UKAD is ready to fight any attempt by WADA to seize its stock of Sir Mo Farah’s urine and blood samples

Respect "he deserves"? You mean this guy?

Or this one?

Perhaps him?

Maybe this lad?

This one?

Hmmm...him?

This man?

I believe that they are saying that unless new testing procedures are available or a compelling reason to think he doped then they won’t release them. Being frank these are not new samples. They are stored samples of urine that was collected at the same time as ruined that was already tested and found clean. Testing them the same way again isn’t likely to result in a different result. So why waste them? Why not test them when a new test procedure has been found. If I were dirty I’d be pleading fir them to be released because I know they all tested clean before. The last thing I would want is them to be kept until better tests were developed.

That makes no sense. Many samples from London 2012 were retested during the last couple of years, quite successfully actually, why not Farah's?

Holding them back now, in 2020, will only ensure that the statute of limitation expires, rendering the samples legally unusable.

uncle jama wrote:

This man?

Yes, that one who should up on the 2016 likely doping list.

Those tests were done using newer tests, hence why they had come back clean before but now come back with an adverse finding.

Or in some cases were tested for drugs that they weren’t previously tested for based upon intelligence.

As such the need for new tests or intelligence makes complete sense

OK UK Boomer

Ultraboy wrote:

Those tests were done using newer tests, hence why they had come back clean before but now come back with an adverse finding.

^This.

That's exactly why Farah's 2011/2012 samples should get retested now, and why UKAD is opposed to it.

Sapstead has stated that unless there are new tests available if intelligence then she won’t turn them over. So no this is not why they should he re-tested. Retesting using the same tests won’t get different results.

I’m glad at least someone else on this thread has half a brain

Umm... you just said the other 2012 samples were redone with newer tests, so there are newer tests, which could also be used on Farah's...

And there is also new intelligence that wasn't there in 2012, namely all the testo evidence surrounding banned drug cheat coach Salazar. For example, this could motivate WADA to use the CIR test on the 2011/12 samples from Farah.

For example, see

https://www.velonews.com/2015/08/news/the-test-that-caught-tom-danielson_381086

casual obsever wrote:

That makes no sense. Many samples from London 2012 were retested during the last couple of years, quite successfully actually, why not Farah's?

Holding them back now, in 2020, will only ensure that the statute of limitation expires, rendering the samples legally unusable.

I am sure the London 2012 samples have been retested at various times over the past years as they will be under WADA control. I suspect what WADA would like to test is his out of competition samples prior to the London Games. These would be solely within UKAD's control and any questionable results could have been "clarified" with the athlete and his team prior to the official results being filed. See Lance Armstrong - Tour de Suisse 2001.

Ultraboy wrote:

Sapstead has stated that unless there are new tests available if intelligence then she won’t turn them over. So no this is not why they should he re-tested. Retesting using the same tests won’t get different results.

Basement Dweller wrote:

I’m glad at least someone else on this thread has half a brain

Are you completely stupid?

Drug testing agencies are strapped for cash. This means it is impossible for them to test everybody, and the small proportion of athletes that they do test are rarely subjected to all available doping tests e.g. the carbon isotope ratio test is rarely used because it is so expensive.

The 10-year limitation period on drug testing samples means that many of Mo Farah’s samples have already been destroyed by UKAD.

The process that is used to decide which athletes are targeted for retesting is ripe for abuse.

Do you really think that WADA is not aware that drug testing samples can only be used for retesting for a limited number of times?

I’m going to take it that Nicola Sapstead knows which tests have been conducted on Mo’s samples better than you do and what intelligence there is. The intelligence used on other 2012 samples related to things such as drug regimens that would not have been caught by the tests carried out on those particular tests. Sapstead will know what tests Mo’s samples have already been subjected to.

She has said they won’t release unless there are new tests so that would indicate that since they were tested last there are not new tests.

I’m not claiming Mo is clean but to lump the entire UK athletics team in it, you’re wrong. There are plenty of clean UK athletes who are entirely clean and would/will provide samples from 2008 and 2012 (in and out of competition. ) Take your Tin Foil hat off.

The Guardian article you’ve posted completely misunderstands why UKAD don’t want to release samples. If they do, the samples will be subjected to tests they have already passed. UKAD want to retain the samples in case future tests become available that detect substances missed by currently available tests. This is not a cover up.

Typical Sean Ingle article where his antipathy towards Mo results in biased or partial reporting.

Ultraboy wrote:

Sapstead has stated that unless there are new tests available if intelligence then she won’t turn them over. So no this is not why they should he re-tested. Retesting using the same tests won’t get different results.

Excellent presentation by WADA & USADA on the improved sensitivity & detection window of current retesting standards. The Q & A session is particularly informative. Well worth watching:

"How do detection limits effect doping in sport? (USADA)"

Personally I'd like to have seen a quote from Mo saying something along the lines of "I'm leaving it up to UKAD, but they know they have my consent to release my samples if necessary as I've nothing to hide", but Basement Dweller has it right here. The article sets out why UKAD are reluctant to share the finite resource of these samples - and UKAD has shown over a long period of time that it has no difficulty in making findings against dopers.

Sovietvest, Larkim? Who next BennyG and Frank?