-
Given it's status was allegedly changed as an apparent money saving exercise, having to investigate lots of cases would be counter intuative and would surely lead to a change in threshold level.
GoatandTricycle-
You’d think so, yes. But the limit isn’t set by the UCI, it’s a WADA specified level, which makes changing it more onerous.
-
having to investigate lots of cases would be counter intuative and would surely lead to a change in threshold level
The trouble with changing the threshold level would be that dopers using 8mg a day orally for the anabolic effects might not get caught. If the urine test for people using permitted doses ranges from <300 to >3000ng/ml (>10:1 ratio), you can probably see why raising it significantly would cause problems when you're trying to catch people doping with only 5 times the permitted daily dose.
andyp
gbj_tester
We don’t know if there are many other cases like this though, as the process for an AAF is to give the athlete a chance to explain how it happened. There could be dozens of cases like this where the explanation has been accepted and no further action taken. We just don’t know.