WADA/OP ECHO

MattFalle
MattFalle Posts: 11,644
in Road general
waddya say?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/19/wada-uncovers-potential-wrongdoing-in-drug-testing-of-british-cyclists
.
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.

Comments

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,342
    Would appear to be a story about nothing if the end part is accurate.

    “The report from Wada makes clear that the results of the testing carried out by British Cycling were all negative and notes the negative results from Ukad’s own extensive testing of British Cycling athletes at that time.

    “We agree that anti-doping organisations should be held to the highest standards and we will fully consider the contents report. However, Wada has not made any recommendations for action by Ukad.”
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • larkim
    larkim Posts: 2,485
    Not sure if it's entirely a story about nothing. But it does feel like the guilty party here is UKAD rather than BC.

    BC asked UKAD if they could do some private testing as an "audit". Question to be asked is - was that the real story? Or were they trying to find a way to get an approval for private testing to see if something they were doing would result in a positive test. [My tuppenth - if you were really trying to test to see if a positive result would come back, you wouldn't ask UKAD for permission, you'd just do it, so this feels like a conspiracy theory rather than a plausible suggestion]

    UKAD said "OK". Question to be asked is - if they were so incompetent not to know that saying "yes" was outside of the WADA rules that they should be upholding, what other potential violations have they permitted with unwittingly or knowingly.

    On the whole I don't think there is much to the story other than BC did ask for some testing (and I do believe the audit purpose) and they asked the wrong person in UKAD as the UKAD representative gave them the wrong answer. But it doesn't stop BC's reputation getting at least a small knock by association.
    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)
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,233
    larkim said:

    Not sure if it's entirely a story about nothing. But it does feel like the guilty party here is UKAD rather than BC.

    BC asked UKAD if they could do some private testing as an "audit". Question to be asked is - was that the real story? Or were they trying to find a way to get an approval for private testing to see if something they were doing would result in a positive test. [My tuppenth - if you were really trying to test to see if a positive result would come back, you wouldn't ask UKAD for permission, you'd just do it, so this feels like a conspiracy theory rather than a plausible suggestion]

    UKAD said "OK". Question to be asked is - if they were so incompetent not to know that saying "yes" was outside of the WADA rules that they should be upholding, what other potential violations have they permitted with unwittingly or knowingly.

    On the whole I don't think there is much to the story other than BC did ask for some testing (and I do believe the audit purpose) and they asked the wrong person in UKAD as the UKAD representative gave them the wrong answer. But it doesn't stop BC's reputation getting at least a small knock by association.

    A small knock amplified of course by Dan Roaneo banging on and on and on about.... nothing really. If Roaneo really wanted to 'reveal' illegal drug taking in pro sports mayhap he should turn to tennis, football, and the like.

Categories