lol, linking isn't needed these days, but if the rules require it:

This isn't a discussion. Provide links.
 
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.
 
Reactions: 42x16ss
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.
No, but you're persistent, I will give you that.
 
Reactions: 42x16ss and Sciatic
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 biological monitoring is part of the FFC's 'SMR' (Regulatory Medical Surveillance). The SMR as described on the FFC website:
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

This is not the equivalent of anti-doping tests that are carried out by NADOs, UCI, etc. Hence why athletes are able to attend FFC approved laboratories instead of WADA approved laboratories.

On the other hand, the AFLD does maintain a biological profile of athletes (https://acteurs-scientifiques.afld.fr/profil-biologique-du-sportif/).

You appear to be confusing two different things sam.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI and topcat
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
Reticulocyte count
Cortisol level
Ferritin 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.
 
Last edited:
And where do pro teams often get this blood data from every three months? Do they all go to a WADA lab? Of course not, we already know WADA Labs and NADO's don't offer medical health exams & blood monitoring services, they're anti-doping. It will come from independent labs and local hospitals already discussed in Dr Freeman's Tribunal & GMC were using to look at Testosterone & Ferritin levels to suggest who Freeman might have needed to order the testogel for.
 
Last edited:
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
Reticulocyte count
Cortisol level
Ferritin 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.
Please provide a link for the bolded sam, as I'm not sure what you're referring to.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY