CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 

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'
 
Last edited:

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'
None of the bolded text appears in the linked article, so I'll assume you just made it up.

As for 'preventing doping', I'd say Dr Mégret is kidding himself given that:
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.

One blood test per year and notice of the period in which they are to be tested. Sounds like a really thorough 'monitoring' system. Only Jimmy Briceno could 'fail' such a test.
 
Longitudinal is in title Bronstein - it's how FFCs blood monitoring has been described not just here by myself lol!

I'm not saying BCs system is similar or even longtitudinal (I'd hope it was) but I do not know, I'm talking about FFC clearly uses non-WADA labs to provide blood data that could determine possible doping under the guise of health monitoring. No problem with that, that's good for athletes. No doubt within the pinnacle of the FFC's Olympic rider, such monitoring and health testing should be far more frequent. In fact - necessary!

Why would Dr. Mégret be concerned the annual reduced funding means IGF1 testing stops which can suggest the use of human growth hormone and are a concern to him? Do you think they're paying for IGF1 testing once a year for their Olympic athletes is acceptable? Clearly it's use is health, performance, but also monitoring if the Dr is championing it as preventing doping at Olympic level, once a year is a waste of 300K / year, it'll be closer to UCI's quarterly tests - at least!



.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
Last edited:
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!
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?

Just answer me one simple question, When/If an FFC Olympic riders blood 'health' report comes back from an independent lab, lets say in 2010, nothing to do with WADA or AFLD to FFC and shows a clear highly elevated Testosterone level - What happens? Do they a) call AFLD and say we have this rider doping with Testosterone, he needs to be sanctioned under WADA code using this blood test as evidence from a lab not WADA accredited & paid for by us, or b) Do they deal with it internally & unknown to AFLD & WADA ?
 
Last edited:
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.
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?

Genuine question, maybe I missed something in the code.
 
Reactions: samhocking

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS