CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 63 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
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.
 
The issue appears to be UKAD's credulity, which I guess impacts their credibility:
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.
Horta goes on:
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.’
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.

On a related note, WRT to Horta's "suspicions" about the rise in the number of cross-contamination cases, this recent story about the Jack and Vincent Lapointe cases is worth a read:
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.
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.
 
I struggle to see that Darren Foote's Mountain Fuel company would take a reputational hit with the LGC lab test positive, although if there's enough money involved, who knows. It doesn't make much sense that they blend at Cambridge Commodities Ltd which are Informed-Sport accredited, then packages at what doesn't appear to be Informed Sport accredited and so neither is Mountain Fuel. Daily Mail makes a point of saying the packager was BRC grade AA, but that means nothing in terms of cross-contamination WADA risk, it's a distribution and storage accreditation, not Informed Sport one. To be Informed Sport accredited, the final packaged product has to also be batch tested by Informed-Sport themselves.
Tricky one. Is the lab corrupt, if so what was in it for Darren Foote, if it's not, Darren Foote is either purposely not Informed Sport Accredited because he's tracing his product or legitimately it got contaminated by the packager.
 
Last edited:
Quite interesting on the LGC lab. LGC Group operate Informed Sport and Informed Choice programmes. So basically all Informed Sport supply chains and custody of supplement manufacture go through LGC approval to minimise contamnination risk. Mountain Fuel doesn't, even though blended at one of their accredited blenders they're not packaging within one. LGC have a relationship with UKAD by way of UKAD encourages clean sport through Informed Choice program.
 
According to O'Rourke, Freeman's High Court appeal is as of right & the appeal being rejected could only happen after a full High Court hearing. Looks like the 28 days O'Rourke has to submit the appeal documents expires next Thursday, so if Freeman has decided to appeal, the story should proceed there, otherwise, his UKAD tribunal could then begin I assume.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
The WADA investigation into UKAD is concerning them allowing BC to try and identify the source of the Nandrolone trace in one of the track riders, so won't be Wiggins. Freeman will simply tell them everything he knows, but with his High Court appeal already happening, it's obvious whatever he's got to say is going to support this appeal, not jeopardise it. His lawyer is working on a no win no fee basis too!
 
UKAD presses pause on Freeman Show spin-off
UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) has today confirmed that its proceedings against former British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman have been paused until the conclusion of a High Court appeal lodged by him against a decision made by the independent Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) in March 2021.

The date for the High Court appeal hearing is not known.

UKAD’s case is being heard by the independent National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY