CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[Parker]

Essentially this story is about UKAD not investigating someone who didn't fail a drug test

 

[F_Cance]

Esssentially this is the 15th story about british cycling, Sky, UKAD and yet people think that everything is normal.

 

[topcat]

Esssentially this is the 15th story about british cycling, Sky, UKAD and yet people think that everything is normal.

It won't be the last.

 

[Parker]

Esssentially this is the 15th story about british cycling, Sky, UKAD and yet people think that everything is normal.

Some of us are traditionalists and like our doping stories to have some actual doping in them.

 

[Red Rick]

Some of us are traditionalists and like our doping stories to have some actual doping in them.

Everyone is cleanz as long as it's just an unnamed rider.

 

[roundabout]

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.

 

[MartinGT]

So when there's similar on others its ' Well you don't get XYZ if people are clean'


LOLS

 

[samhocking]

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.

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.

 

[Red Rick]

This is just one group of people policing themselves really.

 

[samhocking]

This is just one group of people policing themselves really.

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?

 

[fmk_RoI]

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?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Can you imagine being Pat McQuaid today and reading this and thinking about all the grief he and Hein Verbruggen got for warning athletes they needed to tone things down a bit in order to avoid popping positives?

 

[samhocking]

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?

Harris was the journalist who informed UKAD in the first place fmk. You are so far behind the story here.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

This is just one group of people policing themselves really.

Remember the time when UKAD and BC met together with Lizzie Armistead to discuss how best to deal with her allergy to dope testing

 

[Parker]

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?

Quite possibly nothing. It seems like straight-forward revenge to me.

 

[samhocking]

It comes down to what is the urine level of this metabolite a NADO should investigate and not the NGB or rider. I struggle to find any clear WADA definition other than the threshold being reached in the sample determines when the NADO is obliged to investigate presumed doping as Daily Mail is suggesting, but if the lab reading is said to be the smallest amount readable, what part of the code prevents the NGB finding the cause for the trace result by further supplement and rider testing? Pro teams test riders continually as part of UCI medical program with basic blood test in local hospital clinic. Teams also pay for testing supplements if the supplier isn't part of a program of batch testing too. Is that internal testing to evade testing positive before the ADO gets to you, or is it simply due diligence and minimizing risk of innocently testing positive?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Focusing on the meat and two veg of the story and not the side dishes preferred by some:

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.

 

[Parker]

^^^ But there's nothing in the WADA code about any of that. It seems like a journalist's invention. I don't think WADA have the authority to stop anyone doing their own medical checks.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It seems like a journalist's invention.

Which is why WADA are taking the claims seriously and not just dismissing them the way you are.

 

[fmk_RoI]

And on it moves to what the whistleblower knew and when they blew the whistle on it:

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.

 

[Parker]

Which is why WADA are taking the claims seriously and not just dismissing them the way you are.

Well let's see if they do. Bear in mind all they have been told is by a sensationalist Mail journalist*. Now if you could point to the bit of the WADA code which prohibits people doing their own medical tests then I'm all ears.

 

[42x16ss]

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.

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?

 

[roundabout]

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.

Which article of the code states that a national governing body should be made aware first via unofficial channels (that's what the term 'tip off implies) about an atypical finding?

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.

and 7.3.1, but I am not going to quote that

I am probably missing something, but the way the DM article is written, it does not seem that UKAD investigated anything, so I am not sure how you can come to a conclusion that UKAD ruled out nandrolone use. Doing nothing is not the same as ruling out. And doing nothing is not in line with the code.

It's also a question why test 3 riders when there was an issue with only 1 rider? And why 20 specimen bottles if there were only 12 tests (unless of course it wasn't possible to order less)? And how do you know that BC did not test riders after training? Or why do you assume that it was produced naturally after competing in the WC if it was an OOC test? And why do you assume it was an issue with food if that did not seem to have been investigated?

 

[Parker]

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?

But there have also been plenty of revelations in athletics, and baseball too Again no-one's ever mentioned taking it as drug they used. To call it a 'drug of choice' seem like typical Mail sensationalism. (Unless Ross Tucker is knocking it out to South African gym bunnies)

 

[samhocking]

Focusing on the meat and two veg of the story and not the side dishes preferred by some:

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.

So, that means there's no results management needed. If not needed WADA article numbers quoted to be UKAD in violation by Daily Mail legally were not. They were passing on the result a trace amount was found with the lab test and this can be due to various reasons unrelated to doping, but BC decided to test riders and supplements anyway. Harris seems to claim years of internal testing but only references 3 single tests related to this Australian OOC test.