Did our Lizzie get a tip off of target testing eh?The timeline on this always confuses me so remember:
What was happening before January 2016?
- 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
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.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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323686730_Do_Athletes_Have_a_Right_to_Access_Data_in_Their_Athlete's_Biological_PassportCurrently, 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”.
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.
there is a fight between the ones who say there is a fight and the ones who say there isn´t.But wasn't that the JTL who said there was two speeds at Sky? The Same JTL who got smashed the night before his biggest race ever and that was the blame? That JTL?
Keep cheering the good fight.
Horta goes on:But today a leading expert in doping cases, Luis Horta, a former WADA-accredited lab boss and respected anti-doping consultant, points to what he claims were two crucial faults in UKAD’s handling of this case.
First, he said there was no chain of custody oversight when Foote, on behalf of Williams and Warburton, had their supplements tested at LGC. Second, UKAD made no attempt to contact the manufacturers, Cambridge Commodities, let alone batch test a sample. There is no evidence that Warburton or Williams or anyone else deliberately contaminated the supplements that were tested at LGC, but the original batch was clean.
Chain of custody, though, is pretty meaningless in cross-contamination cases given the gap between test and result. What Horta proposes should be done here is not clear.Horta is critical of UKAD’s handling of the case, saying: ‘In my opinion, the evidence is only valid if the chain of custody of the supplements is established. It is crucial and can be perverted.
‘If one person who is in charge of the production or sale or the commercialisation of the nutritional product, that’s not the right person to request the analysis of the products or send the products to the laboratory because he has a conflict of interest in the case.’
Horta was working in Brazil at the time of the Williams and Warburton cases, for the Brazilian anti-doping authorities, and became suspicious of the number of contamination cases there. ‘In my opinion, there are too many cases where cross-contamination is the justification of the defence,’ he told The MoS.
Horta stressed his view is that in such cases that ‘the results management authority, in this case UKAD, must request the athlete provide supplements, and then [UKAD] must send them to a lab.
‘Additionally [in my view] the anti-doping body must contact all parties involved to get their views, including all the companies that produce the supplements, the labs that perform the analysis, independent experts and even the coach, everybody involved.’
Dismissing out of hand all claims of cross-contamination is an exercise in cynicism. But, equally, accepting too readily such claims calls into question just how serious the authorities really are.According to WADA, anti-doping tests at its international accredited labs have become 100 to 1,000 times more sensitive over the past decade.
Dr Catherine Ordway, assistant professor of Sport Management at the University of Canberra, says this has unintentionally created a new problem for anti-doping authorities.
Mod hat on:Even FFC themselves use the same term here:
clickHowever, the medical defence union, which paid for his defence, has decided not to fund his appeal, so Freeman has retained O’Rourke on a no-win no-fee basis. Her costs will be paid by the General Medical Council if Freeman is successful. Freeman has recruited a new solicitor, Ian Lewis.
Will Sir TUE lose his yellow jersey in a worst/best case scenario?Reports suggest the former British Cycling doctor has had some contact with the World Anti-Doping Agency's intelligence and investigations departmentwww.cyclingweekly.com