Doping

Hang on, they tested positive for nandralone but claim they had high T because they ate wild boar? The UKAD claim isn't that they tested for high T, it's for nandralone so how is their claim even a defence?

"...adverse result came from eating uncastrated wild boar." Is almost too much of a random excuse to not be true...

Definitely don't trust the guy though

Cocaine using boxer in steroid-taking shocker!

Didn't he retire as well? How can he try and sue them for loss of earnings?

I know, bit weird. It seems like there has been lots of back and forth on the legal front.
Seemed at one point like Fury's legal team were doing it to put pressure on UKAD to end it.
Now I'm not so sure.

@Hamham he retired supposedly after the two postponements... which were due to the suspension. What I don't get is how did he manage to fight Klitschko after testing positive.
The timelines I have read are very confusing. Surely Klitschko has a potential lawsuit in waiting.

Whats safe to say is the whole thing is a massive mess!! UKAD are obviously not 100% sure of their case based on this report. Unless it's just a pragmatic approach or to secure more funding, in light of the doping mess sport is in.

I don't get it though, the rules are clear - it doesn't matter where the substance comes from, if it's in you and you test positive for it, you are banned. How can there be argument about that?

Is there a proper report anywhere, I'm curious now.

http://www.academia.edu/9940535/Update_on_nandrolone_and_norsteroids_how_endogenous_or_xenobiotic_are_these_substances

"For Le Bizec et al. (1999, 2002), although some ediblespecialties (e.g. wild boar testicles) are indeed rich innandrolone and could lead to an increase in nandrolonemetabolites in urines after consumption, only unusualquantities (100+ kg) would induce modification overthe IOC’s cut-off limit of 2 ng ml –1 urine."

Sadly the rules aren't that black and white.
My somewhat limited understanding is that nandrolone is like a building block, you test positive from the side effects rather than it per se.

Not that I've seen that's what is so frustrating little bits have been leaked and reported on at different times. If you find anything I'd also like a better understanding.

In summary?

"For Le Bizec et al. (1999, 2002), although some ediblespecialties (e.g. wild boar testicles) are indeed rich innandrolone and could lead to an increase in nandrolonemetabolites in urines after consumption, only unusualquantities (100+ kg) would induce modification overthe IOC’s cut-off limit of 2 ng ml –1 urine."

I don't know if UKADs limits are the same as the IOC's.

So he is claiming to have eaten over 100 kgs of boar balls....

On a more serious note, I do wonder with such low traces is if you had something in your diet for a sustained time.

Also I think he has the cocaine charge to answer to as well.

"Indeed, nandrolone- or norsteroid-spiked food could lead to the excretion of increased 19-NA or 19-NE9 metabolites in the urine of concerned subjects. The same applies to such delicacies as wild boar testes. However, the quantities needed to be ingested to give a positive doping control would be enormous (Le Bizec et al.2002), since a portion of these substances is excreted directly in faeces (Dimick et al. 1961). Moreover, androgens and norsteroids have a bitter taste due to their chemical structure and large quantities of these substances should be detected by the consumer.

Maybe if he claimed he'd sucked off a herd of pigs it's be more plausible.

Thanks my armchair anti doping knowledge is ever so slightly increased

stares at myprotein box... wonders what they're charging per kg of boar balls

My somewhat limited understanding is that nandrolone is like a building block, you test positive from the side effects

They test for metabolites. I'm assuming the reagent used to test for nandrolone metabolites also reacts with testosterone metabolites (the two parent molecules are very similar, and the active group which causes the physiological effect is the same and also the one you'd want to detect) Having found high levels of metabolites, you need to do further analysis to determine the parent molecule, usually mass spectrometry which is expensive. If he tested over the limit for metabolites, and absent any further testing, he took nandrolone or testosterone, or he has freakishly high endogenous testosterone. If his adverse analytical finding is from eating a hundredweight of pigs' bollocks, then he's still bang to rights since that amounts to doping by abnormal consumption of something which would be a foodstuff in smaller quantities.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/british-racing/60-year-old-time-triallist-given-four-year-doping-ban-after-claiming-wife-spiked-his-smoothies-358320

A Likely Story. Perhaps this defendant should also appear on a special forces reality TV show as it seems to have an ability to extract some honesty from these types

Nothing on Wiggins? I spend a day away from the forum and none of you think it’s worth commenting on?

What’s worth saying? He abused tues, but we knew that.

No sure why he wants the source released. Never will be, correctly so.

Doesn’t make BC look any better. Who doesn’t keep medical records! Shady.

the medical records were 'lost' when the doc had his laptop 'stolen'

and they weren't backed up because Doc didn't like dropbox.

IMO they are guilty as sin.

His statement sign-off of exploring legal options is a bit Lance-y. Just walk away, do ya rowing thing and wait for Froome to fuck up.

The records line stinks, frankly. Part of my job is auditing records keeping processes (I studied records at uni) and I'm highly dubious about the convenience of them going missing. Especially as said missing records got them off the hook seemingly.

Anytime someone else gets investigated, there'll be a bonfire now.

Did the doc's laptop get nicked with all the records on and he hadn't backed up online or something?

That's the story.

I can't quite make up my mind on the Wiggins and the Fury case. UKAD seem pretty useless and seem to be politicising or at least straying in to moral grounds with their press statements.
Part of me thinks they are using these high profile cases to try to demonstrate their weaknesses to gain more funding.