The sister of former Team Sky cyclist Jonathan Tiernan-Locke insist that he is not a drugs cheat, despite the 29-year-old being banned last week for two years due to irregularities in his biological passport.
The rider’s twin sister, Caroline Tiernan-Locke, says that their family has been left “devastated” by his ban and that the treatment of her brother since news broke of his ban has been “nothing short of inhumane.”
In an interview with the Plymouth Herald, she said: “Demonstrating nothing but pure talent and sheer determination, I have watched my brother, through tears, sweat and pain, sacrifice his younger years in favour of modelling his life around a gruelling training schedule to earn his place in the cycling world.
“It was no surprise to any of us to watch him succeed so greatly, and as a family we cheered on, full of admiration as he worked his way up from junior team to semi pro, to the best team in the world, gaining many incredible titles along the way.”
Tiernan-Locke was still with Endura Racing when he signed up to the UCI’s biological passport programme in late 2012 ahead of his move to Team Sky. In September of that year, he won the Tour of Britain, a title that has now been taken away from him.
“He was tested every single day at the Tour of Britain and he has never once failed a test,” his sister went on.
“He won that title and all other titles fair and square and those who know and have trained with Jonathan, will know that he is an honest, extremely hard working and incredible cyclist who has been failed by the system that he set up to protect himself.”
She added: “His hard work and reputation now lie in tatters. He is deeply saddened, angry, frustrated, helpless and feels betrayed by the media.
“Above all, he’s just a lad that has had everything he’s ever dreamed of and worked for, taken away from him in devastating fashion.
“This was his career, his hopes and dreams. This was his life.
“We have been living under a black cloud for almost a year. There seems to be no justice and no sense to all of this. It is simply not right and not fair.
"Not only has the cycling world lost a true talent but it has cast a shadow over an innocent young man’s life and has left us distraught.
"They can take away his titles but they can’t take away his talent and determination and we know that eventually, Jonathan will rebuild his life with the people that matter.”
Sky sacked Tiernan-Locke as soon as news of his ban became public, with Team Prinicpal Sir Dave Brailsford saying: “Jonathan’s contract has been terminated today.
“Whilst there have been no doubts about his time with us, his doping violation – from readings taken before he joined this team – means there’s no place for him in Team Sky.
“We’ve a well-known stance on anti-doping and our action is the inevitable outcome of a violation.
“This is a team that trains, races and wins clean,” he added.
36 thoughts on “My brother’s not a doper, says Jonathan Tiernan-Locke’s twin sister”
is this anything like Tyler
is this anything like Tyler Hamilton’s twin brother?
I think the UCI owes both JTL
I think the UCI owes both JTL and the public a more detailed explanation of what he’s supposed to have done. Or are we now simply to accept a finding of ‘guilty’ without supporting evidence being shown?
.
.
TimC340 wrote:I think the UCI
If you read the UCI statement (on the UCI>Road page currently) you will find:
Due to the public interest I’m sure there will be information at some point.
She’s wrong. He has failed a
She’s wrong. He has failed a test.
Paul J wrote:She’s wrong. He
Unfortunately the authorities and the laboratories don’t always get it right.
Remember the case of British runner Diane Modahl in 1994? Her career and reputation was destroyed and she was financially ruined by the costs of clearing her name. The test she ‘failed’ was due to the Portuguese laboratory leaving the samples at room temperature for 3 days before testing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Modahl
Paul J wrote:She’s wrong. He
Actually no, no he never failed a test.
That’s both the joy of and the frustrating thing about the passport programme.
The joy is that the UCI can now act when they can blatantly see what is going on, but don’t have the testing power to physically catch someone at it.
The frustration is that in cases like this one (well for me with a bit of personal involvement anyway), there will always be a degree of uncertainty remaining.
The premise of the passport programme simply is… if it looks like a horse, sounds like a horse and acts like a horse… it probably is a horse.
From what I understand, I would suggest JTL has potentially fallen victim to a ‘perfect storm’ of factors coming together.
This is a mixture of speculation, and first hand reports… so happy to admit it may not survive serious scrutiny…
1. JTL’s blood profile shows anomalies right on the run up to the UCI election.
2. For someone wishing to discredit BC and Cookson, this is too great an opportunity to miss and the anomalies are published when they shouldn’t have been. It is a fact that his case was publicised earlier than it should.
3. By publicising the case, there is no longer the opportunity to gather further blood profile data which could potentially demonstrate (either way) that blood doping or something other has taken place.
4. JTL has a terrible first season with Sky through a mix of illness and over-training… the latter of which is at least partly due to the heavily volume based training programmes provided by Sky… which is understood to have been part of a two year plan to build JTL’s ‘engine’ for 3 week stage racing.
5. Sky has doubts that JTL has what it takes to perform in their team and is not that displeased at the opportunity to remove JTL from their roster when an opportunity presents itself.
6. Giving Sky more credit, understanding point 3 above, Sky know that realistically there can be no effective defence for JTL, so take the only real option and cut ties quickly and swiftly.
7. With Cookson fresh in position the UCI can’t be seen to be dodging the doping situation… a UK athlete ‘conveniently’ getting off soon after Cookson’s appointment would not send the right message.
Whether he doped or not, based on the above, JTL was never going to be found anything other than guilty.
Now I am not stupid, JTL could have pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes, including mine and doped the ass out of himself…. however, call it selective blindness, call it stupid sentimentality, but I just don’t buy it.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:Paul J
Well that fits with the known info, and sounds plausible to my (admittedly unqualified) eyes. Thanks for sharing. The problem of course is the use of a sacrificial lamb – JTL can’t even go back to domestic racing. Even if he were to forget about UK pro teams and just enter as an independent 1st cat, he’s lost all credibility.
I’ll bet he regrets ever talking to Sky.
notfastenough wrote:The
Really? This is what I can’t see. Why would Brailsford invest time, energy and British Cycling resources only to then use a Tour of Britain winner as doping cannon fodder?
farrell wrote:notfastenough
No, I don’t mean that. More that as Jimmy’s post says, given all those factors outlined, he was only ever going to be guilty. Allowing that to be the case without a robust challenge and support (by whichever stakeholder) was the sacrificial aspect I was referring to. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy or anything, perhaps just an acceptance of the ‘perfect storm’ of contributory factors.
Ultimately, how could he feasibly prove his innocence? I can prove I own car A, but I can’t prove I’ve never owned car B. Guilty until proven innocent is fundamentally flawed.
There will be enough spiteful
There will be enough spiteful vitriol being bashed out on the interweb to sink an aircraft carrier, never mind one young cyclist’s career. If he really is innocent (and yes, it’s possible) then I feel very, very sorry for him.
The fact is that his bio-passport anomalies could not be adequately explained. By the rules of the sport this means he is banned. You can argue the semantics all you like but that’s the essence of it.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
4. JTL
I don’t buy your story at all – for me, the above is what makes me doubt his innocence. He was on fire at Endura which is why Sky signed him, and then he falls to pieces when he joins Sky – coincidence, or was there just a more strict regime and this “overtraining” and “illness” was just an excuse for not doping at Sky? I doubt anybody knows for sure other than JTL, and that includes his sister.
AyBee wrote:
I don’t buy your
Well, from understanding his Endura regime in comparison to his Sky regime, I’d suggest there was plenty of reasons for him overtaining that wasn’t doping.
However, I’d concede that an after effect of stopping blood doping will be that you can no longer sustain such heavy training loads which could have led to the overtraining/sickness… but make no mistake, the reason he performed badly was overtraining, whatever the cause.
The key point I am making, is that as mentioned, only he can say for sure what he did and didn’t do, but the reality was, he was never getting off the charges brought against him either way.
incorrect, he failed to prove
incorrect, he failed to prove his innocence COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
I pity the UCI, some people
I pity the UCI, some people desperately want to believe that they constantly ignore and bury evidence in order to protect riders and avoid giving out bans. Then you have people that desperately want to believe that they will strike out, with zero evidence, and ban riders for no real reason.
They are getting called out for releasing the private medical details of riders whilst at the same time being called out for not releasing the private medical details of riders.
I can’t currently see or think of a reason why Sky and UCI would want to throw JTL under the bus for no reason, but like many, all I have to go on for his ban is what little has been reported.
Nice of his sister to stand
Nice of his sister to stand up and support him but lets be real here. If you use or have used drugs to gain an edge, its hardly a topic with the family over dinner. Hopefully we will get some more deets
Clearly I don’t know him
Clearly I don’t know him personally but “hard working” and “gruelling training schedule” are not always phrases I’ve heard associated with him…
Doping is rife in cycling,
Doping is rife in cycling, just not at the higher levels any more.
Talk to people riding in that zone around talented amateur/semi-pro/pro-conti level. Look at riders who make the jump to Continental and Pro teams who never seem able to produce the same results. Listen to what people say about some of the questionable teams riding around the Asian and other circuits.
There is much less testing at those levels and they get away with it, but then they can’t rely on it when they move up and are under more scrutiny.
In my view it’s where the doping discussion should be taking place.
Just as happened with the pro-peloton in the Armstrong-Pantani era, a generation of clean riders is being held back or forced out by doping. The only positive is that eventually they hit a ceiling when they can’t dope any more.
Jimmy Ray Will: Well, the
Jimmy Ray Will: Well, the bio-passport is a test, and it’s flagged him, and experts have looked at it and concluded his values are very likely indicative of banned manipulation, unless he can provide some other explanation.
You could argue the bio-passport is far from perfect, and I’d have to agree with you. On the other hand, if always-perfect is made the bar, then that’s the end of anti-doping. Not even the criminal justice system, with its “beyond reasonable doubt”, manages to get it 100% right.
Joeinpoole: That’s interesting. Agreed sometimes the labs fail to meet standards. Looking into the Diane Mohdahl case, it’s not quite as clear cut. Her B sample had been improperly handled in a way that introduced doubt over its result. However, her A sample *also* had tested positive (or there’d been no need for the B). There were no handling issues with her A sample. So it’s not quite correct to say she was definitely innocent, rather the procedures weren’t followed to allow her to ban to be sustained.
Paul J wrote:
Joeinpoole:
I don’t think it is true that the A sample was handled any differently from the B sample. Can you provide a link to where you have read this please?
One of the factors that undermined the authorities case was the “simply astounding” levels of testosterone found in the sample’. This is an extract from The Independent at the time;
“The level of testosterone is measured by establishing its presence in relation to another hormone, epitestosterone. Normally, the ratio is 1 to 1. A ratio of up to 9 to 1 for men and 6 to 1 for women is allowed in athletics. The test which resulted in Ben Johnson being banned for life showed a ratio of 10.3 to 1. Modahl’s ratio was 42 to 1.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/athletics-modahl-and-british-officials-question-test-banned-runner-says-material-changes-appeared-in-sample-following-initial-drug-test-and-requests-hearing-within-30-days-1446079.html
This is a mixture of
Should have stopped there… Why is it necessary to construct a convoluted conspiracy theory? A bio passport sanction is based on expert analysis that identifies biological data that is consistent with illegal performance enhancement and cannot be explained by natural variability. An outcome like this does not occur because someone had a quick look at the figures and thought they might be dodgy, or because someone has been training hard and is a bit tired.
I think the bio passport is fairer for athletes, because it looks at an extended pattern of behaviour, rather than relying on a spot check single test. So a Diane Modahl case is actually less likely to occur. It’s telling that someone is going back 20 years for an example of a testing failure anyway. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but I don’t think there are scores of innocent athletes being screwed over by the system here…
Personally, I expect the supporting evidence to be presented and challenged by appropriate experts through the official process, in the same way as any legal procedure.
Why would anyone assume that the evidence in this case has not been debated properly, or that the athlete has not had the opportunity to defend their position?
kcr wrote:
This is a mixture
I’ve no argument with most of what you say but, short of national security issues, the evidence presented in most legal cases is available for others to see, and a reasonably detailed summary is given by the judge. Unless I’ve missed it, all we seem to have had re JTL is, “Unstated passport anomalies, not satisfactorily explained by the accused, therefore guilty and banned”. Notwithstanding the issues of guilty until proven innocent that this style of judgement raises, surely it’s in the interests of the sport to have more detail made public so that we can have confidence in both the procedure and the judgement? A legal process should be both transparent and open to challenge – and not just by the accused.
Joeinpoole: Part of the basis
Joeinpoole: Part of the basis of her case was that the pH of the B sample was out of spec and different to the A sample, providing evidence that it been mishandled / degraded.
There’s a detailed discussion in this book:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6ZFEAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=modahl+testosterone+bacteria&source=bl&ots=9Ev7aZTN3U&sig=qizvVfENQnEEec8zCr4_CBejE70&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZFHOU9H0ErPY7AajsYFA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=modahl%20testosterone%20bacteria&f=false
Scroll back to page 155 for the beginning. Note that the descriptive text sometimes refers to “samples”, but the actual text quoted seems to make it clear Modahl’s legal argument was based on the B sample being degraded. Later descriptive text (e.g. on page 162) seems also to make it clear the issue was the B sample handling.
Reading the thing again, if footnote 23 on page 161 is true, then that would make you wonder a lot about procedures at this lab. That said, note paragraph 13 in the court of appeal judgement at:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1447.html
“As to the first, although [the Independent Appeal Panel] noted that there were unsatisfactory features relating to the evidence as to the chain of custody, it was satisfied that nothing had occurred to cast any real doubt on the reliability of the findings. As to the second, it concluded that there was no justification for the argument that the laboratory had not been properly accredited, but that there had been some departures from best practice in relation to the analysis in particular of sample A, as to which the pH value had not been noted. Nonetheless it concluded that these did not cast any real doubt on the reliability of the findings. As to the third, it was satisfied that the samples were the appellant’s. The problem which was identified, however, was that the pH value of the B sample was such as to show bacterial degradation of the sample to an extent which caused some of the experts called to give evidence which questioned whether the sample should have been analysed at all. The tribunal concluded that it was proper for the laboratory to analyse the sample as the question was essentially one of reliability. As to the fourth issue, it concluded that the analyses had been properly carried out. ”
The judgement seems to go on to affirm this panel acted in good faith and properly in reaching those conclusions.
Basically, it seems to me that Mohdahl got off because she was able to raise reasonable doubt about the validity of the B test. She did not show why the A sample test would have been invalid, though her side makes claims about general handling issues during the B test that would make you wonder about that lab. However, the pH of her A-sample was fine, unlike the B.
I wouldn’t want to bet my house on her having been clean though.
Paul J wrote:Joeinpoole: Part
Ok, thanks for that but I think you are misreading some of the statements. The pH was originally noted at the time the sample was taken (as in before the sample was split between A & B)… and then again separately when the B sample was tested.
The B sample tested the same as the A sample for testosterone (the incredible 42:1 reading).
If an athlete takes testosterone then it causes a reaction in the liver and produces metabolites which are detectable and tested for. When testosterone is produced by bacteria, as a result of poor storage, then these metabolites do not appear. Metabolites were NOT detected in either the A or B samples.
Right from the start there were TWO glaring red lights about the validity of the test result. The truly bizarrely high reading of testosterone (40x normal) and the lack of metabolites. Theses issues were identical in both the A and B samples.
I absolutely *would* bet my house on Modahl being clean at the time of the testing.
The really depressing thing is that Modahl spent a fortune on private research* and clearing her name and yet, 20 years later, there are still folk (like you) who refuse to believe in her innocence. All because a laboratory screwed up __ nothing to do with Modahl at all. It could have happened to any other athlete unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
*(NB: It was not previously understood that bacteria could produce testosterone in this way and scientific papers were published as a result of this research)
Joeinpoole: Interesting
Joeinpoole: Interesting information thanks.
I’d read that part of her defence. It’s hard to assess how much it means however, because her argument about the metabolites and the high reading weren’t tested as far as I can tell.
As far as I can tell, her ban was overturned primarily on the poor handling of the B sample as shown by the pH value. Without a valid B sample, there can be no ban. Additionally, I also saw there were papers on how bacteria could produce testosterone. Her argument being that the B sample was stored in heat, allowing bacterial growth and hence testosterone to be produced. However, that argument surely is flawed given that the A and B samples both had the same testosterone ratio?
So yes, her legal team had other arguments. It’s their job to raise every possible doubt against the test results. However, it’s not clear to me those arguments ever got to a stage were they had to be tested, as she prevailed on B sample handling issues? So it’s hard to know what to make of those other arguments.
Interesting anyway.
Paul J wrote:I wouldn’t want
I read that completely wrong the first time round, I thought that slagging off her housekeeping skills was both uncalled for and completely irrelevant.
More coffee needed I think.
Oh, and yes, should a lab
Oh, and yes, should a lab make a mistake, it could be very difficult for athletes to prove them wrong. However, that’s what the B samples are for.
Note that anti-doping was somewhat in its infancy in the mid-90s. WADA didn’t come into being until the late 90s (99?). They’ve done a lot to standardise things and make procedures rock-solid. E.g. the UCI tried to discredit WADA accredited lab procedures that led to Lance Armstrong’s EPO (non-sanctionable) positive with the Vrijman report (buddy of Hein’s). WADA tightened things up further in response to that.
Finally, if an athlete is worried the anti-doping labs might screw up, nothing stops that athlete lodging separate samples with other accredited labs that they believe are better run.
Funny how they don’t do that.
JTL can make the full details
JTL can make the full details of his case public, if he wishes, is my understanding of these things.
Quote:Allowing that to be the
We don’t actually know what his defense was do we?
Perhaps if he (JTL himself – not his sister) felt aggrieved at the decision, he should share that with us?? After all, for a sportsman, reputation is all.
I’m not sure that is how it works…Under your argument – everyone can be banned without evidence.
The ban would have been handed down after careful analysis of the evidence. JTL lawyers would have been trying to dispute the validity of the evidence and/or the conclusions reached by WADA and UKAD
The case was handled by WADA and UKAD – not the UCI.
I love these comments, there
I love these comments, there are more conspiracy theories here than at a Release-the-Area51-Aliens convention.
The facts are:
1) he did really well at Endura
2) came to Sky and started doing not so well (for various reasons)
3) his bio-passport releaved anomalies
4) his value were extensively tested by independent authorities over several months
5) he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the anomalies
6) the logical conclusion is that he is very likely to have doped
7) he’s banned and had his contract terminated
8) he hasn’t realeased the data to prove his innocence (as is his right)
It’s sad but, unless he reveals his data and an independent doctor can explain the anomalies, then he’s a doper and no conspiracy theory is going to change that. JTL hasn’t been banned without evidence, he’s able to publish his values on the Internet if he wants. Though I doubt that’ll happen; Lance did that to show his innocence and his values got picked apart pretty quickly.
As a racer (of no particular talent), I know of quite a few amateur racers who are likely dopers, as well as a few who are definitely ex-dopers at least. This starts at amateur Cat 3 level, though who’s to say people aren’t taking drugs simply so they can go Strava KOM hunting? Some people are simply cheats and I believe doping is still more common than people like to think.
I’m sorry for JTL but I think he doped and was punished accordingly. Hopefully he’ll learn from this if he returns to racing.
I think you’ll find he is a
I think you’ll find he is a doper. Unfortunately some of the other dopers have more money to buy the doctors who know the loopholes.
‘Contamination’ why not jump
‘Contamination’ why not jump on the bandwagon, even the Queen’s stable seems to have done so.
“My brother’s not a doper”,
“My brother’s not a doper”, says Jonathan Tiernan-Locke’s twin sister.
“My boys are good boys”, says Violet Kray of her two loveable rogue sons, Ron and Reg. 😉
I seem to have missed
I seem to have missed something. Can any one point to something that says he has taken something or done something wrong.
He has failed to prove something not actually done something wrong.
The fact that this can happen proves that the anti doping system is valueless. No one can be found guilty without proof. what the UCI have done wouldn’t work in any court. He has been found guilty as he couldn’t prove otherwise. Its like being nicked for speeding as your car was possibly spotted . You may have been on a long solo walk in the hills and the number plate cloned. How can you prove otherwise?
This is why I feel that the whole process is flawed and you can’t have flaws in this sort of thing. Note how everyone went after Rogers. How the sceptics had a field day. Funnily he enough he was right.
What JTL has done is fallen foul of a very poorly written and thought out rule.
I doubt he’ll be found innocent as the press, especially on the web, and the vast majority of the shouty public prefer outrage to the truth.
Not supporting him if he has been naughty but I cannot abide kneejerk trash which this is.
mattsccm wrote:I seem to have
The United Kingdom National Anti-Doping Panel can to the satisfaction of the UCI. Details to follow.
I would argue a system with no powers to exclude cheats is worthless.
Sport works to rules, not laws. You could drive up Hautacam and that wouldn’t be illegal. Don’t be surprised if you don’t get kisses and flowers at the top.
The UCI cleared him of all wrongdoing, seemingly the correct result after following due process. Results from the period around the test were annulled because he may have (unwittingly) had a performance advantage. A great example of the system working.
If you have some specific criticism of the Biological Passport system (as many do) lets hear it. Otherwise you’re just indulging yourself in poorly written, kneejerk, shouty outrage.
A single test just checks if
A single test just checks if one blood parameter cannot reasonable be explained by normal variation in humans. The blood passport is similar, but checks change over time rather than at 1 time. We know that certain blood parameters cannot change over time in certain ways without manipulation.
Fundamentally there is no real difference between a failed single test or a blood passport violation. Both are a finding that something unnatural happened to the athletes body that can only be explained by doping. The idea that a blood passport violation is not a failed test is just ignorance.