Doping in Austria

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I don't think it's HG powder. HLN suggests the riders involved are not part of Schmidt's network and multiple substances, but I guess Schmid't won't be the only one to know about HG Powder.

Perhaps coincidence, but Aderlass passed CADF the names of riders to investigate samples of in November. This is the same month Lappartient threatened to move UCI Anti-doping out of CADF and to ITA. The head of CADF is also on record in response to Lappartient claiming Lappartient repeatedly kept asking him for a list of riders (which he refused to give) from Aderlass despite this not being standard WADA Results management. Could all be coincidence this all happened within a couple of weeks of each other, although HLN also suggest there was a stand-off over the retesting. Certainly, 6 months to test what can't be that many samples/riders is quite the timeframe.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's HG powder. HLN suggests the riders involved are not part of Schmidt's network and multiple substances, but I guess Schmid't won't be the only one to know about HG Powder.

Perhaps coincidence, but Aderlass passed CADF the names of riders to investigate samples of in November. This is the same month Lappartient threatened to move UCI Anti-doping out of CADF and to ITA. The head of CADF is also on record in response to Lappartient claiming Lappartient repeatedly kept asking him for a list of riders (which he refused to give) from Aderlass despite this not being standard WADA Results management. Could all be coincidence this all happened within a couple of weeks of each other, although HLN also suggest there was a stand-off over the retesting. Certainly, 6 months to test what can't be that many samples/riders is quite the timeframe.

That is an interesting point.

Also this feels like there is a more likely resolution than what we are ever going to get from Operation Puerto.

I can see targeted retested as there are riders who would not have been part of this and teams that weren't involved.
 
That is an interesting point.

Also this feels like there is a more likely resolution than what we are ever going to get from Operation Puerto.

I can see targeted retested as there are riders who would not have been part of this and teams that weren't involved.
I hope so. Times have changed too. Back in Puerto days all anti-doping was handled at NADO level and then UCI would appeal the NADO if not happy with the rider nearly always being cleared by the National Federation anyway! Now it's no longer a National process, but International one, so hopeful, although what the head of CADF was saying, that is worryingly close to looking like Lappartient wanting to limit the damage if any big names involved to me if true.

I read something where it was claimed those caught up in Schmidt's network initially (so the initial riders and Shmidt's staff/helpers etc) had their phone/app data and conversations filed and this is where the 2016-2017 samples to investigate have originated.
 
I hope so. Times have changed too. Back in Puerto days all anti-doping was handled at NADO level and then UCI would appeal the NADO if not happy with the rider nearly always being cleared by the National Federation anyway! Now it's no longer a National process, but International one, so hopeful, although what the head of CADF was saying, that is worryingly close to looking like Lappartient wanting to limit the damage if any big names involved to me if true.

I read something where it was claimed those caught up in Schmidt's network initially (so the initial riders and Shmidt's staff/helpers etc) had their phone/app data and conversations filed and this is where the 2016-2017 samples to investigate have originated.

There were other issues specifically with Puerto like Spain's virtually non existent anti doping laws and the Spanish govt and courts trying to protect their athletes. I agree that this may be more worrying that Lappartient is appearing to look like he and thus the UCI is trying to protect someone or a few people.

I read something about that as well. Wasn't it the German authorities that did that? Germany has some fairly strict anti doping laws compared to other countries (including Spain's bare minimal ones). It sounds like the 2016-2017 aren't as targeted as the 2017 Tour is.
 
The blunderbuss approach has been shown, time and again, to not work. They have said they have "identified the samples" so that suggests they are being guided by intelligence, not just flailing about.
So only the names that were/are about to be linked to the Aderlass operation will be made public. Great. As per usual, we'll have a few cyclists being outed because A.) they and their teams have been careless B.) They don't have the money/resources/power to get the right stuff and make sure they aren't detected and if and when the time comes, be protected and C.) Those supplying the expertise and material don't have the access that bigger teams do and/or D.) They are the only ones targeted
 
Agree with FMK on this, Generally the samples require evidence beyond a reasonable level of doubt to justify retesting anyway, because every time a sample is opened and an amount removed it degrades and means n-1 retest opportunity in the future. Obviously whatever testing procedure is carried out, all classes of drug under that procedure might also be identified however. This was the whole debate with e.g. Mo Farah's samples. UKAD won't just grant USAD and everyone who want to try to find something a hit on the samples just because they want to try and find something, they need to say they have this evidence of doping and justify the reason and I'm sure the 2016-17 samples fall into the same common sense. You can't just keep retesting, there's only a small volume of blood and urine to use,
 
Reactions: yaco
Here's a serious question for you: how many times do you imagine one sample can be retested? Please, give me a number.
That depends on what you're testing for, but there's no fixed limit:

There shall be no limit on the number of times a sample may be retested. A sample may be restested for one specific prohibited substance, or a menu of additional substances, depending on the nature of the retesting required.
http://www.inado.org/fileadmin/user_upload/member-docs/iNADO_Resources/Policy_for_Long_Term_Sample_Storage_and_Targeted_Deterrence.pdf
 
Are you saying that a sample can be tested an infinite number of times? That a pot of piss contains an infinite volume of piss? What weird science is this you speak of?

There's a world of difference between can and may.
Are you saying there would ever be a need or a desire to test a sample an infinite number of times? Forgive me, I thought your post implied it wouldn't be possible to retest for everything one might want to test for.
 
I thought your post implied it wouldn't be possible to retest for everything one might want to test for.
You have clearly misinterpreted where the question was going.

The simple fact is there is a physical limit on the number of times one pot of piss can be tested before it runs dry. Accordingly, you can't take it out of the fridge and test the hell out of it everytime you throw a moody about something in the news. You choose your battles carefully.

Applying the blunderbuss approach to stored samples defeats the point of storing them in the first place. The only point at which you should consider testing everything in the fridge is right before you have to flush it.

As @BullsFan22 doesn't want to answer the question perhaps you'd like to give it a go: how many times do you imagine one sample can be retested? Please, give me a number.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact is there is a physical limit on the number of times one pot of piss can be tested before it runs dry. Accordingly, you can't take it out of the fridge and test the hell out of it everytime you throw a moody about something in the news. You choose your battles carefully.
Actually, the simple fact is that there's usually plenty of piss to work with. The minimum urine in a B sample is supposed to be 45 ml, and frequently there's much more. Most tests require 5 ml or less, and many tests (e.g., those employing mass spec) can be carried out on less than a milliliter. Recent advances have greatly increased the sensitivity of detection for many substances. There wouldn't be a rule that there could be unlimited testing in a ten year period unless in fact a great many tests could be run.

The more serious problem is that the constant thawing/freezing cycles can degrade some substances that you might want to test for.
 
Actually, the simple fact is that there's usually plenty of piss to work with. The minimum urine in a B sample is supposed to be 45 ml, and frequently there's much more. Most tests require 5 ml or less, and many tests (e.g., those employing mass spec) can be carried out on less than a milliliter. Recent advances have greatly increased the sensitivity of detection for many substances. There wouldn't be a rule that there could be unlimited testing in a ten year period unless in fact a great many tests could be run.
Work with me on this, this is more your alley than mine.

In the first round of testing, let's assume the best and that each sample had a full spectrum of tests applied to it (we're being generous, I know, but prudence says that's what we do here). Am I right in thinking that that would have required multiple aliquots, of varying volumes? To put a ballpark number on it, how much of a 45 ml pot of piss will have been used - 5-10 ml? More?

The remainder is put in the fridge. Now, you and me, if we were doing retesting, we'd only be hitting a sample with specific tests, where some test has changed since the first test or we have new intel or we're about to flush the lot. So, you or me, we'd require less piss to play with in a retest. But BullsFan22 wants the full spectrum again:
I hope they are retesting all the samples for any possible PED's, not just the ones that were in the Aderlass report.
So we're talking about the same volume as before is needed. Only ... am I right in believing that an A sample is tested twice if it throws up a positive, to check the lab's not goofed? Only then do we go to the athlete being asked if they want to to open the B sample?

So test, retest, confirmation, that's 3 times X ml from the 45 ml pot. 15-30 ml? Less? More? So, to satisfy those wanting to take the blunderbuss approach, each 45 ml pot of piss can be tested ... five times, plus or minus? Which is three retests (again, plus or minus), allowing for a confirmation test if you actually catch someone cheating.

You can put more realistic numbers on this, I'm sure. But we both seem to be in agreement that there is a physical limit on how many times a sample can be retestd (the legal limit is a straw dog you took for a walk, not me - let's abandon it).

On top of this, as you have noted, we have to get to considering that a pot of piss is a bit like last night's chicken and we have to be careful about refreezing it once we've thawed it out. I didn't do Home Ec, so I've no idea what the answer to that one is.

Has there been much research done on restesting and the limits it faces? I imagine the IOC retesting programme (where they test each Olympiad's samples right before the SoL runs out) must have produced some useful data, but has that been made public anywhere?
 
One small aliquot (< 1 ml.) is enough to test for multiple substances using LC-MS, or the like. Immunoassays like the MAIIA test for EPO require more, but my understanding is that these are used mostly for screening--and then only for larger substances like peptides-- because they're so fast (they're being used for the coronavirus, e.g.). False positives are a problem, so confirmation still employs mass spec. Mass spec requires a lot of time and effort in sample preparation, which is why it's not so suitable for screening. But in the case. of re-testing, there wouldn't be the need for screening, because you know what you're looking for, and there would be no hurry. It's not like testing for someone who has just won a major race, and you want to know as quickly as possible whether the rider should be suspended.

So AFAIK, a typical B sample could be tested dozens of times for a wide range of substances. The main exceptions would be naturally occurring substances, like EPO, testosterone and AICAR, where detection per se isn't enough; you have to demonstrate that either the substance taken is not natural (the carbon isotope test for T, or the gel bands for EPO), or in a quantity not likely to be natural. Also, some peptides or proteins might not be readily detectable by mass spec. These might require another kind of assay, probably an immunoassay, but the more I look into these, the more I see assays using really small volumes. So it's not clear to me that more than a ml is ever required for a targeted test.

I still think freezing and thawing is likely the biggest problem. Proteins or peptides are particularly sensitive to this. This could be avoided by dividing the urine sample into multiple smaller aliquots, but this would be time consuming, and probably at this time, it's not thought necessary enough to bother.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS