I have posted the WADA Lab Tech Doc earlier which explains it, but when WADA/UKAD discuss Nandrolone, they call it a Threshold Substance, because the WADA Lab is required to identify more than 2ng/mL of its metabolite in order to proceed. If they can't it's Negative, although my understanding is, the amount found below 2ng/mL is included so the ADO can use it for intelligence ie if the amount was above a level that might be of concern so that rider could be target tested or to inform them they might have a health issue or supplement contamination causing the reading.
My interpretation of UKADs response to The Times about it based on Daily Mail saying there was a trace amount found, was it was Negative and the trace amount would be below what WADA requires UKAD to investigate. The lab can detect 0.2ng/mL, so trace is somewhere from that and upwards towards the threshold. An AAF is clearly above 2ng/mL, an ATF I don't know, it might be on a case-by-case basis or an amount just over or under 2ng/mL, I don't know how the lab determines an ATF level, but you can work it out using the DL & TD document I would think.
One of the problems is context. Reading Daily Mails main article all the following phrases are used to describe the same sample. No term used by Nick Harris is even a WADA word used in a lap report other than adverse. If adverse then the report will state the sample is AAF. Should be easy for WADA to investigate if any wrongdoing as an AAF isn't Negative as UKAD suggests it was.
anomalous
abnormal
unusual
adverse
UKAD suggest the sample came back negative, below investigation threshold and a trace amount.
The full Lab Technical Doc is here: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_TD2010NAv1.0_Harmonization of Analysis and Reporting of 19-Norsteroids Related to Nandrolone_Sept 01 2010_EN.doc.pdf
My interpretation of UKADs response to The Times about it based on Daily Mail saying there was a trace amount found, was it was Negative and the trace amount would be below what WADA requires UKAD to investigate. The lab can detect 0.2ng/mL, so trace is somewhere from that and upwards towards the threshold. An AAF is clearly above 2ng/mL, an ATF I don't know, it might be on a case-by-case basis or an amount just over or under 2ng/mL, I don't know how the lab determines an ATF level, but you can work it out using the DL & TD document I would think.
One of the problems is context. Reading Daily Mails main article all the following phrases are used to describe the same sample. No term used by Nick Harris is even a WADA word used in a lap report other than adverse. If adverse then the report will state the sample is AAF. Should be easy for WADA to investigate if any wrongdoing as an AAF isn't Negative as UKAD suggests it was.
anomalous
abnormal
unusual
adverse
UKAD suggest the sample came back negative, below investigation threshold and a trace amount.
The full Lab Technical Doc is here: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_TD2010NAv1.0_Harmonization of Analysis and Reporting of 19-Norsteroids Related to Nandrolone_Sept 01 2010_EN.doc.pdf
Last edited: