CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 62 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.

Where does it say BC intended to monitor or target test British riders? Please provide a source sam.

Freeman and co wanted wanted the ABP test results so that they could warn riders about target testing and develop an understanding of the frequency of testing. Which makes no sense if they were actually running a clean track program.
 
The BBC say both WADA and the UCI are investigating the proposed programme:
It added: "Riders can access their haematological values directly through (data system) ADAMS. Consequently, riders can also share such data with any chosen party. As for the UCI, it does not share personal information with a third party unless authorised/required by law or authorised by the rider in question. British Cycling is facing scrutiny over a request its former chief doctor made to UK Anti-Doping to share athlete biological passport data a few months before the Rio Olympics."
 
Where does it say BC intended to monitor or target test British riders? Please provide a source sam.
I said that's what I think (how I read it). What did you think Freeman means in what you quoted? It says 'similar to' so clearly to him (British Cycling).

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.'
 
I said that's what I think (how I read it). What did you think Freeman means in what you quoted? It says 'similar to' so clearly to him (British Cycling).
No source, so I'll assume you just made it up (yet again).

Even the notion that BC intended to test/monitor riders is ridiculous. Really desperate stuff sam, even by your standards.
 
The timeline on this always confuses me so remember:

  • January 2016 is two months before Jess Varnish unleashed hell on the fed
  • January 2016 is three months before Simon Yates found himself facing time on the naughty step
  • January 2016 is five months before Lizzie Armitstead made her third whereabouts strike and found herself facing time on the naughty step
  • January 2016 is eight months before Fancy Bears screwed Bradley Wiggins' reputation for good
  • January 2016 is nine months before in a Jiffy took on a whole new meaning
What was happening before January 2016?
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
The BBC say both WADA and the UCI are investigating the proposed programme:
Which is the core of the problem,
No source, so I'll assume you just made it up (yet again).

Even the notion that BC intended to test/monitor riders is ridiculous. Really desperate stuff sam, even by your standards.
The source is what you quoted, I quoted it again! You're looking at this as BC wanting to dope riders (how Daily Mail is), I'm looking at it as BC wanting to make sure riders are not doping. This is why Freeman uses the term 'earlier' because by the time Bio Passports target tests, it's too late, too much of a risk, they need to monitor and as per last weeks DM story internally test too! WE even have the Nandrolone example as the perfect case in point. Negative under UKAD, so UKAD won't target test the rider and supplements, so who else is going to, if BC don't?

Edit: I don't know the delay between lab results and them available on ADAMS today, but (for obvious reasons) I've read it lags several weeks behind. ie a rider can be doping 3 weeks ago and you won't see that on ABP.
 
Last edited:
Freeman and co wanted wanted the ABP test results so that they could warn riders about target testing and develop an understanding of the frequency of testing.
Given what Freeman wrote - "This is an opportunity to assess frequency of testing and give warning of targeted testing." - it's hard to disagree with that.

If you did wrench that out of shape and take it to mean the targeted testing was to be carried out by BC, why would you want to give the riders warning? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of anti-doping tests?
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
Given what Freeman wrote - "This is an opportunity to assess frequency of testing and give warning of targeted testing." - it's hard to disagree with that.

If you did wrench that out of shape and take it to mean the targeted testing was to be carried out by BC, why would you want to give the riders warning? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of anti-doping tests?
Wrong, you've removed the context.
" on a voluntary basis to him 'for statistical analysis similar to that performed by the anti-doping agencies"

Clearly WADA / UKAD are not going to allow details about their own target testing strategies and upcoming testing frequencies to exist on what the rider themselves can see. Give UKAD some credit fmk, FFS!
 
The timeline on this always confuses me so remember:

  • January 2016 is two months before Jess Varnish unleashed hell on the fed
  • January 2016 is three months before Simon Yates found himself facing time on the naughty step
  • January 2016 is five months before Lizzie Armitstead made her third whereabouts strike and found herself facing time on the naughty step
  • January 2016 is eight months before Fancy Bears screwed Bradley Wiggins' reputation for good
  • January 2016 is nine months before in a Jiffy took on a whole new meaning
What was happening before January 2016?
I think more likely not until 2016, because that's when it became mandatory for ADOs to include the Steroidal module to the ABP. From 2014 to 2016 it was optional and probably only available under UCI, not UKAD yet perhaps?
 
Last edited:
It's worth noting that by 2016 Sky and British Cycling were almost entirely divorced. I think Rod Ellingworth running the men's road team at World's/Olympics was the only remaining link
I think what fmk is getting at, is while Brailsford & Peters were long gone from British Cycling, Sutton was there calling the shots let go by Sky and Freeman returned with him in 2015.
 
Last edited:
British Cycling following in the footsteps of Russian athletics:
The IC determined that there were many occasions on which Russian athletes participating in athletics were given advance notice of proposed out-of competition tests and were thus able to avoid being tested or take steps to render the tests ineffective.
ARAF received disclosure (to which it was not entitled) regarding the identification of 23 Russian athletes who were subjects of an IAAF inquiry regarding abnormal ABP testing results (See Chapter 18). The fact that ARAF was aware of the internal details as a result of the disclosure provided ARAF with an advantage over other countries, by allowing ARAF to identify in advance, specific athletes who were vulnerable to ADRVs prior to the 2012 London Olympic Games. This “early warning” knowledge enabled 128 ARAF to engage in wrongful conduct in order to delay the application of ADRVs, thereby allowing several Russian athletes with abnormal ABP test results to compete at the 2012 London Olympic Games and, in certain cases, win medals.
 
People are thick and just assume this ABP data must be in realtime and could act as a warning when levels get too high - it really doesn't work with that sort of immediacy in reality. It can take days and even weeks for a control to get through the lab, processed and onto ADAMS and available to view by a team or rider. Completely useless if you're being target tested, you'll be tested before you see the anomalies in the lab data anyway!

I'm pretty sure I've read Vaughters on Velonews explain in detail in the context of JTL and Sky the lag of ABP data and this very issue and so he puts the new signings through a series of blood tests to get the latest data against physiological and medical testing before signing him and to be sure he isn't doping as much as possible.
 
Reactions: 42x16ss
The timeline on this always confuses me so remember:

  • January 2016 is two months before Jess Varnish unleashed hell on the fed
  • January 2016 is three months before Simon Yates found himself facing time on the naughty step
  • January 2016 is five months before Lizzie Armitstead made her third whereabouts strike and found herself facing time on the naughty step
  • January 2016 is eight months before Fancy Bears screwed Bradley Wiggins' reputation for good
  • January 2016 is nine months before in a Jiffy took on a whole new meaning
What was happening before January 2016?
Did our Lizzie get a tip off of target testing eh?
 
Did you know ... data does not need to be shared in real time for one side to gain an asymmetric advantage. It just needs to be analysed first. Such as, say, the way BC's road squad Team Sky analysed Sergio Henao's ABP data ahead of the UCI and spotted something odd.

Also, did you know that predicting target testing does not have to mean predicting the time and date, it can just mean predicting the fact that a test is coming? That alone can be valuable information.

Fact is, some folk want to make assumptions about what you think and how you interpret the information being presented in these stories. Cause it's easier for them to dismiss your opinions if they make false assumptions about them.
Not true FMK. The passport analysis is run on the raw lab data on ADAMS when added by the lab, but I am confident WADA has either a built-in lag time or a lag time simply as a consequence of the analysis time in ADAMS so the riders (& their teams) can't interpret the raw data before the authorities. 3 weeks is what I remember it was, but will find out where I've read this. I'm sure I remember Vaughters explaining this lag time when questioned that the team could use the data to keep one step ahead of the bio passports algorithm and any target testing.

The teams get the riders raw spreadsheet lab data with their permission and then have to analyse it and interpret it as Vaughters has also explained - it's a complex process and requires him to use experts in doping analysis to spot potential doping of his riders. He says when he signs a rider, the rider has to give CADF authorisation to release all his passport data history tues etc to the team for monitoring to see if they want to sign him against performance testing.

Here is a riders initial view of their passport data. I would think the CADF data they send to the teams is the high level graphed view as you would expect for analysis though, but obvious past data is only going to help you understand if a rider doped in the past, not as a warning system for the future beyond what you can interpret from the raw data in the past.

For confirmation the teams have access via the rider the following helps explain where Devriendt says in 2018, "athletes can currently directly access the raw data of the Haematological Module in ADAMS"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323686730_Do_Athletes_Have_a_Right_to_Access_Data_in_Their_Athlete's_Biological_Passport


Note the words in ADAMS - 'lab data will appear once the results are submitted'. ie the result of the analysis (the result) happens before the rider (their team) has access to the raw lab data to interpret that same data themselves.

 
Last edited:
Not having much luck finding a defined lag time, only that one exist in code, which we already know. The above paper from Devriendt says:

Currently, it is stated in WADA guidelines that the athlete has the right to obtain “a copy of the relevant Personal Information within a reasonable timeframe (…) unless to do so (…) conflicts with the Anti‐Doping Organization's ability to plan or conduct No Advance Notice Testing or to investigate and establish anti‐doping rule violations”. This provision allows for the existence of a certain window of time after which data is disclosed. Therefore, the goal is to reach a consensus among all involved parties on a specific window of time or data disclosure system in order to harmonise data disclosure for all athletes. This might be problematic as experts within the field might have different views on how long data must be retained before it becomes“unusable”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323686730_Do_Athletes_Have_a_Right_to_Access_Data_in_Their_Athlete's_Biological_Passport

Devriendt is simply referring to the already known WADA Code on personal rights etc so it would seem CADF probably agree the acceptable retention/lag time on ADAMS to the riders (and their teams).

11.0 Rights of Participants and Other Persons with Respect to Personal Information
11.1 Participants or Persons to whom the Personal Information relates shall have the right to obtain from Anti-Doping Organizations: (a) confirmation of whether or not Anti-Doping Organizations Process Personal Information relating to them, (b) the information as per Article 7.1, and (c) a copy of the relevant Personal Information within a reasonable timeframe, in a readily intelligible 16 2015 ISPPPI – 20 February 2014 format, and without excessive cost, unless to do so in a particular case plainly conflicts with the Anti-Doping Organization’s ability to plan or conduct No Advance Notice Testing or to investigate and establish anti-doping rule violations.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY