General Doping Thread.

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-sniffer-dog-idUSKCN1M81KQ
Molly, Sweden's anti-doping dog, gives cheats new problem to chew on

Sweden’s Sports Confederation says Molly is the world’s first anti-doping dog, introduced to the job last spring in a bid to broaden the country’s efforts in curtailing the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport.

“She’s a search dog so she’s trained exactly the same as a dog for customs, for example, for narcotics,” Swedish doping control officer Michael Sjoo, also Molly’s handler, said.
...
The doping control officer expects other dogs will be trained like Molly as authorities seek new ways to nab cheats. Earlier this year the UK Anti-Doping organization said it was looking at the use of sniffer dogs at sporting events.
 
Jagartrott and myself posted a message in the General News thread in the Professional Road Racing forum, concerning a study from the University of Leuven, concerning the use of ketones. More context in the original posts: viewtopic.php?p=2351530#p2351530

Since it's not considered to be doping (and not on the doping list) it's probably best to discuss it in the other topic. Nevertheless, since it can bring tremendous gains, i thought it'd be good to at least mention it here.
 
Aug 18, 2017
582
0
0
Re:

Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
I don't understand that, if the anti doping body accepts the contaminated supplement motive, they still give a 2 year suspension. The fault should be on the makers of the supplement, not on the rider. For sure they don't expect the riders to test each box of supplementation products that they take to see if it's contaminated with performance enhancing substances.

Losing all results would be the right measure to take. After all, he was racing with things that aren't allowed. But being suspended from racing because of something that isn't the riders fault, but the manufacturer's, is a bit too much for me.

This, I repeat, if it's found without doubt that the cause of the positive is a contaminated supplement.
 
Apr 10, 2019
548
3
1,085
Re: Re:

Ricco' said:
King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
I don't understand that, if the anti doping body accepts the contaminated supplement motive, they still give a 2 year suspension. The fault should be on the makers of the supplement, not on the rider. For sure they don't expect the riders to test each box of supplementation products that they take to see if it's contaminated with performance enhancing substances.

Losing all results would be the right measure to take. After all, he was racing with things that aren't allowed. But being suspended from racing because of something that isn't the riders fault, but the manufacturer's, is a bit too much for me.

This, I repeat, if it's found without doubt that the cause of the positive is a contaminated supplement.
There a organizations, like the German NADA, who test supplements on a regular basis and have a list of those that you can use without any concerns. That said, 2 years is probably to harsh, but according to the WADA code that's the ban for an accidental anti doping violation, it is probably too harsh when it is actually a tainted supplement.
 
Re: Re:

Ricco' said:
King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
I don't understand that, if the anti doping body accepts the contaminated supplement motive, they still give a 2 year suspension. The fault should be on the makers of the supplement, not on the rider. For sure they don't expect the riders to test each box of supplementation products that they take to see if it's contaminated with performance enhancing substances.

Losing all results would be the right measure to take. After all, he was racing with things that aren't allowed. But being suspended from racing because of something that isn't the riders fault, but the manufacturer's, is a bit too much for me.

This, I repeat, if it's found without doubt that the cause of the positive is a contaminated supplement.
Based on the UCI statement and reading between the lines I think that they have accepted that this is the most likely cause, hence only 2 years and not 4 years, but Sanchez failed to prove it was definitely the cause, which could be argued as no ban.

The liability rests with the rider (for good reasons) but it does result in situations like this (if we believe the claim) and the Contador case. It's not an easy thing to prove. Even if you save an amount of each supplement you take, there is no chain of custody for everything you take/eat. Just because you have a contaminated supplement in your possession doesn't prove that 1) this was the cause of your failed test and 2) the supplement was contaminated before you got it.

Athletes aren't forced to take supplements, it's a known risk and you need to weigh it up. As Mayomaniac points out, there is some information available to athletes to help, but it isn't perfect.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Ricco' said:
King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
I don't understand that, if the anti doping body accepts the contaminated supplement motive, they still give a 2 year suspension. The fault should be on the makers of the supplement, not on the rider. For sure they don't expect the riders to test each box of supplementation products that they take to see if it's contaminated with performance enhancing substances.

Losing all results would be the right measure to take. After all, he was racing with things that aren't allowed. But being suspended from racing because of something that isn't the riders fault, but the manufacturer's, is a bit too much for me.

This, I repeat, if it's found without doubt that the cause of the positive is a contaminated supplement.
Based on the UCI statement and reading between the lines I think that they have accepted that this is the most likely cause, hence only 2 years and not 4 years, but Sanchez failed to prove it was definitely the cause, which could be argued as no ban.

The liability rests with the rider (for good reasons) but it does result in situations like this (if we believe the claim) and the Contador case. It's not an easy thing to prove. Even if you save an amount of each supplement you take, there is no chain of custody for everything you take/eat. Just because you have a contaminated supplement in your possession doesn't prove that 1) this was the cause of your failed test and 2) the supplement was contaminated before you got it.

Athletes aren't forced to take supplements, it's a known risk and you need to weigh it up. As Mayomaniac points out, there is some information available to athletes to help, but it isn't perfect.

Basically what this is says is he doesn't have the money to buy his way out of this.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
Only the likelihood that it was a contaminated supplement. So apparently it was never tested. 2 yrs because they know Sanchez is lying and is 43yrs old
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
King Boonen said:
Ricco' said:
King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
I don't understand that, if the anti doping body accepts the contaminated supplement motive, they still give a 2 year suspension. The fault should be on the makers of the supplement, not on the rider. For sure they don't expect the riders to test each box of supplementation products that they take to see if it's contaminated with performance enhancing substances.

Losing all results would be the right measure to take. After all, he was racing with things that aren't allowed. But being suspended from racing because of something that isn't the riders fault, but the manufacturer's, is a bit too much for me.

This, I repeat, if it's found without doubt that the cause of the positive is a contaminated supplement.
Based on the UCI statement and reading between the lines I think that they have accepted that this is the most likely cause, hence only 2 years and not 4 years, but Sanchez failed to prove it was definitely the cause, which could be argued as no ban.

The liability rests with the rider (for good reasons) but it does result in situations like this (if we believe the claim) and the Contador case. It's not an easy thing to prove. Even if you save an amount of each supplement you take, there is no chain of custody for everything you take/eat. Just because you have a contaminated supplement in your possession doesn't prove that 1) this was the cause of your failed test and 2) the supplement was contaminated before you got it.

Athletes aren't forced to take supplements, it's a known risk and you need to weigh it up. As Mayomaniac points out, there is some information available to athletes to help, but it isn't perfect.

Basically what this is says is he doesn't have the money to buy his way out of this.
No, that’s what you assume is the case. My post just points out why the rules are what they are.
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
King Boonen said:
Koronin said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48259947
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
Only the likelihood that it was a contaminated supplement. So apparently it was never tested. 2 yrs because they know Sanchez is lying and is 43yrs old
That is most likely. It’s also a nicer for the UCI and probably a slightly less actionable statement should Sanchez decide to get lawyers involved.
 
In Basketball, Odom Used Fake Penis to Pass Olympic Drug Test
Is this the norm in cycling as well? For sure the authorities would not stare at the details of yours while you pee.
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Asero831 said:
In Basketball, Odom Used Fake Penis to Pass Olympic Drug Test
Is this the norm in cycling as well? For sure the authorities would not stare at the details of yours while you pee.
Photo?
;)
Please NO! For cyclists, it's a bit more difficult to hide a fake schlong with lycra on :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS