CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling

1…89111314…37

Comments

  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,181
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Anyone know how decent the testing is for synthetic testosterone?

    Quite difficult I think. Main use is Ooc and short glow time. Probably needs mass spec to distinguish between natural & synthetic, which is very specialised and expensive to run kit, so not run routinely.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    /\ I assume, since it's the usual way of differentiating natural and artificial organic material, but don't know for sure: you're looking at the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. If it's artificial there will be no or less carbon 14.

    There's a standard ratio of C14 to C12 in naturally occurring organic material, which reduces over time since the C14 decays.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    CarbonClem wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    CarbonClem wrote:
    On Wednesday UKAD stated in the meeting there was no evidence to make any charges. What's your source?

    The investigation is still ongoing. Whilst there is no paper based eveidnce there is testimony from more than one witness.

    Source?

    A friend of mine's wife had to work late one night. When she arrived home she needed to use the laptop and he took it from the coffee table and handed it to her. She checked the browsing history and found nothing - "too clean" she remarked to her husband. Whilst there was no evidence that he had been watching pornography, she knew he was indeed guilty.

    I'll let that sit with you for a while.

    "A friend", eh?
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    Some of us did try to warn you that Sky were dodgy but we got widely mocked. Ha.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,694
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Anyone know how decent the testing is for synthetic testosterone?

    Quite difficult I think. Main use is Ooc and short glow time. Probably needs mass spec to distinguish between natural & synthetic, which is very specialised and expensive to run kit, so not run routinely.

    It's a pretty standard test isnt it? It's the Early Learning Centre of doping.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    ddraver wrote:
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Anyone know how decent the testing is for synthetic testosterone?

    Quite difficult I think. Main use is Ooc and short glow time. Probably needs mass spec to distinguish between natural & synthetic, which is very specialised and expensive to run kit, so not run routinely.

    It's a pretty standard test isnt it? It's the Early Learning Centre of doping.


    Well my knowledge of that kind of testing and how it works is probably 10 years old know (i.e. Landis) so I imagine both sides have moved on a lot since then.

    Where's cutting edge muscle when you need it?
    _
  • professeur
    professeur Posts: 232
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Anyone know how decent the testing is for synthetic testosterone?

    It got a bit of coverage during the Danielson case:

    http://www.velonews.com/2015/08/news/the-test-that-caught-tom-danielson_381086
    Danielson was busted by CIR, short for Carbon Isotope Ratio, a highly accurate test that is able to distinguish between naturally produced testosterone and its synthetic cousin using molecular weight. It is the first test able to detect the synthetic testosterone itself, rather than the body’s reaction to it.

    The traditional method of detecting abuse of testosterone looks for an imbalance in the ratio of testosterone and epitestosterone. It is referred to as the T/E ratio test. A normal ratio for most humans is near 1:1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers a ratio over 4:1 to be a positive test. This has dropped in recent years — it was 8:1, then 6:1, and now 4:1. Floyd Landis had a ratio of 11:1 when he was nabbed by both the T/E ratio test and CIR in 2006 with a sample taken during the Tour de France.

    If administered at the right time, the T/E ratio method can be very effective. But testosterone/epitestosterone ratios return to normal quickly, even overnight if taken in the right doses. With the ban on overnight testing, which was only recently partially lifted, the test’s real-world efficacy drops considerably.

    The T/E test simply looks for a physiological response to doping, rather than the product itself. That is its flaw.

    CIR is effective but expensive — $400-700 per sample, nearly 10 times the cost of the T/E ratio test.

    Like the T/E test, CIR is also based on a ratio. Labs determine the quantities of carbon-12 and carbon-13, two isotopes, or types, of carbon, within an individual’s testosterone molecules. Synthetic testosterone has less carbon-13 than naturally occurring testosterone.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    So the window between taking it and it no-longer being detectable, in the right dose is what, 12 hours?
    _
  • professeur
    professeur Posts: 232
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the window between taking it and it no-longer being detectable, in the right dose is what, 12 hours?

    Seems like it's pretty tight, yeah
  • joe2008
    joe2008 Posts: 1,531
    The obvious downside of synthetic testosterone is weight gain. Kenalog anyone...
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    professeur wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the window between taking it and it no-longer being detectable, in the right dose is what, 12 hours?

    Seems like it's pretty tight, yeah

    OK.

    So we can't fairly dismiss illegal testosterone as impractical for doping?
    _
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,252
    it should be pretty simple to ascertain if the testosterone delivery was a mistake or not by looking at other orders. It's not something someone would order just once.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • professeur
    professeur Posts: 232
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    professeur wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the window between taking it and it no-longer being detectable, in the right dose is what, 12 hours?

    Seems like it's pretty tight, yeah

    OK.

    So we can't fairly dismiss illegal testosterone as impractical for doping?

    Actually, I'm not sure, tbh - looks like you may be able to detect it for a few days but don't know, for example, about patches vs injections, etc. I'll leave it to the experts from here, however unfasionable they may be!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,252
    professeur wrote:
    I'll leave it to the experts from here, however unfasionable they may be!
    What experts? There aren't any experts here.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    professeur wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    professeur wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the window between taking it and it no-longer being detectable, in the right dose is what, 12 hours?

    Seems like it's pretty tight, yeah

    OK.

    So we can't fairly dismiss illegal testosterone as impractical for doping?

    Actually, I'm not sure, tbh - looks like you may be able to detect it for a few days but don't know, for example, about patches vs injections, etc. I'll leave it to the experts from here, however unfasionable they may be!

    Well this is a much more useful information that some boring chat about Leinders.

    Knowing whether it's practical to dope with testosterone and easy to avoid testing is worth knowing.

    We knew during the '90s and '00s that it was easy to evade EPO tests, for example, and even easier to avoid being detected for blood bags, so that's why we had to rely on more circumstantial evidence.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    Well, it's moved away from the only evidence being that the riders did well.
  • professeur
    professeur Posts: 232
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    professeur wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    professeur wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the window between taking it and it no-longer being detectable, in the right dose is what, 12 hours?

    Seems like it's pretty tight, yeah

    OK.

    So we can't fairly dismiss illegal testosterone as impractical for doping?

    Actually, I'm not sure, tbh - looks like you may be able to detect it for a few days but don't know, for example, about patches vs injections, etc. I'll leave it to the experts from here, however unfasionable they may be!

    Well this is a much more useful information that some boring chat about Leinders.

    Knowing whether it's practical to dope with testosterone and easy to avoid testing is worth knowing.

    We knew during the '90s and '00s that it was easy to evade EPO tests, for example, and even easier to avoid being detected for blood bags, so that's why we had to rely on more circumstantial evidence.

    True enough. I'm pretty certain it's the T/E window that is tight, but the synthetic detection window is wider. Success of evasion may well depend on the likelihood of a CIR test being run routinely.
  • carbonclem
    carbonclem Posts: 1,783
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Denial is a horrible affliction to suffer from as it causes cognitive blindness.

    No denial at all. I'm just trying to see what's what really. I'm not a child, so no blind faith, but I've always sought to base opinion on facts and evidence. Saying Wiggins is going to be charged is a game changer in all of this. I went through Lawtons twitter timeline and couldn't see anything to suggest it. Digger had it on his, natch. As I said, for Sapstead to state in the hearing last week that there was no suggestion of charges being brought, to Wiggins being charged over the package is quite a sea of change in a few days.
    2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner
  • professeur
    professeur Posts: 232
    RichN95 wrote:
    professeur wrote:
    I'll leave it to the experts from here, however unfasionable they may be!
    What experts? There aren't any experts here.

    Yeah, I may well be the expert here, for all I know. Doubt it tho...
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,878
    From memory (and sourced from the internet at the time), the T/E test is a bit like the old Hematocrit test in that some people's ratio is relatively high already, so have less scope to top up, but I think one of the differences is that some people's T/E ratio hardly increases at all with testosterone. These people have a significant advantage.

    I think the carbon test is used to back-up a suspicious T/E test, but if the T/E test is well managed the carbon test never happens. For this reason, some people were advocating target testing of individuals likely to be using, but I'm not sure where they got with that.

    I concluded that it seemed to be low risk, so given the history was probably still widely used, but then I'm cynical like that.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,878
    RichN95 wrote:
    it should be pretty simple to ascertain if the testosterone delivery was a mistake or not by looking at other orders. It's not something someone would order just once.

    Because the paperwork would be there for any orders that were kept?
  • Hinaultscrapcousin
    Hinaultscrapcousin Posts: 647
    It's the ratio of 13C to 12C that is measured, not 14C. Endogenous testosterone has a higher ratio. There are other urine based tests such as the testosterone glucuronide to luteinising hormone (T/LH) ratio, but they're not as robust and I'm pretty sure they have been successfully challenged when used to charge someone with an anti-doping violation. This generally means that these methods can be used to guide IR testing rather than as an independent test. If you're really interested in testing for testosterone you need to look into the work of Martial Saugy, the director of the anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne (Pubmed is always a good place to start: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?te ... d=23568614 ). Even though he has been implicated in the destruction of samples from the Sochi Olympics his published work shouldn't be questioned because of that.

    In terms of catching someone using testosterone the route of administration and the dose are very important. Orally administered testosterone is much more rapidly broken down and samples generally need to be within a few hours.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean wrote:
    From memory (and sourced from the internet at the time), the T/E test is a bit like the old Hematocrit test in that some people's ratio is relatively high already, so have less scope to top up, but I think one of the differences is that some people's T/E ratio hardly increases at all with testosterone. These people have a significant advantage.

    I think the carbon test is used to back-up a suspicious T/E test, but if the T/E test is well managed the carbon test never happens. For this reason, some people were advocating target testing of individuals likely to be using, but I'm not sure where they got with that.

    I concluded that it seemed to be low risk, so given the history was probably still widely used, but then I'm cynical like that.


    That was my take, but I just wondered if it has moved on in the past 10 years.
    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    VinnyMarsden wrote:
    Im FED UP OF IT ALL NOW!!
    I have some old Jiffy bags..and I'm going to the Alps this year....anyone want me to take owt.....some old batteries, bits of string, old receipts?
    Basically the story is done to death...we all draw our own conclusions..because the MPs committee won't be making any definitive evidence based claims , because they basically haven't heard any.
    We can go round and round and round and...you get it..ad infinitum....IN OTHER NEWS...Sky won the Strada Bianchi today, or is that not news!! To me it is...its better news, and hopefully they win one of the Monuments too, wearing a Jiffy bag of course!!!


    THANKS FOr The sPOilER DCK
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    nickice wrote:
    There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.

    I think that you have to wait to see how this all unfolds in full before drawing any final conclusions. At the moment, I think everyone agrees that some specific details of what is being uncovered looks really bad.

    I don't think anyone could possibly be surprised doping still happens, how could they be when doping does happen and people get caught still and probably will for our lifetimes and beyond.

    On a side note, I don't think anyone who's been posting who's been convinced Sky are doping have brought anything to the table in the debate on this forum. At best they play their own game of connect the dots which they change the rules of as they go along. For those without any emotional investment either way, it is annoying to have to sift through the crap on a forum where there are actually plenty of impartial posters, completely open to facts but not to obvious agenda-ridden guesswork.
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,647
    mfin wrote:
    I think that you have to wait to see how this all unfolds in full before drawing any final conclusions. At the moment, I think everyone agrees that some specific details of what is being uncovered looks really bad.

    I don't think anyone could possibly be surprised doping still happens, how could they be when doping does happen and people get caught still and probably will for our lifetimes and beyond.

    On a side note, I don't think anyone who's been posting who's been convinced Sky are doping have brought anything to the table in the debate on this forum. At best they play their own game of connect the dots which they change the rules of as they go along. For those without any emotional investment either way, it is annoying to have to sift through the crap on a forum where there are actually plenty of impartial posters, completely open to facts but not to obvious agenda-ridden guesswork.

    ^ this 100%...
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    mfin wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.

    I think that you have to wait to see how this all unfolds in full before drawing any final conclusions. At the moment, I think everyone agrees that some specific details of what is being uncovered looks really bad.

    I don't think anyone could possibly be surprised doping still happens, how could they be when doping does happen and people get caught still and probably will for our lifetimes and beyond.

    On a side note, I don't think anyone who's been posting who's been convinced Sky are doping have brought anything to the table in the debate on this forum. At best they play their own game of connect the dots which they change the rules of as they go along. For those without any emotional investment either way, it is annoying to have to sift through the crap on a forum where there are actually plenty of impartial posters, completely open to facts but not to obvious agenda-ridden guesswork.


    I wasn't referring to this case only. Along with Leinders, the UCI suspicion index, some big transformations etc. I'd be very surprised if Sky were clean. I certainly have no beef with Sky but I've just become more ambivalent about whether doping really is wrong. Obviously, I hope there is no doping but when you hear about products that can be flushed out of the system in a matter of hours it's doubtful anything can ever truly be done about it.
  • carbonclem
    carbonclem Posts: 1,783
    mfin wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    On a side note, I don't think anyone who's been posting who's been convinced Sky are doping have brought anything to the table in the debate on this forum.

    Agreed. Also for the comment way back that said the Clinic was right all along - if you accuse everybody of doing everything then you always stand the chance of being correct. A stuck clock is right twice a day! :lol:
    2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    The testosterone is the issue here.

    That has turned what is ultimately a non-story into one.

    People mentioning Leinders I think are really missing the point. I think it's highly likely that's a red herring.
    _

Categories