Doping

Dr Bonar was secretly filmed describing a network of high-profile clients, including two professional dancers on Strictly Come Dancing

What now ?

This is a weird move by the Sunday Times in a way. They've named kick-it clubs without naming players, and don't seem to have any evidence outside of the Fake Sheikh stuff. Are the clubs named going to start queuing up to sue the Sunday Times ?

I also see it hasn't take long for the tin-foil hat brigade to start mentioning Froome/Sky in the same sentence/tweet as Bonar

Wow.

More shocking is UKAD knew and did nothing? Hope some more news comes out and they are held accountable.

More shocking is UKAD knew and did nothing? Hope some more news comes out and they are held accountable.

Accountable for what? They looked at the allegations, and decided that they had no jurisdiction. You don't know what, if any, intelligence-led testing they did on the basis of the information which was supplied to them. None of us knows, based on what has been reported so far, whether the doctor actually had anything to do with high level sports, or whether he's just a fantasist who was trying to big himself up in order to make a sale.

Dr Bonar? Hahahaha

Fair point. I left the question mark as you're right in that they may have looked but were not, could not, did not, do anything. Who knows.
And accountable to any findings.

Brian has already dismissed this guy as a fantasist. It will be interesting to see what actually comes out.

Again, it's a weird revelation.

Still waiting on Gabriel Evans appeal and that to happen.

Brian has already dismissed this guy as a fantasist. It will be interesting to see what actually comes out.

Cookson? That's hardly appropriate. Surely claims as to massive doping should be investigated. Less you want to look like Verbruggen, McQuaid or Coe.

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/04/cookson-sceptical-about-doctors-doping-claims-in-undercover-investigation/

My wording was slightly exaggerated.

That said, shane stokes does seem to have an agenda against Cookson.

@andyp is that your feeling too?

I got the impression with Shane Stokes (along with RaceRadio on Twitter) that while not as rabid as the Clinic/Digger Forum etc, they're still believe Sky are on the juice, and Cookson is covering it up

They're clearly sky-high, the name's a bit of a giveaway.

Everyone (rich people) are on everything that isn't on wadas list, and more.
Don't think (IMO) many people are taking stuff on wada banned list, only poor people and idiots.

The meldonium scandals proved that.
The real good drugs aren't banned, because they're not known about or so expensive.

The real good drugs aren't banned, because they're not known about or so expensive.

They're not banned by name, but there's a catch-all ban on anything which has the same effects as something which is banned by name. If you invent a new molecule which binds to the erythropoietin receptor, it's banned even though it's not the same molecule as any of the previously known molecules which bind to the erythropoietin receptor.

Ah interesting.

So why wasn't meldonium 'banned' then. It was clearly performance enhancing and it was being tested for?

It was clearly performance enhancing

Clearly? There doesn't seem to be much evidence.

To get on the proscribed list it has to meet two of these three criteria:

1. Potential to enhance or enhances sports performance
   
2. An actual or potential health risk to the athlete
   
3. Use violates the spirit of sport (outlined in the Code)
   
   

It takes time to properly evaluate the criteria. The monitoring programme is part of that - if a drug turns up a lot (out of all proportion to the therapeutic use in the general population) and it is potentially harmful, it could be banned even if there is little or no evidence of performance enhancement, because the monitoring programme shows that it is being widely used by athletes who believe it might enhance performance, and that is probably sufficient to meet criterion 3

Oh, and this:

The real good drugs aren't banned, because they're not known about

is by definition not the case. Category S.0. says

"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times"

so if it's "not known about", it's banned by default. It might not be detected because it's not known about, but that's a separate issue.

.

if it's "not known about", it's banned by default. It might not be detected

That was the logic behind BALCO. Conte provided solutions to enable athletes to use banned substances in a manner that would be undetected. His hits were "the cream" (testosterone) and "the clear" (THG, a anabolic steroid variant) but he also provided EPO. Once tests emerged for THG things fell apart.
Using drugs not on the radar but clearly forbidden or in manners to avoid their detection (Conte's "cycle method") ónly can pospone the date of detection. Using substances or training techniques that are allowed in manners to improve performance and get a edge over the competition is clearly the "holly grail" of "sports medicine". When Anquetil used blood transfusions as a form of blood doping it was not forbiiden. Nor was it forbidden when Ed "Success through Science" Burke used blood transfusions on the US Team. The border between highly dubious and high risk methods and "training" are not always clear-- even without any use of drugs a number of heart anomalies is not uncommon to elite athletes (drugs, of course, tend to exacerbate problems) . EPO was banned already in the early 1990s-- before it even caught on the Peleton-- but first tests did not emerge until 2000. Despite the death of Oosterbosch, Draaijer and a number of other Dutch cyclists due to EPO use did not even start to be really widespread until "after" the ban. Interestingly sometimes atheletes are doped with substances that are performance disenhancing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEaH07wp3ZQ

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1001041

You know you've got a problem when you're doping your children.

You know you've got a problem when you're doping

ftfy

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/04/the-curious-case-of-oscar74-how-usada-nabbed-a-masters-doper/

a badly writted outcome of that forum post that was linked here by @umop3pisdn a few weeks back. seems a bit hypocritical, the author pretending like he cares about the mental health of the ride in question all while writing a long winded and speculative article for a major cycling news outlet

I saw a summary of that pop up on twitter and thought 'fuck them, the fucking cheats'.
Now, I'm all for supporting mental health of people but if you're a cheat you can fuck right off out of the sport and seek help for your issues somewhere else.

Just like @andyp though, I'd totally ride with Lance, he's the real victim in all of this...

Paolini got 18 months, and then there's this three time joker: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/mattia-gavazzi-tests-positive-cocaine-third-time-220822?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social