Bernice Wilson positive

[readtherules]

I repeat a full legal opinion .
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n42367181/

[LiamRiley]

I'm not saying that the "whereabouts" discussion shouldn't be had, but this is the worst-hijacked thread I've ever seen. Off-topic comments outnumber on-topic ones by a margin of 8-to-1. Bernice is stuck somewhere in the middle of ADAMS, dodgy coaches, whereabouts and the British Masters Athletics Federation.

Start up a different thread you donks.

posting.php?mode=post&f=1

[Geoff]

Contaminated sample led to failed test - Bernice Wilson

Lincolnshire athlete Bernice Wilson has claimed a contaminated sample was the cause of her positive test for banned steroids testosterone and clenbuterol.
Wilson has been provisionally banned after failing a test at a meet in July.
"Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF," said a statement on her behalf.
"The incomplete and insufficient way the testing procedure was carried out allowed the sample to be contaminated."
The statement also called for UK Anti-Doping, who administer drug testing in the UK, to withdraw the case against the European Indoor 60m semi-finalist and open an internal investigation to determine the cause of the contamination.
It added: "Bernice Wilson expresses her disappointment on how such a serious mistake can occur and her disbelief on the way that UK Athletics handled her case."
Wilson tested positive following a routine drug test at the Bedford International Games on 12 July.
If found guilty she could face a suspension of up to two years.
UK Anti-Doping say they will not comment on individual cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/9550546.stm

Seems to have been overlooked in all the other off topic posts. So this is Wilson's defence?

[mump boy]

What happened to athleted giving an hour a day for testers ? Why on earth would they 'turn up at work' ? can you name one instance of this happening ?

If you are registered as an athlete (that means anyone from a 9 year old to a vet) they can turn up to test you at any time (day or night at any venue around the world) without notice. However if you are not there they cannot then say you missed a test if they don't find you.

If you are on out of competition testing register then you have 1 hour a day where you must be 'available' for testing. If they turn up during this one hour and you are not present or they cannot find you then you have missed a test. Watch the videos on the UKAD website for all the information. I know several examples of people in the UK being tested at work. In print there are a few in the book 'Positive' that blew the lid on Australia's doping programme before Sydney.

Since the new rules giving a one hour slot, you know of athletes who have had testers turn up at work ?

[Kermit]

This thread is so cloudy I'm suprised someone hasn't called a fog alert!

Let's just say that Bernice was tested at work & RTR said that this was illeagal, I would say he is wrong. She works as a sports development officer in a council building given funding/grant by UKA which in part pays her wages. Most councils can drug test, most council buildings with UKA funding will allow drug tests to be taken, they wouldn't dare decline for fear of losing funding.

If an athlete goes on holiday it has to be declared & they are still liable to b tested not only by UKAD but also by the association of the country where the athlete is on holiday.

Steve, the tester took himself off to have a cup of tea without telling anyone, so it could be safe to assume that because he wasn't there and he wasn't a regular visitor that the person would be forgotten about (re: Rio).

Finally There is an athletes commission that meets regularly with UKAD to voice the concerns of the athletes in the hope that it will make testing as safe and effective as possible. That commission's recommendation are in place and puts Bernice Wilson's argument regarding contamination on very shaking ground because the only person that could of contaminated it is herself.

[readtherules]

This thread is so cloudy I'm suprised someone hasn't called a fog alert!

Let's just say that Bernice was tested at work & RTR said that this was illeagal, I would say he is wrong. She works as a sports development officer in a council building given funding/grant by UKA which in part pays her wages. Most councils can drug test, most council buildings with UKA funding will allow drug tests to be taken, they wouldn't dare decline for fear of losing funding.

If an athlete goes on holiday it has to be declared & they are still liable to b tested not only by UKAD but also by the association of the country where the athlete is on holiday.

Steve, the tester took himself off to have a cup of tea without telling anyone, so it could be safe to assume that because he wasn't there and he wasn't a regular visitor that the person would be forgotten about (re: Rio).

Finally There is an athletes commission that meets regularly with UKAD to voice the concerns of the athletes in the hope that it will make testing as safe and effective as possible. That commission's recommendation are in place and puts Bernice Wilson's argument regarding contamination on very shaking ground because the only person that could of contaminated it is herself.

The interesting thing about all the background to testing is the most remarkable alternative universe of those strongly against drugs .
They could test at work but the works policy on H and S and insurance would be likely to stop it.Unless they turned up with their testing van.
What on earth funding from UKA do you think goes to council sports development staff and would this cause breaches of H/S policy etc.
What drug testing do councils do ? Perhaps following H/S policy and then following rules that have no comparison with WADA and would have to be accord of the contracts of employment.

Holidays .Yes any WADA body claims the right to test but whether that claim will stand up is open to question.

Tester and cup of tea ???????

Where on earth have you come up with Wilson claiming contamination !
And have you not read posts about food contamination esp ref liver.
And how on earth do you know if the commisions views are accepted.The last commision was disbanded.

I dispair.

[readtherules]

Kermit.

just seen Wilsons bit about contamination ,sorry

[readtherules]

What happened to athleted giving an hour a day for testers ? Why on earth would they 'turn up at work' ? can you name one instance of this happening ?

If you are registered as an athlete (that means anyone from a 9 year old to a vet) they can turn up to test you at any time (day or night at any venue around the world) without notice. However if you are not there they cannot then say you missed a test if they don't find you.

If you are on out of competition testing register then you have 1 hour a day where you must be 'available' for testing. If they turn up during this one hour and you are not present or they cannot find you then you have missed a test. Watch the videos on the UKAD website for all the information. I know several examples of people in the UK being tested at work. In print there are a few in the book 'Positive' that blew the lid on Australia's doping programme before Sydney.

Since the new rules giving a one hour slot, you know of athletes who have had testers turn up at work ?

No,but they still claim the right.

[Geoff]

Readtherules wrote - Where on earth have you come up with Wilson claiming contamination !

I posted this twice because she is claiming contamination of her sample. Taken from the BBC website this seems to be her defence.

[Kermit]

RTR no problem about Bernice, but if you listen to the recently aired radio 5live broadcast with the reporter being tested you would hear how the test was conducted. Later on in the show you would also hear that the commission is still actively speaking to UKAD.

With regards to the tester going off for a cup of tea, this was in the days when testers declared themselves but didn't chaperone.

[readtherules]

Contaminated sample led to failed test - Bernice Wilson

Lincolnshire athlete Bernice Wilson has claimed a contaminated sample was the cause of her positive test for banned steroids testosterone and clenbuterol.
Wilson has been provisionally banned after failing a test at a meet in July.
"Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF," said a statement on her behalf.
"The incomplete and insufficient way the testing procedure was carried out allowed the sample to be contaminated."
The statement also called for UK Anti-Doping, who administer drug testing in the UK, to withdraw the case against the European Indoor 60m semi-finalist and open an internal investigation to determine the cause of the contamination.
It added: "Bernice Wilson expresses her disappointment on how such a serious mistake can occur and her disbelief on the way that UK Athletics handled her case."
Wilson tested positive following a routine drug test at the Bedford International Games on 12 July.
If found guilty she could face a suspension of up to two years.
UK Anti-Doping say they will not comment on individual cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/9550546.stm

Seems to have been overlooked in all the other off topic posts. So this is Wilson's defence?

How interesting,breach of IST.Her word against the DCO.
In one recent case the DCO put all his contaminated ie used containers and gloves back amongst all his testing equipment within the bag.Seems sloppy procedure and if repeated at the previous test puts doubt on the following tests and would be seen as fatal in a police case.God knows how this would have cause T/E and Clen but procedures are procedures.
UKA write off anything to do with the testing but as any contract that may exist exists with UKA in the first instance do UKA have some form of contractual duty to fulfill reasonable expectations.
However her word against DCO.What fun.

[readtherules]

Readtherules wrote - Where on earth have you come up with Wilson claiming contamination !

I posted this twice because she is claiming contamination of her sample. Taken from the BBC website this seems to be her defence.

As I have said I missed it .Sorry

[readtherules]

RTR no problem about Bernice, but if you listen to the recently aired radio 5live broadcast with the reporter being tested you would hear how the test was conducted. Later on in the show you would also hear that the commission is still actively speaking to UKAD.

With regards to the tester going off for a cup of tea, this was in the days when testers declared themselves but didn't chaperone.

I am all ears and eyes for her complaint about the test.
Any details from anyone.

[Geoff]

Can we try to keep this thread as relevant as possible to the Bernice Wilson case? RTR, earlier you stated:

She could explain that she took the drugs.
She could turn queens evidence etc.
Interesting times given her connections and connections from there.

Can you clarify as far as possible what connections you are referring to? Are they coaches? Are they employed by UKA/EA? Are you prepared to pass on your suspicions to UKAD?

[readtherules]

Can we try to keep this thread as relevant as possible to the Bernice Wilson case? RTR, earlier you stated:

She could explain that she took the drugs.
She could turn queens evidence etc.
Interesting times given her connections and connections from there.

Can you clarify as far as possible what connections you are referring to? Are they coaches? Are they employed by UKA/EA? Are you prepared to pass on your suspicions to UKAD?

Again you are asking for too much detail.Though I understand your point.
Given how proactive she has become then I think a big big game is afoot.

I dont believe in a whisteblower society.Serious criminal activity esp involving children excepted.

However I think UKAD know and the noose is being tightened.

[readtherules]

Geoff.

I add ,that I think you have a very good idea what the big story is about.

[Geoff]

Are we looking at the obvious suspects or is there a chance we may be in for a shock?

[BigGut]

Don't you just love it when people claim contamination. Her word against the dco. Well unless she raised her concerns before the results came back I wouldn't even listen to them. If there was a technical infringement then it should be reported when it happens anybody who waits until after the results is doing the sport a disservice.

[readtherules]

Are we looking at the obvious suspects or is there a chance we may be in for a shock?

You are persistant.Depends upon how cynical you are.

[readtherules]

Don't you just love it when people claim contamination. Her word against the dco. Well unless she raised her concerns before the results came back I wouldn't even listen to them. If there was a technical infringement then it should be reported when it happens anybody who waits until after the results is doing the sport a disservice.

The problem is that the athlete is niave.The form is put in front of them,there is a queue outside etc.
However not one is educated in the IST and will never ever heard of it.The athlete has no idea of the principles of forensic investigation.Only .75 % of results are positive so not one person thinks they have to play Sherlock at the time and some are still in shock at viewed urination etc.

I have just posted about contaminated waste going back in the DCO's bag.Until the significance is pointed out no one worries about it.
I doubt if many of the methods would get accepted by the police.

Most prob guilty but we have to fund testing properly to match other standards.
Any idea what she claims is the core problem ?

[Kermit]

RTR did you listen to the Radio 5live programme regarding the reporter being drug tested? If you did you would of heard that the tester read the rules of the test to the athlete/reporter and then passed both sample pots to him. They were not passed back until the athlete had completed the samples and sealed the samples themselves.

With that in mind where could contamination take place?

[SteveK26]

Have things moved on for the better now, or could a sample become contaminated in the lab itself...as in the sad Diane Modahl/Edwards case?
An athlete loses control of the samples once the tester is gone.

[readtherules]

RTR did you listen to the Radio 5live programme regarding the reporter being drug tested? If you did you would of heard that the tester read the rules of the test to the athlete/reporter and then passed both sample pots to him. They were not passed back until the athlete had completed the samples and sealed the samples themselves.

With that in mind where could contamination take place?

I did not hear the wireless on this matter.

However the DCO does not read the rules out,the IST is 90 pages long and the specific section that deals with the test is several pages on complicated points and sub reference to the full doc and then there are references to sub annexes.Also there is a handbook for the test/dco which is defined as confidential.In short the athlete does not know what the procedures are meant to be.Told elements of what the DCO will do but this is not the same.

Does anyone know if test done in toilets at Bedford or in the camper van /


However from what I gather from your note it was the reporter (Fordyce ?) saying such and not detail from the way the test was carried out for Wilson.

However to answer your question.The sample container and other equipment gets placed on several surfaces and the DCO's bag contains contamination from previous tests.Gloves are not sealed nor choice of gloves etc etc .Minor points but then such calls into question the results.
There are papers that say testing should not take place in toilets due to air born contamination.This was part of the L'boro cases but UKAD insist that tests can take place anywhere.I recall that the majority of toilets in Parliament contained coke contamination.Other testing in other areas of life takes place in specialised locations.See esp how the Met are instructed to carry out tests on Police.(search google, sorry)
More money needs to be spent on testing to do it correctly.

[readtherules]

Have things moved on for the better now, or could a sample become contaminated in the lab itself...as in the sad Diane Modahl/Edwards case?
An athlete loses control of the samples once the tester is gone.

Yes,that is why they insist on seperate staff doing wet chemistry in B tests.

[readtherules]

Lab contamination.
They have to have the standards which are positive to do the tests.There can be carry over in the machines or the standards could get into the samples unless vigourous methods in place.Such would be covered by the demonstrated following of SOPs but the WADA code forbids disclosing of this.Why ???

[readtherules]

Contamination ..more.

There was a case (not this country)where a DCO turned up at a nightclub/eatery.The athlete happened to have his lawyer friend with him who wrote out a short document asking the DCO to state that the toilet was contamination free.DCO said no,athlete said he would not do the test and no action for a test refusal was taken.

[jjimbojames]

Contamination ..more.

There was a case (not this country)where a DCO turned up at a nightclub/eatery.The athlete happened to have his lawyer friend with him who wrote out a short document asking the DCO to state that the toilet was contamination free.DCO said no,athlete said he would not do the test and no action for a test refusal was taken.

LOl - you've come up with some crackers in the past, but a DCO turning up at a nightclub is classic. Firstly, venue is somewhat random, secondly, the relevance is tenuous at best, for many reasons

Who did you hear this gem of a story from - or am I 'asking too much information' again, as it requires a direct answer?

[readtherules]

Contamination ..more.

There was a case (not this country)where a DCO turned up at a nightclub/eatery.The athlete happened to have his lawyer friend with him who wrote out a short document asking the DCO to state that the toilet was contamination free.DCO said no,athlete said he would not do the test and no action for a test refusal was taken.

LOl - you've come up with some crackers in the past, but a DCO turning up at a nightclub is classic. Firstly, venue is somewhat random, secondly, the relevance is tenuous at best, for many reasons

Who did you hear this gem of a story from - or am I 'asking too much information' again, as it requires a direct answer?

They turn up at all sorts of places and furthermore claim the right to.You know this.
The relevance is that the doping authorities know about contamination issues.This should be clear to you.
From a personal friend of the athlete.Thus hearsay but hearsay that I have full belief in.

[jjimbojames]

Yes, they can turn up to where the athlete tells them they will be, but you don't think it strange that testers would turn up at a nightclub - most likely with large numbers and music blaring? If nothing else, the fact they managed to find the athlete is pretty impressive. Unless they knew what the person looked for, a club with hundreds (at least) of people in is an unlikely venue

It 'happened' in another country - I very much doubt you would get that scenario in this one, hence the lack of relevance to contamination in Bedford, at an athletics track

Your friend was told by his friend - was the original athlete from that country, or on holiday and visited by that country's testing body? Can you tell us that, and which country the refused test took place in? Neith piece of info would compromise you or them

[readtherules]

Yes, they can turn up to where the athlete tells them they will be, but you don't think it strange that testers would turn up at a nightclub - most likely with large numbers and music blaring? If nothing else, the fact they managed to find the athlete is pretty impressive. Unless they knew what the person looked for, a club with hundreds (at least) of people in is an unlikely venue

It 'happened' in another country - I very much doubt you would get that scenario in this one, hence the lack of relevance to contamination in Bedford, at an athletics track

Your friend was told by his friend - was the original athlete from that country, or on holiday and visited by that country's testing body? Can you tell us that, and which country the refused test took place in? Neith piece of info would compromise you or them

What it was was the sort of late night place of eating meeting place.Bit like the bar and griils we have in this country thus the toilets have suspicious use.Not a full blown rave type disco night club with hundreds there.
Contamination is contamination esp if tested in a toilet that could have had all sorts of uses by athletes or others.
Tested by his own NADA in his own country.

The point is that contamination at testing is a real issue.Whether it is material to the Wilson case we do not know.