by ti-amie It is 126 pages long. Here's the TLDR

On Halep: ITIA wanted 6 year ban and dq of all results 2022 and after.
Report says there is possibility of manipulation of results in 2014 & 2019 but data is unavailable
She would have had to take 5,000 times the recommended dosage of 10g of MCT for her to have the amount of Roxadustat found in her sample
Her expert Dr Alvarez said “you don’t need oxygen for tennis”

People are still making their way through it.

by ti-amie Tribunal suspected that Halep was blood doping at last year’s Wimbledon
Lack of blood tests meant panel could not be sure of suspicions
Romanian has vowed to ‘clear my name’ after four-year ban

Sean Ingle

The independent tribunal that banned Simona Halep for four years for doping had “strong grounds for suspicion” that the Romanian was also blood doping at last year’s Wimbledon, its newly published 125-page decision reveals. However, it could not be “comfortably satisfied” that was the case as the 31-year-old did not have any blood tests between April and September 2022.

On Tuesday the former world No 1 was found to have intentionally taken the banned blood‑doping agent roxadustat after a test at the 2022 US Open in August. Separately, an expert panel also found that Halep had abnormalities in her athlete biological passport after an analysis of 51 of her blood samples.

However the full decision, released on Thursday, reveals that the International Tennis Integrity Agency pushed for a more severe punishment and believed that she had blood doped from at least March 2022 in preparation for Wimbledon and the US Open that year.

In response the panel stated: “A key allegation by the ITIA on aggravating circumstances is that the player must have been using one prohibited substance or prohibited method from March 2022 at the latest. However, although there are strong grounds for suspicion we are not comfortably satisfied that this is so.

“By contrast with their opinion relating to August 2022 and the US Open, there is no unequivocal assertion by the expert panel that the blood doping by the player was ‘highly likely’. The same applies to the allegation of blood doping in connection with the Wimbledon championships in June/July 2022… There is a period from 27 April to 22 September for which the player’s blood values are unknown.”

Halep, who won the French Open in 2018 and Wimbledon a year later, insists she will fight the decision at the court of arbitration for sport after pleading her innocence. In a statement she said: “I am continuing to train and do everything in my power to clear my name of these false allegations.”

Meanwhile the full decision into Halep’s case also states that the panel believed it was “not realistically possible” that the levels of roxadustat in her body could have come from a Keto MCT supplement, as the Romanian had alleged.

While accepting that the supplement may have been tainted, something that experts disagreed over, it said that the levels in her body meant that she must have ingested roxadustat from “another source never identified”.

As part of the case, a woman of a similar height and stature was given the same amount of Keto MCT as Halep before her positive test. However the control study found that the values of the banned drug in Halep’s urine test were between “46 and 85 times higher” than in the highest value of the volunteer’s urine. [

One expert told the tribunal that Halep would have needed to take between 900 and 5,000 times the recommended serving size of Keto MCT to produce the estimated concentrations of roxadustat in her sample, based on the player’s explanation and what was known about the metabolism of the drug. “He did not consider that plausible, or in line with what the player says she ingested,” the report states.

The full verdict also reveals that Halep did not disclose the Keto MCT supplement on her doping control form for her urine test on 29 August 2022 or mention it in her 26 October 2022 interview with the ITIA. /b]

“In cross-examination at the June hearing, she said that for the DCF she had forgotten and that at the interview she had also probably just forgotten,” the report states. “That was distinctly careless of her, especially at the interview when the need for complete openness would have been even more apparent.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... -wimbledon

by ti-amie She's done and I don't say that with any joy. This is bad for tennis, for women's tennis in particular, and for those I believe she deceived and have been out front trying to cover for her. As I said, and this report confirms, it was not an accidental ingestion of roxadustat.

She should have any prize money and titles taken away from her won during the period they can confirm.

by ti-amie Tennis journalists are being caught flat footed with the release of the report.

Jon Wertheim

@jon_wertheim
Four years is brutal for a first time offense… was talking to a recent No.1 yesterday who suggests a warning and a fine for a 1x contamination offense…But ths is what happens in the absence of a proper union…

And some players

Vansh
@vanshv2k
·
18h
Maria Sakkari spoke in her post match press after her R16 win at the San Diego Open about the doping procedures & the player communications with regards to the testing protocol. Called the Whereabouts app “horrible”. Credit to @womenstennis and @FollowTTours for the questions.

Christopher Clarey
@christophclarey
"It's scary. We're going to get to the point where we're not even taking electrolytes. That's how I feel"

To be fair Clarey is quoting Sakkari.

by meganfernandez

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:33 am Isn't the philosophy behind the testing that you only have to test positive ONCE? It is not "Oh, you have tested positive for Roxywhatnot for six months now, we have to ban you". It is just like this. It makes no difference if she tested negative 20 times before, and 20 times after. The thing is she tested positive once.
That is all that is needed.
And I feel sorry, because I really like her, but if she indeed tested positive, go by the book.

Accidents, like non-intentional use and contamination, can be punished with just a reprimand or a suspension of up to 2 years, instead of a 4-year suspension for intentional use. There might be other carve-outs, not sure yet.

The unanswered question, which I'm sure is answered deep in the ITIA's full report just released today, is why they don't buy Halep's story that she took it accidentally from a contaminated collagen supplement. I've skimmed 50 of the 126 pages, and so far it's just a matter of conflicting expert testimony. The ITIA's scientist tested the supposedly contaminated supplement and said it didn't have Roxadustat. Halep's two scientists said it did and said the ITIA's result was a false negative.

ITIA's investigation into the manufacture of the supplement (exactly where it was made and the source of the ingredients) found contamination unlikely. I haven't read Halep's rebuttal to that. So they think she ingested it some other way than a contaminated collagen pill.

One of Halep's scientists also said her hair sample showed the faintest amount of Roxadustat, consistent with contamination, and if she had taken it to improve performance it should have been a lot higher. He said someone who is prescribed Roxadustat has 100X the level in their hair sample.

by meganfernandez My favorite part of the report is that they said Cahill has "coached some tip-top players."

And there's an Elle Woods moment when Halep says straightening and dying her hair diluted the concentration of Roxadustat in her hair sample by spreading it out along the full strand, which was meaningful somehow.

by ti-amie

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:48 pm

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:33 am Isn't the philosophy behind the testing that you only have to test positive ONCE? It is not "Oh, you have tested positive for Roxywhatnot for six months now, we have to ban you". It is just like this. It makes no difference if she tested negative 20 times before, and 20 times after. The thing is she tested positive once.
That is all that is needed.
And I feel sorry, because I really like her, but if she indeed tested positive, go by the book.

Accidents, like non-intentional use and contamination, can be punished with just a reprimand or a suspension of up to 2 years, instead of a 4-year suspension for intentional use. There might be other carve-outs, not sure yet.

The unanswered question, which I'm sure is answered deep in the ITIA's full report just released today, is why they don't buy Halep's story that she took it accidentally from a contaminated collagen supplement. I've skimmed 50 of the 126 pages, and so far it's just a matter of conflicting expert testimony. The ITIA's scientist tested the supposedly contaminated supplement and said it didn't have Roxadustat. Halep's two scientists said it did and said the ITIA's result was a false negative.

ITIA's investigation into the manufacture of the supplement (exactly where it was made and the source of the ingredients) found contamination unlikely. I haven't read Halep's rebuttal to that. So they think she ingested it some other way than a contaminated collagen pill.

One of Halep's scientists also said her hair sample showed the faintest amount of Roxadustat, consistent with contamination, and if she had taken it to improve performance it should have been a lot higher. He said someone who is prescribed Roxadustat has 100X the level in their hair sample.

Quoted from the report via the Guardian article.

One expert told the tribunal that Halep would have needed to take between 900 and 5,000 times the recommended serving size of Keto MCT to produce the estimated concentrations of roxadustat in her sample, based on the player’s explanation and what was known about the metabolism of the drug. “He did not consider that plausible, or in line with what the player says she ingested,” the report states.

The same "expert" you mention said that oxygen isn't needed to play tennis.

ETA: He's also the one who blamed Pamela for Gasquet's positive coke test.

by ponchi101

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:53 pm Tennis journalists are being caught flat footed with the release of the report.

Jon Wertheim

@jon_wertheim
Four years is brutal for a first time offense… was talking to a recent No.1 yesterday who suggests a warning and a fine for a 1x contamination offense…But ths is what happens in the absence of a proper union…

And some players

Vansh
@vanshv2k
·
18h
Maria Sakkari spoke in her post match press after her R16 win at the San Diego Open about the doping procedures & the player communications with regards to the testing protocol. Called the Whereabouts app “horrible”. Credit to @womenstennis and @FollowTTours for the questions.

Christopher Clarey
@christophclarey
"It's scary. We're going to get to the point where we're not even taking electrolytes. That's how I feel"

To be fair Clarey is quoting Sakkari.

Agree that the players, both tours, have to sit down and come up with a "proper system" for testing.
But the idea that because the player is a first offender s/he should get only a warning is dubious. Let's say somebody really comes up with a super drug. Well, take it, win Wimbledon, and if you get caught, get the warning and keep the glory.

by meganfernandez

ponchi101 wrote:

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:53 pm Tennis journalists are being caught flat footed with the release of the report.

Jon Wertheim

@jon_wertheim
Four years is brutal for a first time offense… was talking to a recent No.1 yesterday who suggests a warning and a fine for a 1x contamination offense…But ths is what happens in the absence of a proper union…

And some players

Vansh
@vanshv2k
·
18h
Maria Sakkari spoke in her post match press after her R16 win at the San Diego Open about the doping procedures & the player communications with regards to the testing protocol. Called the Whereabouts app “horrible”. Credit to @womenstennis and @FollowTTours for the questions.

Christopher Clarey
@christophclarey
"It's scary. We're going to get to the point where we're not even taking electrolytes. That's how I feel"

To be fair Clarey is quoting Sakkari.

Agree that the players, both tours, have to sit down and come up with a "proper system" for testing.
But the idea that because the player is a first offender s/he should get only a warning is dubious. Let's say somebody really comes up with a super drug. Well, take it, win Wimbledon, and if you get caught, get the warning and keep the glory.

It would depend on the nature of the offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by meganfernandez

ti-amie wrote:

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:48 pm

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:33 am Isn't the philosophy behind the testing that you only have to test positive ONCE? It is not "Oh, you have tested positive for Roxywhatnot for six months now, we have to ban you". It is just like this. It makes no difference if she tested negative 20 times before, and 20 times after. The thing is she tested positive once.
That is all that is needed.
And I feel sorry, because I really like her, but if she indeed tested positive, go by the book.

Accidents, like non-intentional use and contamination, can be punished with just a reprimand or a suspension of up to 2 years, instead of a 4-year suspension for intentional use. There might be other carve-outs, not sure yet.

The unanswered question, which I'm sure is answered deep in the ITIA's full report just released today, is why they don't buy Halep's story that she took it accidentally from a contaminated collagen supplement. I've skimmed 50 of the 126 pages, and so far it's just a matter of conflicting expert testimony. The ITIA's scientist tested the supposedly contaminated supplement and said it didn't have Roxadustat. Halep's two scientists said it did and said the ITIA's result was a false negative.

ITIA's investigation into the manufacture of the supplement (exactly where it was made and the source of the ingredients) found contamination unlikely. I haven't read Halep's rebuttal to that. So they think she ingested it some other way than a contaminated collagen pill.

One of Halep's scientists also said her hair sample showed the faintest amount of Roxadustat, consistent with contamination, and if she had taken it to improve performance it should have been a lot higher. He said someone who is prescribed Roxadustat has 100X the level in their hair sample.

Quoted from the report via the Guardian article.

One expert told the tribunal that Halep would have needed to take between 900 and 5,000 times the recommended serving size of Keto MCT to produce the estimated concentrations of roxadustat in her sample, based on the player’s explanation and what was known about the metabolism of the drug. “He did not consider that plausible, or in line with what the player says she ingested,” the report states.

The same "expert" you mention said that oxygen isn't needed to play tennis.

ETA: He's also the one who blamed Pamela for Gasquet's positive coke test.

I’d need more context to believe the head of toxicology at a French medical school has no credibility, and that L’Equipe would present him as a credible source if he is a quack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by ponchi101

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:22 pm ...

Agree that the players, both tours, have to sit down and come up with a "proper system" for testing.
But the idea that because the player is a first offender s/he should get only a warning is dubious. Let's say somebody really comes up with a super drug. Well, take it, win Wimbledon, and if you get caught, get the warning and keep the glory.

It would depend on the nature of the offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we are talking here about doping, nothing more.
The ATP has shown, in the past, that "warnings" are a proper arrangement. Kyrgios got his suspended suspension after his incident with Wawrinka, Zverev too after the incident in Mexico. So it is not as if they run a "one strike and you are out" system.
For doping, the organizations go above the tours' regulations. So, one doping offense, and you get some sort of sanction. But never just a warning.

by ti-amie

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:53 pm Tennis journalists are being caught flat footed with the release of the report.

Jon Wertheim

@jon_wertheim
Four years is brutal for a first time offense… was talking to a recent No.1 yesterday who suggests a warning and a fine for a 1x contamination offense…But ths is what happens in the absence of a proper union…

And some players

Vansh
@vanshv2k
·
18h
Maria Sakkari spoke in her post match press after her R16 win at the San Diego Open about the doping procedures & the player communications with regards to the testing protocol. Called the Whereabouts app “horrible”. Credit to @womenstennis and @FollowTTours for the questions.

Christopher Clarey
@christophclarey
"It's scary. We're going to get to the point where we're not even taking electrolytes. That's how I feel"

To be fair Clarey is quoting Sakkari.

Wertheim has deleted the above tweet.

Jon Wertheim

@jon_wertheim
·
9h
This is worth the read…you weigh in on guilt/innocence at your peril. But suffice to say the Halep defense team has its work cut out for it….

International Tennis Integrity Agency
@itia_tennis
The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) has published the full decision of the independent tribunal in the case of Simona Halep.

https://www.itia.tennis/news/sanctions/ ... ona-halep/

by JTContinental What people seem to be avoiding saying (but I’m reading between the lines)that while this may be a “first offense” in terms of being caught, it seems like she was doping for years, including the most successful part of her career.

by skatingfan

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:29 pm But we are talking here about doping, nothing more.
The ATP has shown, in the past, that "warnings" are a proper arrangement. Kyrgios got his suspended suspension after his incident with Wawrinka, Zverev too after the incident in Mexico. So it is not as if they run a "one strike and you are out" system.
For doping, the organizations go above the tours' regulations. So, one doping offense, and you get some sort of sanction. But never just a warning.

The issue with this is that tennis is in the Olympics, and the players want to be there (or at least most of them do). As long as tennis is an Olympic eligible sport the athletes have to follow the same procedures, and repercussions as other potential Olympic athletes.

by meganfernandez

JTContinental wrote:What people seem to be avoiding saying (but I’m reading between the lines)that while this may be a “first offense” in terms of being caught, it seems like she was doping for years, including the most successful part of her career.

Then why didn’t she ever test positive until once in Aug 2022 and also not afterward? 200 negative tests, 1 positive test. Is the testing that bad? Is it that easy to evade with timing? If so, the system doesn’t work at all.

by meganfernandez From the Guardian: As part of the case, a woman of a similar height and stature was given the same amount of Keto MCT as Halep [took] before her positive test. However the control study found that the values of the banned drug in Halep’s urine test were between “46 and 85 times higher” than in the highest value of the volunteer’s urine.

My question: how was there Roxadustat in the MCT that the woman took for the investigation? Was it manufactured that way just for this test? Doubtful, so where did it come from? The same batch as Halep’s medicine? They were able to get some months later? And if they did bake it up for the test, how did they know how much Roxadustat to put in it? They would have had to know how much was in Halep’s contaminated sample.

I don’t get this at all.

by skatingfan

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:28 am Then why didn’t she ever test positive until once in Aug 2022 and also not afterward? 200 negative tests, 1 positive test. Is the testing that bad? Is it that easy to evade with timing? If so, the system doesn’t work at all.

Because blood tests aren't that common.

by ashkor87 Officialdom running amok

by skatingfan

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:23 am From the Guardian: As part of the case, a woman of a similar height and stature was given the same amount of Keto MCT as Halep [took] before her positive test. However the control study found that the values of the banned drug in Halep’s urine test were between “46 and 85 times higher” than in the highest value of the volunteer’s urine.

My question: how was there Roxadustat in the MCT that the woman took for the investigation? Was it manufactured that way just for this test? Doubtful, so where did it come from? The same batch as Halep’s medicine? They were able to get some months later? And if they did bake it up for the test, how did they know how much Roxadustat to put in it? They would have had to know how much was in Halep’s contaminated sample.

I don’t get this at all.

As I understand it the drug Roxadustat is commonly used to treat anemia in places like China, and so obtaining Keto MCT with Roxadustat would be simple, and in the trial the individual took the recommended dose of the product.

by ashkor87

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:23 am From the Guardian: As part of the case, a woman of a similar height and stature was given the same amount of Keto MCT as Halep [took] before her positive test. However the control study found that the values of the banned drug in Halep’s urine test were between “46 and 85 times higher” than in the highest value of the volunteer’s urine.

My question: how was there Roxadustat in the MCT that the woman took for the investigation? Was it manufactured that way just for this test? Doubtful, so where did it come from? The same batch as Halep’s medicine? They were able to get some months later? And if they did bake it up for the test, how did they know how much Roxadustat to put in it? They would have had to know how much was in Halep’s contaminated sample.

I don’t get this at all.

i have given up trying to understand it.. which is why I am advocating a simpler approach - either Nothing is Permitted or Everything is Permitted.. this arcane and complex analysis rewards only 'experts' and lawyers.. surely a waste of resources globally. If the 'experts' are any good, they would be better employed helping some sick people, as for the lawyers... nothing would make them better employed!

by meganfernandez

skatingfan wrote:

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:28 am Then why didn’t she ever test positive until once in Aug 2022 and also not afterward? 200 negative tests, 1 positive test. Is the testing that bad? Is it that easy to evade with timing? If so, the system doesn’t work at all.

Because blood tests aren't that common.

So then tons of athletes could be getting away with doping because they aren’t blood-tested, and they haven’t figured this out?

It showed up in her urine sample in August. Is it plausible it never showed up in previous urine samples even though she was taking it?

by meganfernandez

skatingfan wrote:

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:23 am From the Guardian: As part of the case, a woman of a similar height and stature was given the same amount of Keto MCT as Halep [took] before her positive test. However the control study found that the values of the banned drug in Halep’s urine test were between “46 and 85 times higher” than in the highest value of the volunteer’s urine.

My question: how was there Roxadustat in the MCT that the woman took for the investigation? Was it manufactured that way just for this test? Doubtful, so where did it come from? The same batch as Halep’s medicine? They were able to get some months later? And if they did bake it up for the test, how did they know how much Roxadustat to put in it? They would have had to know how much was in Halep’s contaminated sample.

I don’t get this at all.

As I understand it the drug Roxadustat is commonly used to treat anemia in places like China, and so obtaining Keto MCT with Roxadustat would be simple, and in the trial the individual took the recommended dose of the product.

I guess I don’t understand how getting Keto MCT with Roxadustat would be simple. It’s not normally made that way. And they would have had to know how much Roxadustat to contaminate the sample with.

by ponchi101 What they would need to do is to try to set up a baseline.
Get a sample and "lace it" with Roxadustat. Say, 10 mg of the drug. Then, give it to a test person, and just see how much is detected in the doping test. That way, they would now know that if Simona's test returned X mg of the drug, she would have had to have taken X amount of the initial dose. Running the test for the test person over several days would give you a baseline of the time the drug would remain in the system and what the half-life of the drug would be.
Then, if indeed they detected a concentration as high as 85 times higher than in the volunteer's urine, they would know how much the intake had to be. And from there, determining if that amount could be possibly ingested by accident or contamination would be based on at least some set of numerical data.
The question would be backwards. It is not "how much we have to contaminate the sample with to reach Simona's results?". it is "How much contamination there had to be for Simona's claim that this was accidental match the results of the samples obtained from her?".

by ponchi101

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:36 am ...
i have given up trying to understand it.. which is why I am advocating a simpler approach - either Nothing is Permitted or Everything is Permitted.. this arcane and complex analysis rewards only 'experts' and lawyers.. surely a waste of resources globally. If the 'experts' are any good, they would be better employed helping some sick people, as for the lawyers... nothing would make them better employed!

We have talked about that before. If EVERYTHING is permitted, you can rest assured that some countries will sponsor doping programs ala USSR, East Germany and China in the past, with possible (almost certain) damages to the health of many athletes.
And the rich athletes will get access to better quality doping, making it even more unfair.

There is a reason most athletes agree on doping control. They may not agree with the system, but I have yet to hear any athletes agreeing with the idea of "anything goes".

by meganfernandez

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:03 pm What they would need to do is to try to set up a baseline.
Get a sample and "lace it" with Roxadustat. Say, 10 mg of the drug. Then, give it to a test person, and just see how much is detected in the doping test. That way, they would now know that if Simona's test returned X mg of the drug, she would have had to have taken X amount of the initial dose. Running the test for the test person over several days would give you a baseline of the time the drug would remain in the system and what the half-life of the drug would be.
Then, if indeed they detected a concentration as high as 85 times higher than in the volunteer's urine, they would know how much the intake had to be. And from there, determining if that amount could be possibly ingested by accident or contamination would be based on at least some set of numerical data.
The question would be backwards. It is not "how much we have to contaminate the sample with to reach Simona's results?". it is "How much contamination there had to be for Simona's claim that this was accidental match the results of the samples obtained from her?".

thanks, that makes sense

by ashkor87 Then why not Nothing is Permitted..not even aspirin..would be good for everyone (full disclosure..I don't take even aspirin unless I am about to die..that hasn't happened yet,but could happen I grant)..why are some things allowed at all? even a pain killer can enhance performance!

by ti-amie The technology has to catch up to the dopers.

As soon as they said that there were problems with her blood passport it was over.

Meanwhile press in Romania is urging her to snitch on other possible dopers so she can return to play.

by ti-amie Another group caught out by this report.

by ponchi101

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:25 pm Then why not Nothing is Permitted..not even aspirin..would be good for everyone (full disclosure..I don't take even aspirin unless I am about to die..that hasn't happened yet,but could happen I grant)..why are some things allowed at all? even a pain killer can enhance performance!

Because that other extreme is also impossible to control. Define "nothing", in terms of PED. Coffee? It is certainly a stimulant. Tea? The same. If you ban caffeine, how about taurine? (the stuff in Red Bull). If you go by nothing, then you have to define "nothing". How about a player that early in the morning is having some gastric issues, and decides that s/he has time for a strong laxative, flush her/his system, and get ready for a night match. No doping there, certainly, but will the laxative be "nothing" or "something"?
Extremes are hard to control.

by ti-amie More on this Dr Alvarez of "Pamela" fame. This was posted by a fan on another site.

Alvarez submitted two reports of his Matrix methodology on the Keto MCT samples. The second report showed significantly lower concentrations of Roxadustat than the first report. He did this to try and prove to the Tribunal that Eichner’s SMRTL methodology wasn’t detecting Roxadustat because it couldn’t detect traces small enough. But then those lower values completely invalidated the contamination defence on the whole. Truly a self goal.

SMRTL is a highly respected Lab. Alvarez seems to have been making it up as things went on. His methodology is felt to be shaky at best and not submitted for peer review.

by meganfernandez

ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 10:27 pm More on this Dr Alvarez of "Pamela" fame. This was posted by a fan on another site.

Alvarez submitted two reports of his Matrix methodology on the Keto MCT samples. The second report showed significantly lower concentrations of Roxadustat than the first report. He did this to try and prove to the Tribunal that Eichner’s SMRTL methodology wasn’t detecting Roxadustat because it couldn’t detect traces small enough. But then those lower values completely invalidated the contamination defence on the whole. Truly a self goal.

SMRTL is a highly respected Lab. Alvarez seems to have been making it up as things went on. His methodology is felt to be shaky at best and not submitted for peer review.

Not disputing his general reputation, but fwiw, the method he used to test Simona's hair was peer-revieweed shortly after he did the test, which the SMRTL doc recognized in the report.

by ti-amie

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 11:18 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 10:27 pm More on this Dr Alvarez of "Pamela" fame. This was posted by a fan on another site.

Alvarez submitted two reports of his Matrix methodology on the Keto MCT samples. The second report showed significantly lower concentrations of Roxadustat than the first report. He did this to try and prove to the Tribunal that Eichner’s SMRTL methodology wasn’t detecting Roxadustat because it couldn’t detect traces small enough. But then those lower values completely invalidated the contamination defence on the whole. Truly a self goal.

SMRTL is a highly respected Lab. Alvarez seems to have been making it up as things went on. His methodology is felt to be shaky at best and not submitted for peer review.

Not disputing his general reputation, but fwiw, the method he used to test Simona's hair was peer-revieweed shortly after he did the test, which the SMRTL doc recognized in the report.

What was their conclusion?

by meganfernandez

ti-amie wrote:

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 11:18 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 10:27 pm More on this Dr Alvarez of "Pamela" fame. This was posted by a fan on another site.
SMRTL is a highly respected Lab. Alvarez seems to have been making it up as things went on. His methodology is felt to be shaky at best and not submitted for peer review.

Not disputing his general reputation, but fwiw, the method he used to test Simona's hair was peer-revieweed shortly after he did the test, which the SMRTL doc recognized in the report.

What was their conclusion?

I don’t know, it wasn’t in the report (as far as I read) but the SMRTL doctor acknowledged it. I should say it was published. That may or may not mean peer-reviewed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by ti-amie I read that it was published despite it never peer reviewed.

by meganfernandez

ti-amie wrote:I read that it was published despite it never peer reviewed.

Possibly. I just thought it was notable that the opposing scientist seemed to concede some credibility with the acknowledgement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by ti-amie Simona Halep: Why has two-time Grand Slam champion been banned from tennis for four years?
By Emily Salley & Jonathan Jurejko
BBC Sport
Last updated on15 September 202315 September 2023

Two-time Grand Slam champion Simona Halep has been banned for four years for breaches of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.

An independent tribunal determined the 31-year-old Romanian had committed "intentional" anti-doping violations.

Halep has always denied knowingly taking the banned substance Roxadustat.

She faced two charges: one for testing positive for Roxadustat and another for irregularities in her athlete biological passport.

The written reasons behind Halep's ban were released on Thursday. BBC Sport takes a look at the report's main findings.

What has Halep done?

Former world number one Halep tested positive for Roxadustat at the US Open in August 2022, leading to one of the most high-profile doping cases tennis has seen.

Roxadustat is used medically to treat anaemia - an iron deficiency which can cause fatigue.

The drug increases both the number of red blood cells and the amount of haemoglobin - a protein that carries oxygen in your body - found in those cells.

And having more oxygen in your body helps improve endurance and recovery.

She was given a provisional suspension when the failed test was announced in October 2022.

Halep said she had ingested Roxadustat unknowingly, arguing it was caused by contamination of a collagen supplement.

In May this year, a second charge was added after irregularities were found in her athlete biological passport (ABP).

The ABP programme collects and compares biological data to spot discrepancies in an athlete's blood over time that suggest possible doping.

Halep's defence suggested the irregularities spotted were caused by factors including blood loss during an operation and periods when she was not training.

What did the report find?

The report produced by an independent panel spanned 126 pages in which the complexity of the case was laid bare.

The conclusions centred around the two key areas: the alleged contamination of Roxadustat and the discrepancies in Halep's athlete blood passport.

The Roxadustat charges

The report concluded the collagen supplement taken by Halep - called Keto MCT - was contaminated with Roxadustat "on the balance of probability".

However, it also concluded there was another source of Roxadustat in the sample provided by Halep at the US Open on 29 August last year.

"If Halep did use contaminated Keto MCT as she describes, it could not have been the sole source of the Roxadustat detected," the report said.

Halep has "not been able to identify the source of the other Roxadustat".

The report said: "We recognise our conclusions involve a finding of something which in itself appears highly improbable; that around the same time in 2022, Ms Halep ingested Roxadustat from two entirely separate sources [the supplement and somewhere else].

"We should not and do not speculate on how the apparently highly unlikely coincidence of the two separate sources of Roxadustat came about. The evidence just does not tell us.

"All we can add here is that if we were to discard one or other of the conclusions [One being the MCT was contaminated, two being she took it from another source], it would be conclusion one. The evidence in support of conclusion [two] is too compellingly strong for that to be the one to give."

The ABP charge

The report said three experts had "a high degree of confidence" there was not an "innocent explanation" for the irregularities in Halep's athlete's biological passport (ABP) profile.

The three experts - Dr Jakob Morkeberg, Dr Laura Garvican-Lewis and Professor Giuseppe d'Onofrio - assessed 51 valid samples of Halep's blood and each concluded there was "likely doping".

Halep's defence - including blood loss during surgery and spells when she was inactive - was found not to be plausible.

The expert panel had a "strong opinion" the explanations provided by Halep could "not individually or collectively account for the abnormalities".

They concluded the possibility of blood manipulation was "high", adding it was "likely" to be a prohibited method.

The report says there are three well-known methods of blood doping: injecting erythropoietin (EPO) to stimulate red blood cells, infusing oxygen to increase haemoglobin, and transfusing blood to increase oxygen levels.

Why did she get four years?

The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), which is responsible for testing within the sport, asked for a six-year ban because of what they argued were "aggravating circumstances", believing Halep's doping was "repetitive and sophisticated".

It also believed she must have been using a prohibited substance or prohibited method from March 2022 at the latest.

The ITIA suggested Halep was blood doping in order to boost her performance at Wimbledon and the US Open last year.

The ITIA also asked for her results to be disqualified from 8 March 2022 through to her provisional suspension on 7 October 2022.

The report found it was not "comfortably satisfied" that Halep had been doping from March, even though there were "strong grounds for suspicion".

No samples of Halep's ABP were collected between March and August last year.

All of Halep's results from the US Open in 2022 - where she played her last match - have been disqualified, with the tribunal "comfortably satisfied" she had committed a doping violation at the tournament.

Halep has stated her intention to appeal against the tribunal's decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

If she is to avoid a four-year ban from tennis, she has to prove "on the balance of probability" that her use of Roxadustat from another source was not intentional.

Why did Halep start using the supplement?

Halep, who has always denied knowingly taking Roxadustat, said the positive result came as the "biggest shock of her life" when her provisional suspension was announced in October 2022.

She said she had never heard of Roxadustat until then.

In her statement presented to the independent tribunal, Halep said the Keto MCT supplement had been recommended by her physiotherapist Candice Gohier to help with nasal problems.

She described how she checked with Gohier and coach Patrick Mouratoglou that Keto MCT was safe to use, with both of them agreeing it was after checking the supplement's listed ingredients.

Gohier got the supplement on the advice of Frederic Lefebvre, the director of physical preparation at Mouratoglou's academy.

Halep said she started using Keto MCT in the middle of August 2022, and used it for five days between 23 and 28 August - one day before the US Open, where she suffered an unexpected first-round exit.

However, Halep did not disclose the Keto MCT supplement on her Doping Control Form for the urine sample that tested positive on 29 August and she also did not mention it in an interview with the ITIA on 26 October.

At June's hearing, Halep said she had forgotten about it on both occasions.


https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/66805953

by ti-amie

by ti-amie More details

There were three previous positive samples.

Sample 2 (Apr 16, 2014) - taken approx 4 weeks after Miami Open
Sample 19 (Jul 24, 2017) - taken approx 4 weeks after Eastbourne (Wimbledon tuneup)
Sample 23 (May 23, 2018) - taken approx 4 weeks after Stuttgart (sample later deemed invalid in JE1)
Sample 48 (Sept 22, 2022) - taken approx 4 weeks after US Open

There was not enough data to make comparisons to the 2014 and 2017 samples

Information is in paragraphs 339 and 371 of the ITIA report (pages 105, 118 -119)

From a fansite:
The deadline for cost submissions was yesterday so the ITIA is going to update the last two pages when they decide how to divide the costs of this affair. Once the document is updated the decision will be officially finalized and Simona will have 21 days to file her appeal at CAS.

Sigh. I don't think any tennis fan can be happy about how long she's been doping.

by texasniteowl I am a bit out of the loop...haven't been following closely. Were the previous 3 positives for the same substance or different substances?

by meganfernandez

ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 11:50 pm More details

There were three previous positive samples.

Sample 2 (Apr 16, 2014) - taken approx 4 weeks after Miami Open
Sample 19 (Jul 24, 2017) - taken approx 4 weeks after Eastbourne (Wimbledon tuneup)
Sample 23 (May 23, 2018) - taken approx 4 weeks after Stuttgart (sample later deemed invalid in JE1)
Sample 48 (Sept 22, 2022) - taken approx 4 weeks after US Open

There was not enough data to make comparisons to the 2014 and 2017 samples

Information is in paragraphs 339 and 371 of the ITIA report (pages 105, 118 -119)

From a fansite:
The deadline for cost submissions was yesterday so the ITIA is going to update the last two pages when they decide how to divide the costs of this affair. Once the document is updated the decision will be officially finalized and Simona will have 21 days to file her appeal at CAS.

Sigh. I don't think any tennis fan can be happy about how long she's been doping.

Was she suspended for the other positive samples?

by ti-amie There was not enough data for those. I could be wrong but to me it means they had nothing to compare the samples to. If she had enough roxa in her system to make everyone sit up and take notice four weeks after the US Open I don't know what to say.

The link to the report is upthread. You can scroll through to the pages I indicated. If she was testing positive back in 2014 all I can do is smh.

by meganfernandez

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 1:13 am There was not enough data for those. I could be wrong but to me it means they had nothing to compare the samples to. If she had enough roxa in her system to make everyone sit up and take notice four weeks after the US Open I don't know what to say.

The link to the report is upthread. You can scroll through to the pages I indicated. If she was testing positive back in 2014 all I can do is smh.

Why do they need to compare the presence of a banned substance to anything? It's banned, it's there, that's a violation. I don't understand why previous positive tests weren't punished. So strange.

If there wasn't enough data, does that undercut the credibility of the positive test?

All rhetorical. It sounds complicated. And it also looks damning.

by ponchi101 Because even banned substances have a lower threshold. You can test positive for marihuana but if the level is so low by now, for example, somebody in Colorado could claim that they were just next to somebody smoking.
My $0.02. Only way that makes sense to me.

by ti-amie The man who owns the company that makes the supplement Halep is saying was contaminated has spoken with Romanian press.

This is a fan translation from another site.

They interviewed Kostas Koveos. He says there has been no lawsuit filed. He says that Alvarez’s tests are “ questionable” and denies that the supplement was contaminated. He blames Simona for leaking the company’s ID to press. He said Keto MCT With Marine Collagen was first produced in 2018 and has expiry date of 3 years. He says it was produced more than once. Quantum Nutrition Inc donated $25,000 to Tennis Canada.

Here is the link to the Romanian article.

https://www.gsp.ro/gsp-ro/gsp-special/i ... 12707.html

by meganfernandez

ponchi101 wrote:Because even banned substances have a lower threshold. You can test positive for marihuana but if the level is so low by now, for example, somebody in Colorado could claim that they were just next to somebody smoking.
My $0.02. Only way that makes sense to me.

So she tested positive but not by enough to be considered a violation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by mmmm8

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:23 am From the Guardian: As part of the case, a woman of a similar height and stature was given the same amount of Keto MCT as Halep [took] before her positive test. However the control study found that the values of the banned drug in Halep’s urine test were between “46 and 85 times higher” than in the highest value of the volunteer’s urine.

My question: how was there Roxadustat in the MCT that the woman took for the investigation? Was it manufactured that way just for this test? Doubtful, so where did it come from? The same batch as Halep’s medicine? They were able to get some months later? And if they did bake it up for the test, how did they know how much Roxadustat to put in it? They would have had to know how much was in Halep’s contaminated sample.

I don’t get this at all.

This is just weird to me - you can't claim any valid result with a sample size of 1 person? People's metabolism differs widely, just because someone is the same height and weight doesn't mean their body works exactly the same. How is this scientifically significant?

(Not saying their conclusion is wrong on theory, just don't see how this "experiment" is useful?)

by ti-amie I think Halep was throwing so much innuendo around that they tried to do every possible test to counter her accusations.

I could be wrong (I'm not now or have ever been in the medical profession) but I think this is how they do tests for any kind of medicine that will be given to the general public; the placebo vs real medicine kind of test.

by mmmm8

ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 6:48 pm I think Halep was throwing so much innuendo around that they tried to do every possible test to counter her accusations.

I could be wrong (I'm not now or have ever been in the medical profession) but I think this is how they do tests for any kind of medicine that will be given to the general public; the placebo vs real medicine kind of test.

Yes, but on a statistically significant sample, not a random person with the same height whose metabolism and other functions may be affected by other medical conditions or medications or just nature.

by ti-amie

by ashkor87 I have no faith at all in these biological passport thingies.. science does not yet understand the fine details of how the body works.. it doesnt mean much, in my opinion. It should not be given so much weight.

by ashkor87 Before I am called unscientific, let me also point out - it is not unscientific to be skeptical, it is unscientific to accept findings without questioning them. To use a cliche, I wouldn't hang a dog on the basis of such a report..I would need a witness or something more solid to pronounce Halep guilty

by ponchi101 So, you would need to have somebody come and say: "I saw Simona Halep take PED's, on such date, and it was this drug, and it was this amount".
How scientific would that be?
Nobody claims we know how the human body works WITH 100% ACCURACY. But that is not what it is being asked here. The question is: Were amounts of a certain set of drugs found in a sample of Simona Halep's blood? If the tests are reliable, and they come back positive, then the answer is yes.
And they do have a very large sample base. Basically, all the athletes in the world that are subject to drug testing.
You can question all findings; that is valid. But when all the questions have been answered and you are still questioning...

by ti-amie Ben Rothenberg
@BenRothenberg
·
Jul 19
Just asked Halep’s lawyer Howard Jacobs about the CAS decision still remaining unpublished and got a quick reply: