CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
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.
Why would clean riders be worried about target testing and testing in general?
 
I mean it's entirely possible that Daily Mail are trying to make a bigger story out of it
Certainly worth noting that - apart from our resident cheer squad - no one appears to be actually denying the MoS story, or the follow ups.

Also worth remembering that we're being told the Mail can't be trusted by someone who only two weeks ago was insisting that Shane Sutton was part of the Linda McCartney outfit, despite all the evidence to the contrary from the man who wrote the book on the team, through Nicole Cooke, and on to his employers at the time, Welsh Cycling. When it comes to making stuff up, some need to take a selfie.
 
Why would clean riders be worried about target testing and testing in general?
I think they mean if they had access to ADAMS data (the statistical/module data) through UKAD, they can warn their own riders they (BC) will be target testing/monitoring them (as the pro teams would do via UCI health monitoring / internal testing).

The problem if you're wanting to go beyond what your NADO is doing as an NGB is, you are testing blind without any historical data. All you have as an NGB is basically what the riders see on ADAMS which is next to useless in terms of intelligence to target test riders. You can't even see the amount of prohibited substance in the Negative lab result for example.

 
Isn't privacy a great thing?
Vaughters also confirmed that Catlin would have full access to the UCI’s biological passport programme and that both anti-doping bodies would work with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the ADAMS whereabouts system. He also confirmed that Catlin had already tested his riders in November in order to build up his own off-season profiles.
 
Not to let facts intrude here but by now many riders have been busted on the basis of samples that initially came back negative. Intelligence-led is the mantra today. Only LA fans believe negative means nothing to follow up on.
ATF is what is followed up on, not Negative fmk. As UKAD kindly explained, a trace within a Negative 'can' if above a threshold be used to decide to target test the rider. A Negative is determined by the lab, not the NADO.
 
Certainly worth noting that - apart from our resident cheer squad - no one appears to be actually denying the MoS story, or the follow ups.

Also worth remembering that we're being told the Mail can't be trusted by someone who only two weeks ago was insisting that Shane Sutton was part of the Linda McCartney outfit, despite all the evidence to the contrary from the man who wrote the book on the team, through Nicole Cooke, and on to his employers at the time, Welsh Cycling. When it comes to making stuff up, some need to take a selfie.
I said UKAD was investigating Sutton as part of the McCartney allegations. He worked with the team for 4 years on and off - why wouldn't they?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY