Essentially this story is about UKAD not investigating someone who didn't fail a drug test
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
It won't be the last.Esssentially this is the 15th story about british cycling, Sky, UKAD and yet people think that everything is normal.
Esssentially this is the 15th story about british cycling, Sky, UKAD and yet people think that everything is normal.
Everyone is cleanz as long as it's just an unnamed rider.Some of us are traditionalists and like our doping stories to have some actual doping in them.
Your NADO does inform you of any sample that contains traces and are not doping violations. Daily Mail calls it a tip off but this is simply good practice (unless the sample is suspected to indicate doping and then the rider will be monitored through targeted in and out of competition testing). As the body can produce the metabolite traced and was such low amount, it seems UKAD ruled out Nandrolone use. BC then got 3 riders supplements tested (assume the 2 other sprinters were using the supplements too) and then sent their urine to be tested a month later. Both came back negative for the metabolite so the only conclusion possible is a trace in some food in Australia before the test or the rider produced it naturally under the stress of competing in the World Cup races.Interesting that the 'investigation' went no further when naturally occurring nandrolone and contaminated supplements were both seemingly ruled out.
And it's strange that there was an apparent tip-off instead of the usual reporting procedures being followed. At least the way it is being framed in the article is that UKAD notified BC before informing the athlete which is not in line with the code.
It's clearly just 3 riders having their supplements tested and then a urine sample a month 'after' one of them had a trace metabolite found. Policing themselves would happen 'before' the trace was found and continue past just one test of three riders wouldn't it?This is just one group of people policing themselves really.
Harris was the journalist who informed UKAD in the first place fmk. You are so far behind the story here.I wonder what scoops Nick Harris and Matt Lawton had on Shane Sutton that he had to give them this story in order to bury what they had. Did they both have the UKAD investigation into his own doping, again?
Remember the time when UKAD and BC met together with Lizzie Armistead to discuss how best to deal with her allergy to dope testingThis is just one group of people policing themselves really.
I wonder what scoops Nick Harris and Matt Lawton had on Shane Sutton that he had to give them this story in order to bury what they had. Did they both have the UKAD investigation into his own doping, again?
British Cycling and UK Anti-Doping say they are trying to assist the World Anti-Doping Agency’s enquiries after an investigation was launched over the weekend into allegations Ukad allowed British Cycling to carry out its own internal probe into a rider's sample, which allegedly contained traces of a banned anabolic steroid.
Ukad is said to have informed British Cycling of the sample, which dates from the autumn of 2010 and allegedly contained traces of a metabolite of nandrolone, with British Cycling then conducting its own internal follow-up, using a private laboratory, HFL Sport Science in Cambridgeshire, to run tests on four riders.
Lots of teams and governing bodies run internal screening programmes. It is allowed as long as there is full transparency with Ukad and results are shared and it is done to Wada standards. Any positive test and Ukad takes over.
Which is why WADA are taking the claims seriously and not just dismissing them the way you are.It seems like a journalist's invention.
A whistleblower wrote to UK Anti-Doping two years ago raising concerns about British Cycling’s private drug testing of riders.
Sportsmail understands a letter was sent to UKAD in 2019 questioning why the governing body was allowed to conduct their own probe into a potential doper before London 2012.
Which is why WADA are taking the claims seriously and not just dismissing them the way you are.
Not for road and endurance track because its used to build fast twitch muscle fibre. Don't forget it's what Linford Christie tested positive for.Yet despite all of the confessions of the last decade, not one single cyclist has mentioned using nandrolone. Drug of choice it is most certainly not.
Your NADO does inform you of any sample that contains traces and are not doping violations. Daily Mail calls it a tip off but this is simply good practice (unless the sample is suspected to indicate doping and then the rider will be monitored through targeted in and out of competition testing). As the body can produce the metabolite traced and was such low amount, it seems UKAD ruled out Nandrolone use. BC then got 3 riders supplements tested (assume the 2 other sprinters were using the supplements too) and then sent their urine to be tested a month later. Both came back negative for the metabolite so the only conclusion possible is a trace in some food in Australia before the test or the rider produced it naturally under the stress of competing in the World Cup races.
I think the easiest thing to do by BC and UKAD would have been simply nothing. Afterall it was only a trace. Why would you only test 3 riders out of 60 in the BC Program doesn't suggest internal testing to detect doping before UKAD. This all happened post-trace detected OOC.
Upon receipt of an A Sample Atypical Finding, the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management shall conduct a review to determine whether: (a) an applicable therapeutic use exemption has been granted, or (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding. If that review does not reveal an applicable therapeutic use exemption or departure that caused the Atypical Finding, the Anti-Doping Organization shall conduct the required investigation.
After the investigation is completed, the Athlete and other Anti-Doping Organizations identified in Article 14.1.2 shall be notified whether or not the Atypical Finding will be brought forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding. The Athlete shall be notified as provided in Article 7.2.
Not for road and endurance track because its used to build fast twitch muscle fibre. Don't forget it's what Linford Christie tested positive for.
Now a pursuiter or points/madison rider might not want the size associated with such an anabolic, but a match sprinter?
I think the confusion is, the code at the time allowed an amount of the metabolite in the urine if it was consistent with the range produced by a human. This metabolite is. A trace would suggest an amount very low so probably consistent and no AAF or ATF result.Focusing on the meat and two veg of the story and not the side dishes preferred by some: