CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 63 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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).
 
WADA report confirms wrongdoing by British Cycling over collection and storage of elite riders samples

A report published today by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has confirmed potential wrongdoing by representatives from British Cycling and the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) in connection with accusations that cyclists samples were analysed privately for the purposes of screening for a banned substance.

Operation Echo has concluded that in 2011 British Cycling collected samples from elite riders and screened them for nandrolone, but did not follow rules in the World Anti-Doping Code in connection to their collection and analysis.
story
 
Reactions: noob
WADA statement:
WADA issues report from investigation into allegations regarding British Cycling and United Kingdom Anti-Doping

‘Operation Echo’ confirmed that in February 2011, as part of a study into potential contamination of supplements, British Cycling collected samples from elite riders and screened these samples for the androgen and anabolic steroid, nandrolone. Contrary to the rules laid down by the World Anti-Doping Code and the relevant International Standard, the samples were collected by British Cycling staff rather than doping control officers, analyzed by a non-WADA-accredited laboratory, and provided by the athletes on the basis that UKAD would never know the results.

‘Operation Echo’ also established that at least one UKAD employee was aware of the study and that the samples could be collected and analyzed at a non-WADA-accredited laboratory. To this day, UKAD has no record of ever receiving the analysis results and emails that would have showed UKAD’s real-time knowledge of key events.
 
Reactions: noob
Intro to Operation Echo summary report:
On 29 March 2021, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) began Operation Echo. This investigation was triggered by media reporting that in 2011 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) had allegedly allowed British Cycling to test athletes in private, using the Horseracing Forensic (Sport Sciences) Laboratory (HFL), 2 a non-WADA-accredited laboratory, for the purposes of screening for the Prohibited Substance, Nandrolone. Moreover, athletes provided their samples following an email from British Cycling stating that the analysis results would not be shared with UKAD or WADA. (Allegation One)

Following its commencement, Operation Echo identified two further allegations against UKAD. The first concerned the purported release of Athlete Biological Passport data to British Cycling in 2016. (Allegation Two)

The second concerned an allegation that UKAD had allowed two athletes, “X” and “Y”, who were advancing the defence of “Contaminated Products” in answer to an Adverse Analytical Finding, to privately test the concerned supplements at HFL; and that UKAD accepted the results of the HFL analysis at the later Anti-Doping Hearing without conducting independent verification. (Allegation Three) Operation Echo was greatly assisted by the diligent cooperation and
 
Reactions: noob
Though entirely unrelated it's worth pointing out that WADA have recently blocked athletes from accessing their ABP profiles, following revelations in Aderlass that doing so enabled them to keep their doping below the radar.

If a quack like Mark Schmidt knew how to do that imagine what a respected doctor who saw himself at the forefront of anti-doping would have been able to get away with....
 
Reactions: noob
I know I shouldn't be shocked and yet I am. And actually angry. WADA be like "ok the person who was corrupt is gone from WADA and we have no reason to investigate how it could happen and who used their services so all is well.

Something is rotten in the British cycling :(
 
Jul 4, 2017
93
47
2,730
Strange that this was only revealed to the public today, when the pdf of the report was published six days ago. The report mentions an intelligence analyst 'Klara Bolen' about whom nothing can be found on the internet and her signature on the document: 'KB'
 
Reactions: noob
Klara Bolen was employed by WADA in April for this case it seems. Probably just a contract investigator in Europe as WADA are hardly gonna send their crack team from Montreal to investigate this, it's barely a story anyway.

The Summary Report was written 14th, published 19th. Such documents would have to pass through legal so probably a few days delay until uploaded as a public document. The main report is the 19th too.
 
Last edited:
The report mentions an intelligence analyst 'Klara Bolen' about whom nothing can be found on the internet and her signature on the document: 'KB'
Nothing, you say? I must have access to a different internet.
World Anti-Doping Agency: Employee Directory
Contact Name: Klara Bolen
Contact Info:
Email Direct:
Job Title: Intelligence Analyst
Location: Canada, Quebec, Montreal
Last Update: 5/4/2021
More to the point, though, what is the point? An employee with a small Google footprint, someone who signs documents with their initials, a summary version of a report taking a few days to be published? It's almost like we're trying to construct a conspiracy theory out of nothing in order to avoid discussing the actual investigation and its findings.
 
I think Aimar simply looked at the date of the summary not matching the report. With no wrongdoing and all negative samples, there's not much to discuss fmk other than should UKAD pay for such supplement screening or should the athlete / their team / their NGB.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS