Just seen this via twitter: https://www.velonews.com/news/cyclocross/usada-katie-compton-accepts-four-year-ban-after-testing-positive-for-anabolic-agent/

A sad way to end what had seemed to be a great career. She was so outspoken about the Betsema case a couple of years back, I do wonder if her protestations are true. However at the time she was (I think) saying it was always down to the athlete even if unintentional so I guess she’s not got a leg to stand on.

edit. Tweet from KfC regading the Betsema case:

Nope, wouldn’t have changed my response. Not her fault isn’t an excuse and I’m tired of hearing the same thing from every athlete with a positive dope test. Every clean athlete is over it. Something needs to change.

— Katie Compton (@KatieFnCompton) January 21, 2020

Its interesting that all those caught doping always say they “accidentally” took something. I wonder if any of us has accidentally taken something then ?

Are these banned substances just everywhere and in everything then ? Or do you have to be using dodgy stuff bought off the internet and only sold to special athletes, or prescribed by special doctors ?

I wonder if any of us has accidentally taken something then ?

I think it would depend on the exact drug but potentially yes especially if you take diet/sports supplements.
Its why some sell a couple of ranges with one being tested to a higher standard than the consumer range to try and ensure its safe.

OK, so its not rocket science to stick to the tried and tested versions then.

So if a pro gets busted using a version that’s super tested, they would have sued that company by now. So it still seems odd they manage to put the wrong things in themselves.

The usual murkiness and intrigue surrounding the story, why did the testers re-test a supposedly negative sample months later?

Would tgat suggest a tip-off e.g. test it again but look for X this time?

Or is that par for the course as testing methodology develops?

Was impressed with her statement (I think), seemed very candid and not too many excuses, but she’s created a sticky wicket for herself with previous stance on ‘accidental’ doping.

So if a pro gets busted using a version that’s super tested, they would have sued that company by now

Her argument was that it would cost too much/take too long to prove/settle any sort of case.

I think it would depend on the exact drug but potentially yes especially if you take diet/sports supplements.
Its why some sell a couple of ranges with one being tested to a higher standard than the consumer range to try and ensure its safe.

I know some supplements proclaim that they’re tested. But surely these companies arent accidentally dropping $$$$$ of steroids into their £10/kg whey protein and not advertising it. They’d go bankrupt, as there’s nothing in it for them (extra sales) unless they advertise it.

Even the more borderline stuff (legal, but perhapse shouldn’t be) like Ecdyesterone, you’d expect the companies to be selling you that, mixed with bulking material, anti cakeing agents, flavourings etc. Not expensive steroids.

Much more likely “accident” would be to buy some acne cream without thinking that turned out to be a prohibited steroid. Wasn’t there something in Vicks inhalers years ago in some markets but not others that got people into trouble?

I hope she has a strong support network who step up

Are these banned substances just everywhere and in everything then ? Or do you have to be using dodgy stuff bought off the internet and only sold to special athletes, or prescribed by special doctors ?

Roid and hormone ravaged beef is the usual get out isn’t it.

Skiier Alain Baxter was stripped of a medal after using the wrong version of a Vicks inhaler. Those bought in the UK were fine but he needed one while abroad and didn’t check that the ingredients were identical.

I know some supplements proclaim that they’re tested.

Wasn’t this the reason/excuse Ritchie Rude gave as well? Took a drink from a fellow competitor, didn’t realise the supplement in the drink had banned substances in it? Shocked to hear of this though given her statements in the past. I have a mix of feeling sorry for her and doubts about her previous accomplishments at the same time .

I am just shocked you lot buy the ‘tainted supplement’ story. It’s complete nonsense wrapped up in a blanket of barely-plausible deniability so her friends (and sponsors/team) have something to justify a continuing relationship.

Maybe she unknowing took it on a visit to Salisbury to see the 123 meter high spire on the cathedral?

There’s an on-going thread on an American cycling forum – quelle surprise! A mixture of views but one thing that stood out was that if anyone ate regular American beef then you’d likely fail a drugs test due to the growth hormones used. Similar to the supplements, you have to go to the “premium” beef to avoid that.

Food and supplements and legal medicines are a minefield. There was a case at the winter olympics a few years ago where a British snowboarder tested positive. It turned out his inhaler had run out so he’d bought the same brand locally. Except the US/Canadian version contained a banned substance whereas the UK/EU one didn’t. (Edit: Scotroutes beat me to it)

If anyone of us were tested then it’s highly likely that we’d fail even though it’s just as likely that we’d never “taken anything”. There’s just so much stuff in common foodstuffs. I’m trying to remember when I actually last took any medicine, even something like Aspirin, it’s probably at least a year. Even so it’s more probable that I’d fail a drugs test than pass.

I am just shocked you lot buy the ‘tainted supplement’ story.

I was just answering the question about the possibility of any of us using a restricted substance. With supplements and off the shelf medicines its certainly isnt impossible.
Its specifically blocked as an excuse for pros to avoid them deliberately using those supplements and medicines.

Reading the statement all I could think was that Lance Armstrong could have wrote it.

The usual murkiness and intrigue surrounding the story, why did the testers re-test a supposedly negative sample months later?

Would tgat suggest a tip-off e.g. test it again but look for X this time?

Or is that par for the course as testing methodology develops?

It was re-tested due to a biological passport anomaly. So presumably enough of the substance was taken to have a measureable impact.

I can’t see how an anabolic steroid “accidentally” ended up in something she was taking, like everything it seriously questions her entire (15 US CX Nat. titles) career, ‘cos we all know dopers only ever accidentally take something once 😀

I can perhaps understand how a supplement could be tainted by a stimulant, that are produced and used in other supplements used by gym bros. But anabolics etc would be produced in totally different processes and factories/labs to protein powders etc

but one thing that stood out was that if anyone ate regular American beef then you’d likely fail a drugs test due to the growth hormones used.

And probably coming to a supermarket near you thanks to Brexit

It was re-tested due to a biological passport anomaly. So presumably enough of the substance was taken to have a measureable impact.

It sounds like they did a different sort of test on the same sample. I.e. they can do tests looking for the substance itself (probably an ELISA, I dunno), but the “Carbon Isotope Ratio test” (I hadn’t heard of it until this thread) is a different thing and apparently really expensive ($400-700 per sample) so they presumably use it sparingly and only when they have a suspicion.

I like the idea that samples can be re-tested months (years?) later. It means cheaters can be identified by hitherto undeveloped methods. Although it sounds like the Carbon Isotope Ratio test has actually been around for a while – it was apparently what did for Floyd Landis.

I don’t know anything about Katie Compton so won’t comment on her but in principle I honestly believe it would be very, very, easy to accidentally take something that is banned. Especially over the course of an entire career.

The main issue I have with the article is the use of “winningest”. Not a valid word in my book.

her partner thinks its a stich up

but in principle I honestly believe it would be very, very, easy to accidentally take something that is banned

Personally not so sure.

In my judgment you’ve a choice between deliberate action, deliberate inaction (not checking is deliberate when you know your career hinges on it) or malicious action by a third party.

If it were that easy to do it by accident when you’re actively trying not to the whole field would be failing multiple times over their career, whether that’s because “oh tainted beef” or “my monster energy isn’t tested rigourously enough”.

This as I understand it, is Kc’s previous point, you don’t do it by accident, you do it by being lazy or looking the other way.

If in this case for example there turns out to be a bad batch of supplement then there will be a lot of retesting and a lot of failing to come, KC will not have been the only one taking it if it was genuinely believed to be clean.

^ I agree. Your career and reputation and money depends on it. So you only use what you know you can use and stick to it.

The main issue I have with the article is the use of “winningest”. Not a valid word in my book.

@joeydeacon Try to shake off your Little Englander 😉 It’s a perfectly cromulent word, in US English (and has been in use for 50 years or so!)

It was re-tested due to a biological passport anomaly.

This I guess is the key issue as there was enough of a suspicion to re-test. It wasn’t a random thing.

Will be interesting to see what Mark Legg says later (ref. post ^), but if they’ve spent some time trying to prove innocence already and failed I guess nothing with substance (pun unintentional!).

Its a real shame, she’s been such an icon of women’s ‘cross, whatever happens now her career has a question next to it.

I feel he hasn’t got a legg to stand on tbh

Very Cromulent comment.

Personally not so sure.

In my judgment you’ve a choice between deliberate action, deliberate inaction (not checking is deliberate when you know your career hinges on it) or malicious action by a third party.

Failing to check something is not a “deliberate inaction” though. It’s an omission. The omission is still the fault of the individual but you can’t describe it as deliberate.

There was an example given up there^^^ of somebody who purchased an inhaler in a foreign country and then received a ban after it transpired the inhaler, despite being the same brand as his/her regular one had different ingredients- unfortunately, one of which was banned.

We can expect most people to take reasonable and due care most of the time but over the course of a career there is always going to be instances where its not taken- e.g. if someone has an asthma attack in a foreign country and purchases an inhaler at short notice which matches their usual brand. This seems like a hugely narrow margin on which to taint/end somebody’s career or legacy.

I don’t know what the answer is though as I agree that its a handy excuse for deliberate dopers-in fact, I think such excuses are indeed well-used?

Uh-oh, have just realised I’ve been applying steroidal excema cream to our 4 year old’s elbow, is that my CX career up in smoke?

From reading a different article, it sounds as though it was a synthetic hormone that was detected and Compton was given the chance to appoint an ‘expert’ to determine the source and could not explain the presence of the steroid. They don’t hand out 4 year bans for tainted supplements.

Supplements are contaminated through a different supplement being made on the same equipment and things not being sufficiently cleaned. It certainly happens…. HOWEVER…. it’s common knowledge it happens and there are lists of independently tested supplements (including batch etc) which are freely available and athletes are advised to take those. And also to save the packets etc, so that the supplement can be tested in exactly this scenario.

Ultimately athletes are responsible for what goes into their body, and the risks around supplements are very commonly known together with the suggested mitigations.

Is that tweet from her partner legit?

There’s no sign of it now and the profile picture is different from the current one. The one cached on google is the current one on his profile as well which makes me think it’s either fake or it’s from a while ago and relates to something else.

Is that tweet from her partner legit?

It’s a Facebook post.

The profile photo matches and it’s still there

Ah, I’d forgotten about FB.

Looks like he’s put his update there

Katie was tested in September 2020 using the last ball bearing bottle aka the Beringer bottle which was taken out of use due the Icarus documentary on Russians swapping out urine samples which came back negative. This contrasts what USADA have stated. In earlyJ anuary I contacted an ant-doping agency regarding issues in Cyclocross ans a comprised UCI member. We had a video conference with the agency while we were in Belgium on January 19th. Hours after the call a lab in LA started re-testing Katie’s Sept sample that had previously been declared negative. The result of the retest was positive for exogenous testerone. We received news of this test mid-Feb. We were devastated and confused. Katie used the same supplements all season and was tested as usual in and out of Competition with no issues. We’re now both taking anti-depressants to cope with the mental stress. We’ve both had depression and suicidal thoughts over the past months. Fortunately we sort help for our mental struggles. We hired lawyers and fought this as hard as we could afforf until we couldn’t keep throwing money at a hopeless situation.

Another pathetic, delusional liar.
You doped, you got caught.

Supplements are contaminated through a different supplement being made on the same equipment and things not being sufficiently cleaned. It certainly happens…. HOWEVER…. it’s common knowledge it happens and there are lists of independently tested supplements (including batch etc) which are freely available and athletes are advised to take those. And also to save the packets etc, so that the supplement can be tested in exactly this scenario.

Yea, I just don’t buy that.

Let’s assume Michele Ferrari prescribes you some intravenous vitamin supplements and they’re legit.

They’re going to be made in a GMP facility. There’ll be acid washes, alkaline washes, deionised water washes, steam outs, and a myriad of other steps between batches.

There just isn’t going to be a shitload of testosterone leftover in the pipe by accident when they start mixing up your intravenous Berocca.

And your SIS energy gell isn’t even going to be made in the same building.

Uh-oh, have just realised I’ve been applying steroidal excema cream to our 4 year old’s elbow, is that my CX career up in smoke?

I think that’s your 4 year old’s CX career up in smoke if they were planning on racing for a trade team this season.