British Cycling and Team Sky doctor guilty of testosterone charges

Hotwired · 12 Mar 2021 at 18:17

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56367117

His defence was embarrassing and the verdict is damaging to everyone near him.

The athletes get tested with extreme paranoia and have their trends of testosterone levels monitored so this would have been a hell of a risk to actually give to one of the cyclists.

Jokester · 12 Mar 2021 at 18:21

I guess the big big unanswered question is, who was the cyclist?

Hotwired · 12 Mar 2021 at 18:55

I have the feeling the doctor was the instigator so whoever it was for, he doesn't have a lot of moral incentive to drag anyone else down.

Not as if there's any benefit to him in doing so either.

One More Solo · 14 Mar 2021 at 09:07

Hotwired said:
I have the feeling the doctor was the instigator so whoever it was for, he doesn't have a lot of moral incentive to drag anyone else down.

Not as if there's any benefit to him in doing so either.

You think the doctor ordered testosterone for a cycling federation/pro team off his own back? :eek:

Hotwired · 14 Mar 2021 at 11:27

One More Solo said:
You think the doctor ordered testosterone for a cycling federation/pro team off his own back?

You think everyone in an organisation is on the same page and there's never anyone mocking the rules because they're insufficiently supervised? :eek:

It's the chief doctor, exactly the person who could if he felt like it.

One More Solo · 14 Mar 2021 at 13:10

Hotwired said:
You think everyone in an organisation is on the same page and there's never anyone mocking the rules because they're insufficiently supervised?

It's the chief doctor, exactly the person who could if he felt like it.

There is literally zero incentive for the doctor to do this of his own accord. He’s one of the few people in the organisation whose job isn’t results dependent. You might argue he could use PEDs to help riders recover more quickly etc but any competent coach would spot that a mile off and raise alarm bells.

Have a look at some of the other coaches/doctors Sky in particular hired around the same time and convince me the tone wasn’t set from the top: Julich, Yates, Leinders etc

Chris Wilson · 19 Mar 2021 at 13:52

Every family has a black sheep, seems we have found one of ours. It's ironic he once refused my late mother some codeine for a bad headache as it would be unprofessional

His late father was an excellent vet, his late mother an excellent radiographer, such a shame he went off the rails, at least they were spared the indignity. Why has the cyclist not been named and shamed though?

One More Solo · 27 Mar 2021 at 22:05

This is all on Freeman too, right?

https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/spor...ycling-conducted-drug-probes-London-2012.html

Bear · 1 Apr 2021 at 16:57

One More Solo said:
This is all on Freeman too, right?

https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/spor...ycling-conducted-drug-probes-London-2012.html

Im not sure it’s a smoking gun that the article makes it out to be. From reading further, the issue seems to be a rider had a trace amount of Nandrolone so low it wouldnt even trigger an AAF so was a negative result. Why couldn’t it be investigated internally to determine where the trace amounts came from? I’m not up on the process but are anti doping agencies usually called in to investigate negative tests that show up trace amounts of banned substances so low as to not trigger an AAF?

One More Solo · 2 Apr 2021 at 14:29

Bear said:
Im not sure it’s a smoking gun that the article makes it out to be. From reading further, the issue seems to be a rider had a trace amount of Nandrolone so low it wouldnt even trigger an AAF so was a negative result. Why couldn’t it be investigated internally to determine where the trace amounts came from? I’m not up on the process but are anti doping agencies usually called in to investigate negative tests that show up trace amounts of banned substances so low as to not trigger an AAF?

I don’t think they are obliged to. However, the concerns from my perspective are BC using a non accredited lab and not sharing the results with UKAD given they had tipped them off in the first place. I’m also baffled as to why they would end the investigation after ruling out contamination/naturally high levels - surely you’re then left with questions to answer? I get the impression they were hoping for an easy explanation, didn’t get one and quietly left it there.

From UKAD’s perspective, surely you would want to understand why the rider had a trace amount of nandrolone even if it didn’t trigger an AAF? The threshold is there for a good reason given there can be innocent reasons for a test showing a trace amount, but it should be established there actually are innocent reasons i.e. it’s not good enough to say “trace amount, case closed”.

A relatively incidental part of the story, but I also question why the riders were specifically told the testing would not be shared with UKAD/WADA. Is that something that should concern clean athletes?