My brother’s not a doper, says Jonathan Tiernan-Locke’s twin sister

mattsccm wrote:

I seem to have missed something. Can any one point to something that says he has taken something or done something wrong.

The United Kingdom National Anti-Doping Panel can to the satisfaction of the UCI. Details to follow.

mattsccm wrote:

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.

I would argue a system with no powers to exclude cheats is worthless.

mattsccm wrote:

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?

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.

mattsccm wrote:

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.

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.

mattsccm wrote:

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.

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.

Paul J wrote:

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=mo...

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.

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 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 to bet my house on her having been clean though.

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.

kcr wrote:

This is a mixture of speculation, and first hand reports... so happy to admit it may not survive serious scrutiny...

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...

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?

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?

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.

Paul J wrote:

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.

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-official...

Paul J wrote:

She's wrong. He has failed a test.

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 has failed a test.

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 wrote:

She's wrong. He has failed a test.

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.

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 problem of course is the use of a sacrificial lamb

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 wrote:

The problem of course is the use of a sacrificial lamb

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?

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 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 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.

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.