Drug testing

[Cerro 190]

Failure to comply with the testing procedure will always be punished with the maximum penalty, only himself to blame. Any lawyer will always tell you to take the test and argue your case later.

As soon as he decided he wasn’t taking the B test it was over for him. 

[RoundTheBoards 271]

2 hours ago, Cerro said:

Failure to comply with the testing procedure will always be punished with the maximum penalty, only himself to blame. 

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.    He was always going to get the minimum two years.   He could have got more, but presumably the hearing found no reason to give more than the 2 year minimum.

2 hours ago, Cerro said:

As soon as he decided he wasn’t taking the B test it was over for him. 

There is no "taking the B test".   

You pee in one container.   The pee is then poured into two separate vials.  One is labelled "A" and is used for the test, the other is labelled "B" and is kept.   if the "A" sample tests positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.   But it's highly unlikely to be any different since it is the same pee.

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

1 hour ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.    He was always going to get the minimum two years.   He could have got more, but presumably the hearing found no reason to give more than the 2 year minimum.

There is no "taking the B test".   

You pee in one container.   The pee is then poured into two separate vials.  One is labelled "A" and is used for the test, the other is labelled "B" and is kept.   if the "A" sample tests positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.   But it's highly unlikely to be any different since it is the same pee.

Ben Barker?

[RoundTheBoards 271]

24 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said:

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.   

Everyone in motorcycling has a right to compete in a safe and fair environment with an emphasis on safety in motor sport, and regardless of the level they participate at, have the right to compete knowing that they and their competitors have not taken any banned performance-enhancing drugs.

Led by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is responsible for the collaborative worldwide campaign for clean sport, The ACU works in partnership with UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) and the international governing body FIM to crack down on doping and ensure the integrity of our sport is protected.

Now that we are out of covid restrictions and events are getting back to pre-pandemic levels, we have recommenced drug testing which have and will continue to be carried out at random events throughout the county during the season, and should a test be positive, the minimum penalty for a first offence will be a two-year suspension. 

All involved in motorcycle sport have the right to compete in knowing that they, and others involved in our sport are clean. The use of performance-enhancing drugs and other doping behaviour severely damages the legitimacy of sport and undermines the integrity of those who are clean within our sport.

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

1 minute ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Everyone in motorcycling has a right to compete in a safe and fair environment with an emphasis on safety in motor sport, and regardless of the level they participate at, have the right to compete knowing that they and their competitors have not taken any banned performance-enhancing drugs.

Led by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is responsible for the collaborative worldwide campaign for clean sport, The ACU works in partnership with UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) and the international governing body FIM to crack down on doping and ensure the integrity of our sport is protected.

Now that we are out of covid restrictions and events are getting back to pre-pandemic levels, we have recommenced drug testing which have and will continue to be carried out at random events throughout the county during the season, and should a test be positive, the minimum penalty for a first offence will be a two-year suspension. 

All involved in motorcycle sport have the right to compete in knowing that they, and others involved in our sport are clean. The use of performance-enhancing drugs and other doping behaviour severely damages the legitimacy of sport and undermines the integrity of those who are clean within our sport.

My question was why didn't BB get  2 years

  1 hour ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.    He was always going to get the minimum two years.   He could have got more, but presumably the hearing found no reason to give more than the 2 year minimum.

There is no "taking the B test".   

You pee in one container.   The pee is then poured into two separate vials.  One is labelled "A" and is used for the test, the other is labelled "B" and is kept.   if the "A" sample tests positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.   But it's highly unlikely to be any different since it is the same pee.

Ben Barker?

[RoundTheBoards 271]

3 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said:

My question was why didn't BB get  2 years

Didn't Ben Barker give a "non-negative" due to use of painkillers, rather than a positive doping result?

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

6 minutes ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Didn't Ben Barker give a "non-negative" due to use of painkillers, rather than a positive doping result?

I honestly don't know 

 

[Bojangles 594]

31 minutes ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Didn't Ben Barker give a "non-negative" due to use of painkillers, rather than a positive doping result?

Same thing really. A non-negative result just means a drug test that shows up an illegal substance before it’s been sent for lab analysis (A Test). All drug tests on site will either be ‘negative’ or ‘non-negative’ at the time they are taken. Ben Barker’s test was lab tested later (B Test) and upgraded to ‘positive’, which the SCB confirmed in a statement at the time. He got a more lenient ban because the drug he tested positive for was used for pain relief, it wasn’t recreational or performance enhancing, and the SCB accepted this. 

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

6 minutes ago, Bojangles said:

Same thing really. A non-negative result just means a drug test that shows up an illegal substance before it’s been sent for lab analysis (A Test). All drug tests on site will either be ‘negative’ or ‘non-negative’ at the time they are taken. Ben Barker’s test was lab tested later (B Test) and upgraded to ‘positive’, which the SCB confirmed in a statement at the time. He got a more lenient ban because the drug he tested positive for was used for pain relief, it wasn’t recreational or performance enhancing, and the SCB accepted this. 

Thanks for that 

[Wee Eck 703]

14 hours ago, Bojangles said:

Same thing really. A non-negative result just means a drug test that shows up an illegal substance before it’s been sent for lab analysis (A Test). All drug tests on site will either be ‘negative’ or ‘non-negative’ at the time they are taken. Ben Barker’s test was lab tested later (B Test) and upgraded to ‘positive’, which the SCB confirmed in a statement at the time. He got a more lenient ban because the drug he tested positive for was used for pain relief, it wasn’t recreational or performance enhancing, and the SCB accepted this. 

I’m not sure that’s correct - the result can be negative, non-negative or positive as per WADA:

Put simply, a non-negative test is one that is not definitively negative. There are several reasons why this could occur. The sample could be adulterated, substituted, invalid or positive, but further testing needs to happen to make a final determination.

The suggestion is that Nick’s first test was non-negative, so not clearly negative. He was asked for a second sample which he refused and, as a consequence, was charged under SR 08.2.1 - Failing to provide a specimen. 
It follows that he did not provide a positive sample but his refusal of the second test is deemed to be akin to testing positive. 

[Bojangles 594]

54 minutes ago, Wee Eck said:

I’m not sure that’s correct - the result can be negative, non-negative or positive as per WADA:

Put simply, a non-negative test is one that is not definitively negative. There are several reasons why this could occur. The sample could be adulterated, substituted, invalid or positive, but further testing needs to happen to make a final determination.

The suggestion is that Nick’s first test was non-negative, so not clearly negative. He was asked for a second sample which he refused and, as a consequence, was charged under SR 08.2.1 - Failing to provide a specimen. 
It follows that he did not provide a positive sample but his refusal of the second test is deemed to be akin to testing positive. 

I’m not 100% sure how to explain this, but I’ll give it a go. The WADA statement you quoted is a non-negative test at the lab analysis stage, and would require further testing - very rare. The simple kits used to test athletes on site (such as at speedway events) are not capable of providing a positive result - only negative or non-negative. These are typically not used during the Olympics for example (because they are very good at picking up recreational drugs and alcohol, but not so good at picking up very specific performance enhancers - which is what they are looking for in this case). This is why athletes are not banned on the spot, but only after the lab results come back (and why a lot of gold medals are taken away after the result of the race, etc.)

At the Olympics only one sample would be taken (either urine or blood). That sample is split into equally into A and B, sealed and sent away for analysis. If A comes back positive, B is tested and you know what happens after that. But as I said, that’s not how it works at speedway. A simple kit is used. Seems unlikely they would have needed him to provide a second sample after a non negative result, as that sample could have been sent off for lab analysis regardless - a la Ben Barker. Has it been stated officially anywhere that Nick actually gave a first sample, or is it just rumours on here? 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Bojangles

[HenryW 1,178]

15 hours ago, Bojangles said:

Same thing really. A non-negative result just means a drug test that shows up an illegal substance before it’s been sent for lab analysis (A Test). All drug tests on site will either be ‘negative’ or ‘non-negative’ at the time they are taken. Ben Barker’s test was lab tested later (B Test) and upgraded to ‘positive’, which the SCB confirmed in a statement at the time. He got a more lenient ban because the drug he tested positive for was used for pain relief, it wasn’t recreational or performance enhancing, and the SCB accepted this. 

But the article quoted says that 2 years is the MINIMUM. If it can be less due to excuses then it's not a minimum, surely?

Or is this 2 year minimum new since Barker was caught?

Edited August 18, 2023 by HenryW

[PotteringAround 633]

1 hour ago, Wee Eck said:

The suggestion is that Nick’s first test was non-negative, so not clearly negative. 

I think you're confusing two different people here.   The non-negative test that is being talked about was Ben Barker.  People were asking why Barker didn't get the minimum 2 year ban, and it's suggested that this was because it was a "non-negative" which came from painkillers rather than a positive test for banned drugs.

Morris refused to take a test.  A refusal is classed the same as a positive test for banned drugs, hence he got the minimum two year suspension.

 

 

[DazS 431]

1 minute ago, HenryW said:

3 minutes ago, HenryW said:

He got a more lenient ban because the drug he tested positive for was used for pain relief, it wasn’t recreational or performance enhancing, and the SCB accepted this. 

 

how the hell does that make sense to anyone. its mental .

[Wee Eck 703]

2 minutes ago, PotteringAround said:

I think you're confusing two different people here.   The non-negative test that is being talked about was Ben Barker.  People were asking why Barker didn't get the minimum 2 year ban, and it's suggested that this was because it was a "non-negative" which came from painkillers rather than a positive test for banned drugs.

Morris refused to take a test.  A refusal is classed the same as a positive test for banned drugs, hence he got the minimum two year suspension.

 

 

Apologies for mixing up the two but, as I said, Nick did provide a non-negative test in a form that concerned the tester who then decided to retest Nick. It was the retest that Nick declined.