• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 59 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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?



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?
The short answer is the code existing at the time allows an amount of the metabolite to exist if consistent with that produced by humans (plenty of evidence what the levels can reach to naturally) Therefore the trace amount detected doesn't automatically generate an AAF or ATF. So no result to report, simply lab test result like any other negative test result the NGB can see on ADAMS anyway. Remember, the NGB controls the athletes ADAMS profiles. They set it up and often maintain it for them too.
 
The short answer is the code existing at the time allows an amount of the metabolite to exist if consistent with that produced by humans (plenty of evidence what the levels can reach to naturally) Therefore the trace amount detected doesn't automatically generate an AAF or ATF. So no result to report, simply lab test result like any other negative test result the NGB can see on ADAMS anyway. Remember, the NGB controls the athletes ADAMS profiles. They set it up and often maintain it for them too.

No supplement contamination. No evidence of a naturally occurring high level of nandrolone:

Sources say the results of the batch testing of the riders’ supplements came back negative for contamination. Then the results of the HFL-tested urine came back showing no indication of naturally occurring levels of nandrolone.

 
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)
They may not have mentioned it, but a good number of athletes have still taken it. So you also have to wonder how many didn't get caught.
 
No supplement contamination. No evidence of a naturally occurring high level of nandrolone:



Unfortunately DM gives no indication what the test involved in terms of following the same pharmacological
protocol as the Aus World Cup races provided. Typically the metabolite is released by the body due to extreme exercise. Was the November test done under similar conditions or simply an ad-hoc urine test? Did they conclude contamination from something else such as food, or simply accepted the stress of the racing created the trace? Even if they assumed the rider had doped, a trace isn't an ATF because the WADA lab protocol has to find >2ng but most labs can find traces from 0.2ng upwards, because that's how sensitive the equipment is.


Exmzbb4XAAAoz6t


So the above fact that a WADA lab has to find >2ng suggests the Daily Mail article is seriously overlooking an athlete can test for a trace of the substance and not be an ATF or AAF. Therefore there is no result for UKAD to manage any differently than any other negative test result, the lab simply include the trace amount found of e.g. 0.3ng/mL and that's simply part of what ends up on ADAMS for the NGB & athlete to see anyway. UKAD have informed BC a trace can be caused by supplement or health issues.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 42x16ss
Dailymail used to have ridiculous headlines and I was in doubt whether I should read the article because I usually avoid them but they may actually be right on the money on this one.
There's several errors and assumptions in it. The most glaring is Harris describes the Sample as being Anomalous, when in fact a trace would be handled as a negative, because the lab has to find > 2ng of the metabolite in the urine. There is no way >2ng would ever be described as a trace, unless UKAD are actually covering up an ATF/AAF for a sample with more than 2ng in it. If that were the case, Harris wouldn't be going all around the houses patching this story of testing supplements and 3 riders. The story is already disproved simply looking at the technical docs.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 42x16ss
Unfortunately DM gives no indication what the test involved in terms of following the same pharmacological
protocol as the Aus World Cup races provided. Typically the metabolite is released by the body due to extreme exercise. Was the November test done under similar conditions or simply an ad-hoc urine test? Did they conclude contamination from something else such as food, or simply accepted the stress of the racing created the trace? Even if they assumed the rider had doped, a trace isn't an ATF because the WADA lab protocol has to find >2ng but most labs can find traces from 0.2ng upwards, because that's how sensitive the equipment is.


Exmzbb4XAAAoz6t


So the above fact that a WADA lab has to find >2ng suggests the Daily Mail article is seriously overlooking an athlete can test for a trace of the substance and not be an ATF or AAF. Therefore there is no result for UKAD to manage any differently than any other negative test result, the lab simply include the trace amount found of e.g. 0.3ng/mL and that's simply part of what ends up on ADAMS for the NGB & athlete to see anyway. UKAD have informed BC a trace can be caused by supplement or health issues.
No, they didn't conclude contamination from food. They didn't conclude that the 'stress of the race' created the trace either:
Sources say the British Cycling probe ended when supplement contamination was ruled out and the samples came back clean.

There is also no mention of 'health issues' in the article, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Perhaps you should try reading the article instead of misleading people.
 
Is Robin Parisotto obsessing over the specific gravity of a particular pot of piss? No Robin Parisotto is not obsessing over the specific gravity of a particular pot of piss.

Is Robin Parisotto obsessing over what rules were in force when concerning the operation of internal anti-doping programmes and what labs were allowed to be used and what information should be shared with the authorities? No, Robin Parisotto is not obsessing over what rules were in force when concerning the operation of internal anti-doping programmes and what labs were allowed to be used and what information should be shared with the authorities

Why is Robin Parisotto not obsessing over these things? Cause Robin Parisotto knows they are not the issue at hand here. What does Robin Parisotto think is the issue at hand here? The perception that UKAD colluded with BC in contravention of WADA's guidelines on how they should operate:
"What they’ve done is totally unsatisfactory because even if the test wasn’t registering a level of nandrolone that was consistent with doping, there’s certainly evidence that it should have been investigated independently of British Cycling," he said.

"That’s where the big drama is because where’s the independence if British Cycling are investigating their own cyclists? Legally they probably weren’t bound to do anything but ethically and morally to just say British Cycling could do their own thing just isn’t right. It’s just not right. They should have been proactive so that there was an arm’s length review of the situation. It’s a terrible failing in what their charter is. If they can't stick by their charter then they’re not fit for purpose and if that’s the case then the whole of UKAD needs to be reviewed and reborn."
If people are to have faith in anti-doping then organisations like UKAD don't just have to do the right thing. They have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Because in all walks of life, perception matters. And WADA at least understand that enough to investigate this matter and not just dismiss it out of hand the same way UKAD appears to dismiss complaints brought to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MartinGT
Parisotto seems to be under the impression that UKAD outsourced the drug testing to BC, which is incorrect. What BC was supplementary and entirely allowed as far as In can see. Any organisation should be doing internal audits, but they are not replacing the official authorities.
 
And WADA clearly agree 100% with you. Which is why they're investigating the matter and not just dismissing it out of hand.


They made a statement based on what a tabloid journalist told them. They are not going to dismiss it immediately. But they soon will do.

If they don't then I look forward to the sanctions against Garmin, HTC, Sunweb, MPCC etc. I remember back in 2010 people demanded to know if Sky/BC had internal testing.
 
Why don't people listen to those raising issues?
Telling hard truths about British sport in the post London 2012 era, during which British Cycling was feted as a model organisation and athletes hailed as superheroes, became “a very dangerous thing to do”, according to David Pond, the highly regarded chief executive of GB Wheelchair Rugby.

Pond, an influential voice who has been at the helm of GBWR since 2009, told the Guardian that anyone raising concerns about the way things were done risked marginalisation – and that unpicking UK Sport’s “blunt and aggressive ‘no compromise’ approach was seen as a betrayal of Team GB” by those inside the system.
 
If they don't then I look forward to the sanctions against Garmin, HTC, Sunweb, MPCC etc. I remember back in 2010 people demanded to know if Sky/BC had internal testing.
Didn't Garmin et al all share their data with the UCI? Seem to recall that being a very, very important aspect of all those internal anti-doping programmes, that the UCI was involved, even reluctantly.

Furthermore, isn't it odd that in 2010 British Cycling appears to have had an internal testing programme which Sky completely forgot to mention when talking about why they implemented one in collaboration with the UCI? Was there something about the BC programme they weren't quite happy with?
“The UCI said ‘you don’t need to be that rigorous; and if you’re that rigorous it’s extremely costly and it won’t pick up any more data than the biological passport’. It wasn’t that we rejected Roger [Palfreeman]’s plan or that we wriggled out of it. That’s so far from the truth. Roger was perfectly happy with the system we put in place instead, where we do take extra tests but we do it in collaboration with the UCI and WADA”.
 
Last edited:
Around this time we definitely had Garmin, Colombia, Radioshack off the top of my head (and others) running their own internal testing outside of CADF/UCI/NADO/WADA Labs. This was well published and debated at the time using the same arguments Parisotto explains. As far as I can tell WADA Code is harmonized on this between NGBs and Cycling Teams.

Good article on teams internally testing not using WADA labs etc back in this 2010 timeframe here:


I think it's going to be difficult for WADA to even say this is wrongdoing, letalone prove there is a mysterious separation that they allow and appear to continue to allow cycling teams to internally test, but now have an issue with BC doing the same (according to Daily Mails report).

UKAD seem adamant the Aus sample was negative and threshold (2ng/mL) wasn't met to warrant investigation, so clearly from that context, this sample wasn't a matter of anti-doping investigation by an ADO to continue in this case Daily Mail has decided to go public with, because afterall - How can a NADO investigate a WADA Labs negative test from another ADO? It's simply not legally possible or even wise, it will never stick even if you have all the suspicion in the world. You can't investigate a negative sample because if negative, there's no handle within WADA 6.1 for that to happen or even within WADA Results Management because it isn't a result in the first place!

Lets see how it plays out. Initially WADA need the lab reading of the sample to confirm it was negative or not. Then they can decide if UKAD should have investigated under 6.1. Only then, can you determine any following testing of supplements and associated riders with them was an act of wrongdoing by UKAD allowing BC to investigate further this negative test (according to UKAD) and other internal testing Daily Mail haven't expanded on for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Lets see how it plays out. Initially WADA need the lab reading of the sample to confirm it was negative. Then they can decide if UKAD should have investigated under 6.1. Only then, can you determine any following testing of supplements and associated riders with them was an act of wrongdoing by UKAD allowing BC to investigate further this negative test (according to UKAD) and other internal testing Daily Mail haven't expanded on for some reason.


I think on 6.1 people are seeing the word 'Sample' and thinking it means anything that could be seen as a sample. But the WADA code is a legal document and ascribes it a specific definition, namely "Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping Control. " But BC aren't running doping control, so 6.1 doesn't apply.
 
I think on 6.1 people are seeing the word 'Sample' and thinking it means anything that could be seen as a sample. But the WADA code is a legal document and ascribes it a specific definition, namely "Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping Control. " But BC aren't running doping control, so 6.1 doesn't apply.
This is the game of words & twisted context Daily Mail plays on - always do and why their journalism generally gets seen as not credible such as Jiffygate contents was a lie they paid for. Everyone's believed 6.1 somehow mysteriously applies to negative samples. Daily Mail have ignored the fact a threshold has to be met by the lab in order that they can call the sample as if it was in fact an ATF. Note Harris decides to simply ignore WADA terminology and calls the sample anomalous, UKAD called it negative.
Lets see the result. Daily Mails Jiffygate scandal turned into a lie and cost UKAD an alleged £0.5M to close the investigation without any evidence found. Hopefully WADA are not so stupid, to ride on Daily Mails credibility.
 
Didn't Garmin et al all share their data with the UCI? Seem to recall that being a very, very important aspect of all those internal anti-doping programmes, that the UCI was involved, even reluctantly.
This is Anne Gripper - the UCI's doping tzar at the time - talking about those internal anti-doping programmes for those too young to remember those long distant days:
Anne Gripper, head of the UCI's anti-doping section, said that "the Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE) assists cycling teams to create a doping-free culture by providing a robust, independent and transparent anti-doping program." She lauded the team's decision to work with this group, saying, "Bob Stapleton and High Road Sports continue to demonstrate leadership in this regard. By initiating a comprehensive team-based anti-doping program delivered by the Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE), by actively supporting the UCI in their broad anti-doping efforts and most importantly, by actively working to create a doping-free culture within their team, they are a role model for other teams to follow."
ACE's programme was also being used by Slipstream (EF) and required sharing of results with the UCI and WADA:
According to the team's press release, each rider on the team will undergo at least 26 random tests each for blood and urine. This high number of tests will allow ACE "to build profiles of each individual rider so that they will be able to detect small changes in the body chemistry that may be caused by blood transfusions or banned substances. The profiles will use blood and urine to build hematological parameters and a urinary steroidal profile. ACE will send test results to the UCI, to WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] and to the team."
While the system Team Sky set up also shared data with the UCI and WADA, for some reason British Cycling's system was designed to keep the authorities in the dark. This is not what is being investigated by WADA, it's a side issue, a distraction. But if we're going to be distracted, let's make an effort to get the facts right and not mislead people. Because misleading people would be wrong.
 
The issues discussed at the time FMK were more surrounding companies like Damsgaard's & Catlin's who were also using independent labs to process the samples such as IDMT and results sent back to Damsgaard's & Catlin being paid for that service by the teams. That was also WADA's main complaint. Even the clinic's friend Bruyneel set-up Damsgaard into Astana. Before that Biver had his Ten Point Internal Anti-Doping plan with additional blood and urine testing.

Probably closer to the UKAD/British Cycling story - is anyone familiar with how French Cycling Federation ran their internal anti-doping and longtitudinal testing at the time in 2010 timeframe? That had some serious money behind it each year & was set-up by Dr Armand Mégret who also helped UCI and MPCC.
How do other National Federations run their internal testing/monitoring alongside their NADO?
 
Damsgaard on working with WADA and the UCI:
"I can say that the UCI supported the Team CSC program immediately: they have never questioned our work or our integrity but only ensured themselves that we are conducting the best possible testing program."

"They were able to certify that program. Mutually, we have called the Team CSC program a 'pilot program', established to see whether it was possible to conduct such an ambitious program and to learn from the problems that we experienced underway.

"Therefore it is so that the UCI 'biological passport' may share identical elements with the Team CSC program. But again, the tools used in the Team CSC program have been present for a long time, so there is no magic in the program - just hard work!"
Let's see British Cycling discuss how they worked with the authorities on their programme. Oh, hang on a minute, they designed their programme to keep the authorities in the dark. And I'm sure they had very good reasons for choosing to do that.
 
Damsgaard on working with WADA and the UCI:Let's see British Cycling discuss how they worked with the authorities on their programme. Oh, hang on a minute, they designed their programme to keep the authorities in the dark. And I'm sure they had very good reasons for choosing to do that.
You missed the point they worked with independent labs . Working with UCI who at the time is your own ADO is no different than working with your own ADO as an NGB anyway lol! WADA allowing non-WADA labs is in violation of their own code - this is going nowhere for WADA legally is it haha!

Any opinion on how French Federation do their internal testing fmk?

Oh look FFC-Approved Labs FMK, not WADA-approved labs! I wonder what happens if a rider AAFs in a non-WADA approved lab? You couldn't even take it to AFLD, the AAF wasn't in a WADA lab, so void as a legal prosecution anyway defined by WADA 6.1!

FFC Biological Monitoring
During the year, you will be notified by email of the period during which you will have to take a biological sample (blood test), with the list of approved laboratories and a prescription.

Making an appointment: It is not necessary to make an appointment, you can go to the FFC approved laboratory (see list attached to the prescription) from Monday to Saturday before 9 a.m.
.
.
.
Payment: at the expense of the FFC, if the sample is taken according to the procedures mentioned above and in an FFC approved laboratory, you do not have to pay anything to the sampling laboratory which invoices the FFC again.


A list of labs to choose from which is paid for by FFC, but 'if' the rider uses a non-FFC approved lab they can pay for their own test it seems?

WADA has one approved lab in France - Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage .


I wonder who is approving this internal biological monitoring (often described as the foundation for WADA Biological passport). Could it be AFLD? France's equivalent to UKAD?

How many other Federations do internal testing/monitoring under the guise of health checks by paying independent non-WADA labs? Didn't UKAD tell BC the metabolite trace might be a 'health issue' or supplement 'contamination' even though negative? Sounds like monitoring that would be good to do like the French and I assume most of the major Federations perhaps? Has Daily Mail simply got too excited again at what would appear standard practice by the larger NGBs anyway? They've turned health monitoring into doping monitoring, because lets face it, nobody has been bothered about this forever until Daily Mail.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 42x16ss
I haven't got much more. Basically this was all set-up after Festina by the French Sports Ministry & French Cycling Federation by FFC Head Dr Armand Mégret. I think it was expanded more when Lappartient was FFC President.
They don't appear to publish the list of FFC-approved testing labs unfortunately, but it seems well-funded, Dr Armand Mégret & Lappartient were complaining back in 2016 funding for the biological testing had dropped from over €300K per year to around €100K. Looks like it's paid for by French Sports Ministry, so like UK Sport paying for it in UK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastronef

TRENDING THREADS