CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

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
I have posted the WADA Lab Tech Doc earlier which explains it, but when WADA/UKAD discuss Nandrolone, they call it a Threshold Substance, because the WADA Lab is required to identify more than 2ng/mL of its metabolite in order to proceed. If they can't it's Negative, although my understanding is, the amount found below 2ng/mL is included so the ADO can use it for intelligence ie if the amount was above a level that might be of concern so that rider could be target tested or to inform them they might have a health issue or supplement contamination causing the reading.

My interpretation of UKADs response to The Times about it based on Daily Mail saying there was a trace amount found, was it was Negative and the trace amount would be below what WADA requires UKAD to investigate. The lab can detect 0.2ng/mL, so trace is somewhere from that and upwards towards the threshold. An AAF is clearly above 2ng/mL, an ATF I don't know, it might be on a case-by-case basis or an amount just over or under 2ng/mL, I don't know how the lab determines an ATF level, but you can work it out using the DL & TD document I would think.

One of the problems is context. Reading Daily Mails main article all the following phrases are used to describe the same sample. No term used by Nick Harris is even a WADA word used in a lap report other than adverse. If adverse then the report will state the sample is AAF. Should be easy for WADA to investigate if any wrongdoing as an AAF isn't Negative as UKAD suggests it was.

anomalous
abnormal
unusual
adverse

UKAD suggest the sample came back negative, below investigation threshold and a trace amount.


The full Lab Technical Doc is here: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_TD2010NAv1.0_Harmonization of Analysis and Reporting of 19-Norsteroids Related to Nandrolone_Sept 01 2010_EN.doc.pdf
 
Last edited:
Reactions: roundabout
UKAD trying to be seen to be doing something: UK Anti-Doping Agency increases retesting of British cyclists' samples
When asked why it had begun a far more comprehensive retesting programme only in the past 14 months, when other anti-doping agencies had been doing so for years, the spokesperson said: “Comparisons with other anti-doping organisations and their reanalysis rates does not offer an accurate assessment of a successful programme. Ukad’s reanalysis strategy is evidence-based and guided by the support from the scientific community.

“When to reanalyse a sample is a decision which involves consideration of many factors including specific intelligence reports, developments in science and technology to detect prohibited substances, and significant upcoming competitions.”
 
Why the hell would a negative sample be reported to Cookson? He's President of BC, like any company you're not going to be concerned with minutia like negative samples, you have an entire department doing that for you. UKAD are retesting hundreds of negative samples, did every one of them at the time arrive in Cooksons inbox each morning for him to sign off personally? Even if they did, why would he remember one of someone the paper can't name, he doesn't even know what rider it's relating to anyway! The level of common-sense by fmk is sometimes astonishing!
 
Last edited:
UKAD refused BC permission to run a screening programme ahead of Rio similar to the internal anti-doping programmes operated by road teams, including BC's sister squad, Team Sky:

British Cycling bosses explored 'early warning system' to catch cheating riders in build-up to 2016 Rio Games... but UKAD would NOT provide details of Athlete Biological Passport data
Fast forward to 2016 and British Cycling were keen to have their own internal 'alert system' for their Olympic riders, similar to the one that road cycling teams including Team Sky were allowed to have.

Freeman, with the agreement of Harrison, circulated an email in January of that year saying: 'I agree that we put a proposal to the [BC sports and ethics] commission re the [ABP].'

He suggested asking each rider on the ABP monitoring programme to submit their monthly ABP test results on a voluntary basis to him 'for statistical analysis similar to that performed by the anti-doping agencies. This is an opportunity to assess frequency of testing and give warning of target testing.'

Freeman further wrote that this would allow BC to provide monthly reports on their riders that would be coded either green (no concerns), amber (some concerns) or red (get ready for a possible adverse passport finding by UKAD or the UCI).

Freeman concluded there would be benefits to both riders and BC 'in having this monitoring of the ABP, allowing early detection in fluctuations of the riders ABP.'

The commission approved the proposal and it was put forward to UKAD, who, after some back and forth, explained they wouldn't share ABP data. The plan was ditched.
Warning: you may need to take cover for fear of being hit by ricochets as the BC cheer squad attempts to shoot the messenger while studiously avoiding the actual message.
 
UKAD refused BC permission to run a screening programme ahead of Rio similar to the internal anti-doping programmes operated by road teams, including BC's sister squad, Team Sky:

British Cycling bosses explored 'early warning system' to catch cheating riders in build-up to 2016 Rio Games... but UKAD would NOT provide details of Athlete Biological Passport data


Warning: you may need to take cover for fear of being hit by ricochets as the BC cheer squad attempts to shoot the messenger while studiously avoiding the actual message.
FMK's just catching up with the whole ABP privacy law & GMC issue via Daily Mail haha!
 
I mean it's entirely possible that Daily Mail are trying to make a bigger story out of it, but citing some guidelines whether any action was needed for samples like that one would have shut the story down very quickly.

Of course, managing media is not my specialty, but that's what I would have done.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY