Drug testing

[RoundTheBoards]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[PotteringAround]

Just now, Wee Eck said:

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. 

Morris didn't provide a sample for testing.   He was charged with   ‘Failing to provide a Specimen’.

The rules then say:-  * 08.2.1 Testing Procedure
i) A refusal to undergo Anti-Doping testing will be regarded for the purpose of application of penalties, identical to a positive test.

So his refusal to provide a specimen was treated the same as a positive test and he got the minimum 2 year ban.

 

 

[Bojangles]

38 minutes ago, HenryW said:

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?

I‘m not 100% sure of the specifics in the SCB’s case, but other sports have different sentences for different offences. I’m guessing it’s a two-year minimum for failing to provide a test. Whereas it’s more like six months for pain relief, etc. 

The SCB’s wording is arguably the problem as they should have probably clarified that. 

[Odds On]

ifs buts and maybe's.....the long and short of it is, if you do not provide a specimen when asked to, whether its your first or hundredth then it should be treated as a failure...it isn't rocket science folks.

[Wee Eck]

2 hours ago, PotteringAround said:

Morris didn't provide a sample for testing.   He was charged with   ‘Failing to provide a Specimen’.

The rules then say:-  * 08.2.1 Testing Procedure
i) A refusal to undergo Anti-Doping testing will be regarded for the purpose of application of penalties, identical to a positive test.

So his refusal to provide a specimen was treated the same as a positive test and he got the minimum 2 year ban.

 

 

I think you’ll find that he did provide a first sample. I think you might also want to wonder why there were two charges against, albeit one being dropped after he pled guilty to the first. 
 

But, as someone else has said, it’s all academic - Nick has been banned and fined and nothing will change that

[Bojangles]

18 minutes ago, Wee Eck said:

I think you’ll find that he did provide a first sample. I think you might also want to wonder why there were two charges against, albeit one being dropped after he pled guilty to the first. 
 

But, as someone else has said, it’s all academic - Nick has been banned and fined and nothing will change that

Where do you have this evidence of him providing a first sample? I’ve been doing some digging around and can see no reference to anything being provided at all. Not saying it didn’t happen, but there’s been no mention of it in any official statement and it’s not the normal protocol for drug testing. That said, nothing would surprise me when it comes to the SCB. 

[highside]

How long can you use a guest for a banned rider ?it's a joke 

[Wee Eck]

2 hours ago, highside said:

How long can you use a guest for a banned rider ?it's a joke 

But it’s a good question! I’d have thought it should be 28 days but from when? Offence or conviction? And didn’t Poole use guests for Darcy Ward for the rest of the season after he was banned in 2014?

[RoundTheBoards]

14 hours ago, Bojangles said:

Where do you have this evidence of him providing a first sample? I’ve been doing some digging around and can see no reference to anything being provided at all. 

He didn't provide a sample.   That's why he's banned.   Failure to provide a specimen, which is treated the same as a positive test.

Some people mistakenly think you do two samples because there's an "A" and "B" sample.   But this is a single sample which is just split into 2 different vials.

The only way you get to re-do the test is if you don't give a sample of real pee.  When you give a sample they test the specific gravity to make sure it is actually pee and not appletise or a tiny drop of pee in a load of tap water.   If you do mess them about like this you get a second chance to give the sample.

It sounds like Morris may have attempted some kind of skullduggery since he was also charged with   "c) Any attempt to influence improperly an official in the course of their duties.".   But this was dropped when he was convicted of failing to give a specimen.

 

[Bojangles]

18 minutes ago, RoundTheBoards said:

He didn't provide a sample.   That's why he's banned.   Failure to provide a specimen, which is treated the same as a positive test.

Some people mistakenly think you do two samples because there's an "A" and "B" sample.   But this is a single sample which is just split into 2 different vials.

The only way you get to re-do the test is if you don't give a sample of real pee.  When you give a sample they test the specific gravity to make sure it is actually pee and not appletise or a tiny drop of pee in a load of tap water.   If you do mess them about like this you get a second chance to give the sample.

It sounds like Morris may have attempted some kind of skullduggery since he was also charged with   "c) Any attempt to influence improperly an official in the course of their duties.".   But this was dropped when he was convicted of failing to give a specimen.

 

I literally said all of that in my previous posts, but thanks for clarifying. That’s why I was asking where the evidence of Morris already taking a test is, as a lot of people seem to be misguided in thinking he did. 

[Petecc]

£1500 fine and 6 months to pay it. May need to get a real job, interesting job interview " experience?" " I used to be a speedway rider"       "and why did you stop doing that?"