That’s fair, in a thread where “misinformation” is hoping to get cleaned up by a professional doping authority agent, what happens or doesn’t happen may only be known internally; so saying nothing was done is sorta hearsay, and probaly the information we don’t want to add as misinformation.
1 Like
Only hint of evidence is overly muscular influencer who sells supplements. Someone who can mass influence participants and spectators needs closer attention.fells like only talk show hosts can catch dopers? Oprah, Rogan
Are their cases where athletes have been suspended/banned but it was never made public?
2 Likes
Doping excuse questions:
How many tainted eggs (burritos, chickens) would one have to eat in order to fail a test the way we’ve seen, without naming any names?
Is it with your expertise to know if someone was doping chickens and pigs like crazy, and then eating those juiced up animals, based on the traceamounts of the metabolites in them, could the affect by similar to micro dosing “cleanly” if they were doing it every day?
Errr, similar questions for bodily fluids like saliva semen. How much exposure to have the possibility of showing up, and then could there be a benefit anyway, even if “innocently” (or maliciously) done?
What’s your general opinion on intent? If you can’t prove intent, which you rarely can, does it matter how the substance got there?
How possible are False positives?
Masking agents - how often are you finding things which are legal, but bizarrely high levels of some agent, anomaly , which might cause you to suspect it is a masking agent. If so, what are those legal agents that you’ve found?
If the athletes agreed as apart of participating in a series, do you support the idea of public dissemination of TUEs, missed whereabouts, and all public tests, etc?
Ever involved with results where it’s men or women with testosterone? Is there a fine line between exogenous that’s clearly obvious?
Similar with EPO levels and all the altitude camps people do. I’ve often wondered when we see so many frequent altitude camps if it’s not also cover (but to be clear not casting dispersions in all cases!) for why their EPO levels suddenly shot up.
And for fun, let’s hear some of the best and worst excuses ever that you’re aware of.
1 Like
mirror man, fuck lol
did you ever cross over in a race or was he more racing in kona?
I would love to see aerothing to give his appraisal.
1 Like
Also curious- if IS’s appeal is denied, does the “provisional” to fully suspensed and/or appeal denial get publicly announced, or does the athlete just go from provisional-full suspension without an actual official declaration?
IE- could the appeal have already been decided and her appeal got denied or will doping officials make an official announcement?
Assuming I understand the rules, they require that the ITA (the Anti-Doping
Organization with Results Management responsibility) are required to announce any decision and action taken eg suspension as a final element of its Results Management duty/function. 14.3.2
Please say if this is not ‘true’ @Aerothing or otherwise.
8.4 Notice of Decisions
The reasoned hearing decision . . explaining
the action taken, shall be provided by the Anti-Doping
Organization with Results Management responsibility to
the Athlete and to other Anti-Doping Organizations . . .
and published in accordance with Article 14.3.
relevant bit says
14.3.2 No later than twenty (20) days after it has been
determined in an appellate decision under
Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has
been waived, or a hearing in accordance with
Article 8 has been waived. . . the ADO
responsible for Results Management
must Publicly Disclose the disposition of the
anti-doping matter including the sport, the anti
doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete
or other Person committing the violation, the
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
involved (if any) and the Consequences imposed.
I can only speak for our organisation, but such tips are not simply ignored. Of course, if someone writes anonymously that athlete XY is doped without providing any further information, it is rather unlikely that we will make a big deal out of it. The information should be specific.
We have also tested age group athletes out of competition based on tips. But this happens once or twice, and if nothing unusual is found, the matter is closed for the time being. But of course, the athlete remains on the radar.
Here, too, it is a financial issue, and the NADOs’ mission is to ensure clean sport at the elite level.
1 Like
Good point. If reports are submitted anonymously, we cannot give these individuals any feedback or ask them any questions.
And even if we test such an athlete and the result is negative, they are still allowed to continue competing. However, that does not mean that we have not taken any action.
And no, a verbal statement made to someone who reports this to us anonymously is not sufficient grounds for sanctions.
Yes, there are such cases. According to the WADA Code, suspensions for violations of the anti-doping rules must be published (name of the athlete, sport, type of violation and the substance/method). However, there are countries that do not do this because they invoke higher law (data protection), which is the case in Germany, for example. These cases are therefore not always made public.
This is also often a very controversial issue in proceedings involving amateurs or semi-professionals who also work part-time. Due to the damage to reputation that would be caused if the verdict were published by name, the court decides whether or not the ban will be published by name.
1 Like
Come on, we’ve heard them all before 
1 Like
Yes, that’s right.
Here is the answer I gave above to a similar question.
According to the WADA Code, suspensions for violations of the anti-doping rules must be published (name of the athlete, sport, type of violation and the substance/method). However, there are countries that do not do this because they invoke higher law (data protection), which is the case in Germany, for example. These cases are therefore not always made public.
This is also often a very controversial issue in proceedings involving amateurs or semi-professionals who also work part-time. Due to the damage to reputation that would be caused if the verdict were published by name, the court decides whether or not the ban will be published by name.
Yes, the definitive ban or the lifting of the provisional ban will be published.
Incidentally, the provisional ban did not have to be published, either by the ITA or by the athlete (the question of who published it has been discussed at length 
).
1 Like
I will go through the thread again and mention a few points.
Regarding the duration of the proceedings, unfortunately these proceedings sometimes take a very long time (too long). The proceedings are usually very legal in nature. The parties have the opportunity to comment in detail, submit evidence, expert opinions, analyses, etc. All of this takes time. We have cases where the athletes’ statements are over 1,000 pages long. These points then have to be reassessed and clarified, and at some point the case goes before the sports court for a first-instance decision. If this ruling is not accepted and is appealed, a lot of time passes again.
Thank you.
So wrt ‘results management’ if Kelly had not pressured Simmonds on whether she’d had an AAF (interpretations of this differ) and she had not shared this, together with the thrust of her defence, then the ITA would (assumed) not have published the existence of the provisional suspension (which Simmonds applied for and which started on 6th February).
On the wider aspect of contaminants (ingested directly) would you like to comment on the ADRV and CAS appeal decision of Lizzy Banks?
UKAD decided that she bore ‘no fault or negligence’ but WADA appealed that and CAS decided that because (massive simplification) the source of the contaminant could not be identified - a critical requirement for a ‘no fault or negligence’ finding - that a two year suspension was justified.
Given lab ability to detect nanoscopically small concentrations of substances, should the system not get a grip of MRLs?
CAS Judgement:
Banks’ take:
WADA’s Director General Olivier Niggli made a strong public statement about the issues of contamination in sport:
“Today there is a contamination problem. This does not mean that there are more cases of this kind than in the past, the fact is that laboratories are more efficient in detecting even infinitesimal quantities of substances. The quantities are so small that you can get contaminated by doing harmless things. The truth is that we hear a lot of stories and I understand the public opinion that can end up thinking that we take everything. With thresholds we would not have seen all these cases. What we need to understand is whether we are ready to accept microdosing and where it is right to stop. A working table will be created precisely for this type of reflection.”
Yes, that can be assumed. The anti-doping organisation never publishes a provisional suspension on its own initiative. The ADO must inform the athlete and the association. In some cases, the association also insists that this be made public, especially in the case of very well-known athletes or at major events, in order to demonstrate transparency. And some athletes publish this information on their own initiative.
I must say in advance that I am not familiar with the details of the case.
But in general, the ability of laboratories to detect even the smallest doses of banned substances raises many questions and has led to many controversial decisions recently.
This is a point that is currently the subject of much debate. Some are calling for the introduction of limits (currently there is zero tolerance). However, such limits would open the door to micro-doping.
What is your opinion on this?
I suggest MRLs (Minimum Reporting Levels) for prohibited substances should be constructed, with inclusion on such a list prioritised for specific substances/types which are known to show up as contaminants in medications and supplements.
The MRL would need to take account of the risk that that substance might be used for microdosing.
The important balance is to deter (by discovery and penalty) PED use but avoid dragging athletes with nanoscopic traces through the expensive system (expensive in resources and very expensive/catastrophic to the athlete). If that means that microdosing is less deterred then, imho, that’s a balance worth hitting. There are bigger fish to fry. However there are people (and NADAs) out there with a far more informed opinion than this officer.
“Specified substances more likely to have been consumed or used by an athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sports performance. For example, diuretics and masking agents” WADA
Can you change the title to, “I work at an anti doping agency, ask me your questions”.
It’s better if there is a new thread every time there is an athlete with a positive so that the particulars of the case are discussed separately.
1 Like