CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 64 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nothing, you say? I must have access to a different internet.

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 promise it isn't me...

KB.
 
Jul 4, 2017
93
47
2,730
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.
I think she lives in Canada, the only thing you can find about her is that she went to university in Quebec.

Nike Oregon report was made available to the public on the same day as the pdf file was uploaded - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2021-10/wada-issues-report-from-review-into-nike-oregon-project-investigation-by-the

Nothing, you say? I must have access to a different internet.

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.
Copying her name out of zoominfo is no information. The only thing you can find is that a university website mentions that name from over ten years ago. Wada's website mentions this name only once. In this report only, before that, nothing. There is no record of what she did before, where she worked and for whom she worked. It's quite unusual that you can't find information about this on the internet when she works for a big international organisation. She is basically a ghost on the internet.

Do you really think it takes six days to write a summary version of a report? Google found the report pdf file six days ago. Which clearly suggests that WADA or someone within WADA wanted to publish this last week. Maybe someone at WADA thinks it's unacceptable that the Brits weren't punished and didn't want to make this report public with this recommendation and that's why there was the delay. Maybe not, idk. But it looks like something may have happened in the last 6 days.
 
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....
And the thing about Mark Schmidt and operation Aderlass is that it hardly made a dent, not even. Reports were that there were more individuals involved but we only keep hearing about a few of them. Where’s everyone else? No significant German names? Why hasn’t there been a follow up. This report about British cycling will get even less of that.
 
I don't know if WADA have an actual list of future I&I investigation names or if they're dreamed up as required. Previous investigations have been called Arrow, Extra, Heir, Outreach, Virbus. Was Echo just a random choice or did they pick it cause we've heard it all before?
 
So BC had a programme to test the guys - and check they stayed within the limits?

Fits with SDB’s policy of ‘‘You know, where the line is – between what’s allowed and what isn’t – in cycling it can sometimes be a bit blurred. But we will not go over it.’

BTW didn’t JV say, back in the day, that Garmin were running internal testing to check their guys were clean?

Is there a difference?
 
The Telegraph kicks back:
The Telegraph can disclose Ukad also did not interview Andy Parkinson, its founding chief executive who left in 2014, or Graham Arthur, its founding legal director who left in 2017, during its investigation.

It can be revealed that Wada did speak to both men during its own inquiry, which was launched in March, but they were unable to recall, a decade on, the exact events under investigation.

Ukad’s failure to contact Parkinson and Arthur – the latter of whom, emails suggest, was central to those events – was criticised on Wednesday night by former staff at the agency.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one acknowledged it had been “a terrible mistake”, while another said: “The absence of any contact with senior executive people who were in the organisation at the time is odd. I can’t think of a good reason not to do that.”
I know that is more a sort of ceremonial kicking than a real one, it's not like it's even going to bruise UKAD but, as with UK Sport's investigation into bullying in British Cycling, we once again seem to have a case of the people who might actually be in a position to answer questions not being asked them. It's a wonderfully British thing, that, not asking questions. It's no wonder UKAD called their investigation Operation Blackout. I wonder what their new investigation into Operation Blackout will be called: Operation Whitewash, maybe?
 
The Telegraph kicks back:I know that is more a sort of ceremonial kicking than a real one, it's not like it's even going to bruise UKAD but, as with UK Sport's investigation into bullying in British Cycling, we once again seem to have a case of the people who might actually be in a position to answer questions not being asked them. It's a wonderfully British thing, that, not asking questions. It's no wonder UKAD called their investigation Operation Blackout. I wonder what their new investigation into Operation Blackout will be called: Operation Whitewash, maybe?
The Operation Blackout failings make me feel like UKAD should face some sort of punishment, such as a suspension as an NADO until an independent investigation is carried out to find out if it was just a failing or purposeful that they didn't find evidence of this in 2018. I can understand why BC would want to do this (for both positive and negative reasons, and I also think there were much easier options such as providing their riders with supplements or using tested supplements) but UKAD agreeing to this either shows huge naivety (and that's being kind) or collusion.
 
Reactions: noob and fmk_RoI
For me it comes down to what was the actual premise here for UKAD at the time? Was it to allow BC early NA warning or was it to actually help British Cycling further understand how/why one of their riders had a trace for NA? Clearly, UKAD doesn't appear to first suggest they'll run the study on behalf of British Cycling, which makes sense, the rider in question causing the concern to carry out such a study had no AAF, so there was no WADA requirement UKAD study the cause, they already know NA metabolites are naturally created in the body and why WADA sets a threshold for the lab to work with. They also know cases where NA from supplements have been proven in lab results and used in defence by athletes too. Equally, I'm not sure an NGB could subcontract their NADO to run a study into NA and supplements use and if they did, it still wouldn't look great headlined in Daily Mail effect.

If the premise was an early warning, the obvious question is why did UKAD only agree to this single metabolite to be studied? Why did they want it all be done through a WADA lab and surely if BC themselves wanted an early warning system, they don't send emails backwards and forwards between themselves, their NADO and a WADA-accredited lab. You would simply subcontract a private lab, take your urine to them and receive the results. Doping is always about evasion, not the inclusion of anti-doping in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The Operation Blackout failings make me feel like UKAD should face some sort of punishment, such as a suspension as an NADO until an independent investigation is carried out to find out if it was just a failing or purposeful that they didn't find evidence of this in 2018.
Given the role UKAD played in Russia, were one of a cynical persuasion one might think WADA didn't want to punish them.
 
Another bruise for UKAD:
A leading British Olympic cyclist rode away from a doping control officer days before the start of the London 2012 Olympics after being asked to give a random out-of-competition urine sample, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

According to sources with first-hand know-ledge of the rural pre-Games training camp where this happened, the world-class rider was annoyed at being asked to comply just as they embarked on a 20mph hour-long training ride along country lanes and adjacent pathways.
Seasoned fans will probably be thinking of Armstrong buggering off to take a shower instead of a doping test but perhaps we should also consider the way some athletes think they are above the trivialities of OOC tests. EPO or ego, we don't know.

Of more concern is the way UKAD dealt with it by not dealing with it:
Another source with knowledge of the thinking inside UKAD’s hierarchy in 2011 said: ‘There was a feeling then that British Cycling was a “best in class” governing body. They were given leeway. They were trusted.’

The incident where a cyclist rode away from a drug tester just before London 2012 was ‘absolutely non-standard’, according to a former senior anti-doping official. It should have led to a flag being raised when the doping control officer filed their report on this specific test, they say.

In the same official’s opinion, one of two things probably transpired. Either the doping control officer reported the odd circumstances, but as the sample was negative for drugs and the rider was hugely respected, it was deemed a non-event rather than kept on file.

Alternatively, under pressure that admonishments were common for any procedural hiccups in collecting samples, the doping control officer simply didn’t report the odd events. The official says there was a culture of doping control officers not mentioning such irregularities to avoid trouble.

UKAD’s relationship with British Cycling has been close over the past dozen years, and arguably too close, say some sources, citing the 2011 illicit testing as one example.
And if your Sunday morning needs a bit of a laugh, Quote of the Week goes to Shane Sutton:
Sutton told The MoS on Friday evening: ‘All I can tell you now, hand on heart, on the death of my daughter, is this [group of 2012 Olympians], and especially that [trace training] group, was the cleanest group of athletes you could ever want to meet. They wouldn’t even shake the hand of an ex-doper, and I’m not even going to name the person they wouldn’t associate with.’
Gee Shane, who could the ex-doper be? You?
 
Nothing is going to happen anyway. Not with men of the establishment being involved.
Things have happened, although maybe not what we'd want to see happen. Here's part of the new Communications Policy all BC clubs are supposed to put in place:

Social Media
We treat all social media postings, blogs, status updates and tweets as public ‘comment’.

Postings (written, photos or videos) will be family-friendly and feature positive club news and events.

No personal information about our members will be disclosed.

No statements will be made that are misleading, false or likely to injure a person’s reputation.
A cynic would suggest this highlighted part is an attempt to shield BC from criticism.
 
Reactions: noob
A cynic would suggest this highlighted part is an attempt to shield BC from criticism.
That whole thing just seems dumb.

Personal information surely includes such colour as where a rider is from (ok, maybe if they're from Milton Keynes I could maybe agree with keeping that hidden), that their spouse was happy with their performance, or that he dad-of-five/mum-of-three did well.

Postings will only include positive news? So the club can't post that its riders got beaten?

As for likely to injure reputation: Fred as a reputation of winning the club's Wednesday night TTs. If you post that he's been beaten you are injuring that reputation.

Who wrote these rules, Xi Jinping?

Does it only apply to clubs or are all BC licence holders now expected to Pravda their SM accounts?
 
Reactions: BlueRoads
That whole thing just seems dumb.

Personal information surely includes such colour as where a rider is from (ok, maybe if they're from Milton Keynes I could maybe agree with keeping that hidden), that their spouse was happy with their performance, or that he dad-of-five/mum-of-three did well.

Postings will only include positive news? So the club can't post that its riders got beaten?

As for likely to injure reputation: Fred as a reputation of winning the club's Wednesday night TTs. If you post that he's been beaten you are injuring that reputation.

Who wrote these rules, Xi Jinping?

Does it only apply to clubs or are all BC licence holders now expected to Pravda their SM accounts?
The policies are mainly to do with clubs and their interactions with their members. Many of these clubs have been around for not a kick in the arse of 100 years, and their constitutions haven't changed much in that time. There have been incidents where members have acted inappropriately and clubs have been unable to deal with it and just asked members to leave, who have then gone on to complain to BC.

The problem is that the way it's written it doesn't just apply to club members, it applies to all communication about anything, so while your example of Fred highlights how poorly written it is, imagine if Fred were say, an employee of a governing body who was accused of breaking some rules and you communicated this on a private club social media page. Theoretically that club could be disciplined.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS