Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester
Comments
-
"Full approval" is a bit strong. BC found a lab that said they would only do it with UKAD approval in writing (another sign it might not have been the best idea). The emails imply that at some point the lab spoke to one person at UKAD and on that basis got comfortable. UKAD and the employee have no record of this which is another failing on their part. This bit precedes my quote above where they all now say it shouldn't have happened.
Yes, the report mentions the two other allegations.
It also criticises BC's more recent investigation.To this end, Operation Echo is concerned by the failure of Operation Blackout to search the BC Laptops for relevant emails.
0 -
So the lab asked for approval from UKAD and got it. They were under no obligation to ask, but got approval to their satisfaction. So UKAD can't find a ten year old e-mail and now say they would have done things differently.TheBigBean said:"Full approval" is a bit strong. BC found a lab that said they would only do it with UKAD approval in writing (another sign it might not have been the best idea). The emails imply that at some point the lab spoke to one person at UKAD and on that basis got comfortable. UKAD and the employee have no record of this which is another failing on their part. This bit precedes my quote above where they all now say it shouldn't have happened.
Yes, the report mentions the two other allegations.
It also criticises BC's more recent investigation.To this end, Operation Echo is concerned by the failure of Operation Blackout to search the BC Laptops for relevant emails.
There's really sod all here beyond procedural errors from a decade ago.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Keep fighting the fight.0
-
If there's one thing that really turns me off cycling, it's the inordinate desperation amongst so many of cycling's *own* fan base for there to be a scandal.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.5
-
salsiccia1 said:
If there's one thing that really turns me off cycling, it's the inordinate desperation amongst so many of cycling's *own* fan base for there to be a scandal.
I remember when doping scandals had actual doping. Now it's just people not following best practice.. I guess that what happens when the Daily Mail get involved.Twitter: @RichN951 -
Modern doping scandals involve no doping and extra testing for dopingRichN95. said:salsiccia1 said:If there's one thing that really turns me off cycling, it's the inordinate desperation amongst so many of cycling's *own* fan base for there to be a scandal.
I remember when doping scandals had actual doping. Now it's just people not following best practice.. I guess that what happens when the Daily Mail get involved.
0 -
Quite. It's not exactly Ricardo Ricco's antics these days is it.r0bh said:
Modern doping scandals involve no doping and extra testing for dopingRichN95. said:salsiccia1 said:If there's one thing that really turns me off cycling, it's the inordinate desperation amongst so many of cycling's *own* fan base for there to be a scandal.
I remember when doping scandals had actual doping. Now it's just people not following best practice.. I guess that what happens when the Daily Mail get involved.0 -
I guess the concern is that if organisations are allowed to commission their own testing without reporting the conclusions to a body such as UKAD or WADA it allows them to (potentially) dope at one end and see the output results at the other with a view to finding an approach which is likely to be undetectable. That's the reason for the prohibition, I imagine.
In this case, it's pretty clear that the purpose and the intent of the testing at face value was completely "innocent" and the report finds that to be the case. The only concerning bit is that UKAD didn't know the rules; they should have issued a flat "no". Arguably, BC shouldn't have asked as they'd have known the rules too, but unless they were trying a very ballsy strategy of hiding in plain sight it seems pretty implausible that this is evidence of anything "wrong".2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)0 -
I think the concerning bit for me is that UKAD and BC were a little too cosy. Both knew the rule against conducting private screening, but both thought this was *obviously* directed at other organisations and not really for *obviously* clean organisations like them. I think they thought it was for catching Russians or any modern Festinas or the like, and just couldn't envisage that anyone would think of them in that company (how wrong they were, with hindsight!)
BC got sign off, but it was all a little informal and matey, which isn't a model relationship between any regulator and regulated. The tone of reply from the wada accredited lab was far more formal, as was correct.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
reading that Bahrain hotel raid has given some postives for 3 cyclists... Tizanidine "found" in hair tests0
-
No_Ta_Doctor said:
I think the concerning bit for me is that UKAD and BC were a little too cosy. Both knew the rule against conducting private screening, but both thought this was *obviously* directed at other organisations and not really for *obviously* clean organisations like them. I think they thought it was for catching Russians or any modern Festinas or the like, and just couldn't envisage that anyone would think of them in that company (how wrong they were, with hindsight!)
BC got sign off, but it was all a little informal and matey, which isn't a model relationship between any regulator and regulated. The tone of reply from the wada accredited lab was far more formal, as was correct.
I would love to know how several of the pro teams got around this rule, when private screening became quite fashionable for a couple of seasons.
Especially as it was at the same time that BC were carrying out their UKAD, approved tests.
When teams undertook private screening, it was well documented and even headline news when Armstrong tried to get on the bandwagon.
Odd that at the time, WADA don't appear to have pointed their rule out to the UCI.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
It's a weird one for sure:twotoebenny said:reading that Bahrain hotel raid has given some postives for 3 cyclists... Tizanidine "found" in hair tests
https://amp-tdg-ch.translate.goog/du-myorelaxant-dans-les-bidons-727942685297?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=es-419&_x_tr_pto=nui"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Classy stuff from Bahrain.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
I would assume, and I'm guessing, that they were willing to share the results with the doping authorities, or rather simply pay for a doping test using the proper protocols.blazing_saddles said:No_Ta_Doctor said:I think the concerning bit for me is that UKAD and BC were a little too cosy. Both knew the rule against conducting private screening, but both thought this was *obviously* directed at other organisations and not really for *obviously* clean organisations like them. I think they thought it was for catching Russians or any modern Festinas or the like, and just couldn't envisage that anyone would think of them in that company (how wrong they were, with hindsight!)
BC got sign off, but it was all a little informal and matey, which isn't a model relationship between any regulator and regulated. The tone of reply from the wada accredited lab was far more formal, as was correct.
I would love to know how several of the pro teams got around this rule, when private screening became quite fashionable for a couple of seasons.
Especially as it was at the same time that BC were carrying out their UKAD, approved tests.
When teams undertook private screening, it was well documented and even headline news when Armstrong tried to get on the bandwagon.
Odd that at the time, WADA don't appear to have pointed their rule out to the UCI.0 -
erm... ok... tenuous link is marginal gains!?!ddraver said:Did any of them ride for Sky?
No?
No one cares...0 -
So you assume good faith on the part of Pro teams, but bad faith on the part of BC?TheBigBean said:
I would assume, and I'm guessing, that they were willing to share the results with the doping authorities, or rather simply pay for a doping test using the proper protocols.blazing_saddles said:No_Ta_Doctor said:I think the concerning bit for me is that UKAD and BC were a little too cosy. Both knew the rule against conducting private screening, but both thought this was *obviously* directed at other organisations and not really for *obviously* clean organisations like them. I think they thought it was for catching Russians or any modern Festinas or the like, and just couldn't envisage that anyone would think of them in that company (how wrong they were, with hindsight!)
BC got sign off, but it was all a little informal and matey, which isn't a model relationship between any regulator and regulated. The tone of reply from the wada accredited lab was far more formal, as was correct.
I would love to know how several of the pro teams got around this rule, when private screening became quite fashionable for a couple of seasons.
Especially as it was at the same time that BC were carrying out their UKAD, approved tests.
When teams undertook private screening, it was well documented and even headline news when Armstrong tried to get on the bandwagon.
Odd that at the time, WADA don't appear to have pointed their rule out to the UCI.0 -
How can you construe that as a positive, given that Tizanidine isn't prohibited by WADA?twotoebenny said:reading that Bahrain hotel raid has given some postives for 3 cyclists... Tizanidine "found" in hair tests
0 -
No, I read a report on one and guessed at the other.r0bh said:
So you assume good faith on the part of Pro teams, but bad faith on the part of BC?TheBigBean said:
I would assume, and I'm guessing, that they were willing to share the results with the doping authorities, or rather simply pay for a doping test using the proper protocols.blazing_saddles said:No_Ta_Doctor said:I think the concerning bit for me is that UKAD and BC were a little too cosy. Both knew the rule against conducting private screening, but both thought this was *obviously* directed at other organisations and not really for *obviously* clean organisations like them. I think they thought it was for catching Russians or any modern Festinas or the like, and just couldn't envisage that anyone would think of them in that company (how wrong they were, with hindsight!)
BC got sign off, but it was all a little informal and matey, which isn't a model relationship between any regulator and regulated. The tone of reply from the wada accredited lab was far more formal, as was correct.
I would love to know how several of the pro teams got around this rule, when private screening became quite fashionable for a couple of seasons.
Especially as it was at the same time that BC were carrying out their UKAD, approved tests.
When teams undertook private screening, it was well documented and even headline news when Armstrong tried to get on the bandwagon.
Odd that at the time, WADA don't appear to have pointed their rule out to the UCI.0 -
It was against the rules and both bodies knew it yet decided to go ahead. That in itself may be not particularly exciting but it is yet another example of the British sporting authorities disregarding rules surrounding doping protocols over the last 10 years or so. There are only so many times a mistake can be admitted to and apologise's made over before it is seen as deliberate.
When careers and reputations are at risk of being tarnished and and financial support removed, a laissez-faire attitude was at best prevalent amongst these British sporting organisations over the last decade. It is unfair on the reputations of successful cyclists but that lax attitude also coincided with unprecedented success on the road and track for British cycling.0 -
It concerns me if an alien species invaded the Earth and wanted to settle ownership of it by who is quickest cyclist? Knowing that there are people in the world who are prepared to push the limits more limitlessly helps me sleep at night.
Thank you.0 -
focuszing723 said:
It concerns me if an alien species invaded the Earth and wanted to settle ownership of it by who is quickest cyclist? Knowing that there are people in the world who are prepared to push the limits more limitlessly helps me sleep at night.
Thank you.
So it will be owned by Jason Kenny who will only bother once every four yearsTwitter: @RichN950 -
Why would a species capable of interplanetary flight be concerned by who is earth's fastest cyclist? Is the rest of your world view also based on Space Jam? 😛PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230
-
I was really hoping that was going to be the generic name for Tizer.blazing_saddles said:
It's a weird one for sure:twotoebenny said:reading that Bahrain hotel raid has given some postives for 3 cyclists... Tizanidine "found" in hair tests
https://amp-tdg-ch.translate.goog/du-myorelaxant-dans-les-bidons-727942685297?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=es-419&_x_tr_pto=nui1 -
Simply positive for Tizanidine... I hadn't a clue what it does or even if its banned. I'll remember not to post again in haste. Thanksandyp said:
How can you construe that as a positive, given that Tizanidine isn't prohibited by WADA?twotoebenny said:reading that Bahrain hotel raid has given some postives for 3 cyclists... Tizanidine "found" in hair tests
0 -
@inrng has written a summary on it:twotoebenny said:
Simply positive for Tizanidine... I hadn't a clue what it does or even if its banned. I'll remember not to post again in haste. Thanksandyp said:
How can you construe that as a positive, given that Tizanidine isn't prohibited by WADA?twotoebenny said:reading that Bahrain hotel raid has given some postives for 3 cyclists... Tizanidine "found" in hair tests
https://inrng.com/2021/10/traces-of-tizanidine/0 -
So, 'positive' for something not banned? I understand the unease, but again, is this a scandal?It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
