Question about Lance's EPO retro-test

[David L. Johnson]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:25:56 -0400, jj wrote:

> Common sense says doubtful any samples from Lance still exist with the
> above criteria; proper storage; concurrent storage of standards; chain of
> custody..

"Proper storage" brings up another question. As I understood it, the test
looks for differing Ph levels between the recombinant EPO produced as the
drug, versus the EPO produced in the body. These samples were stored in
frozen urine for 5 years. Couldn't that affect the results?

Also, since half a dozen other samples tested positive, why is it that
only Lance's could be identified?

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Fred]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jj wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:36:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What struck me about all the replies in the thread was that I didn't
>>>> see even one post that acknowledged that the results quoted were from
>>>> *validation* tests.
>
> Then Bob hasn't been following the full thread.
>
>>> 1) Was it actually Lance's sample?
>>
>> From a sample in the freezer to a number on a result sheet there is
>> potential for, say writing the info on the wrong line, or pipetting
>> sample 4 into sample 5's cuvette. To do that several times seems
>> unlikely, but that's why there's and A and B sample.
>
> It appears there's sufficient B sample left to re-do the existing tests as
> well as to do a DNA test. The deeper issue is that, while re-doing tests
> on the B sample takes care of the identification problem, it does not
> eliminate any problem that may have occurred post-collection (like
> contamination or tampering or degradation).
>

Are they actually finding EPO or rather just a pattern of something or other
that is supposed to be a representation of it?

 

[Fred]

"Pierre-Georges" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The rationalizations and logical and ethical gymnastics in this thread and
> the US media trying the somehow justify this now proven use of a banned
> performance enhancing drug are astounding. EPO is worse than steroids. EPO
> guarantees significant performance gains without even needing to build up
> muscle. You get the EPO injection, and 6 weeks later once a full cycle of
> red blood cells production has taken place, you have as high a hematocrit
> as you can get away with.
>

A kangaroo court is not proof. This revelation should be coming from an
official sports organization representing the UCI, or WADA or some body like
that, and only after proper deliberation and investigation. That it came
from some tabloid without even pondering what they are looking at and why,
gives it no credibility.

 

[Robert Chung]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:25:56 -0400, jj wrote:
>
>> Common sense says doubtful any samples from Lance still exist with the
>> above criteria; proper storage; concurrent storage of standards; chain
>> of custody..
>
> "Proper storage" brings up another question. As I understood it, the
> test looks for differing Ph levels between the recombinant EPO produced
> as the drug, versus the EPO produced in the body. These samples were
> stored in frozen urine for 5 years. Couldn't that affect the results?

Yes, but the effect would be to make EPO less detectable.

> Also, since half a dozen other samples tested positive, why is it that
> only Lance's could be identified?

Not only Armstrong's could be identified. L'Equipe says that it will
reveal the others in a subsequent article. That's chickenshit.
Nonetheless, it appears possible to identify three of the other positives
from other information.

 

[Robert Chung]

Fred wrote:

> Are they actually finding EPO or rather just a pattern of something or
> other that is supposed to be a representation of it?

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2004epo_en.pdf

 

[Pierre-Georges]

"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pierre-Georges" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The rationalizations and logical and ethical gymnastics in this thread
>> and the US media trying the somehow justify this now proven use of a
>> banned performance enhancing drug are astounding. EPO is worse than
>> steroids. EPO guarantees significant performance gains without even
>> needing to build up muscle. You get the EPO injection, and 6 weeks later
>> once a full cycle of red blood cells production has taken place, you have
>> as high a hematocrit as you can get away with.
>>
>
> A kangaroo court is not proof. This revelation should be coming from an
> official sports organization representing the UCI, or WADA or some body
> like that, and only after proper deliberation and investigation. That it
> came from some tabloid without even pondering what they are looking at and
> why, gives it no credibility.
>
>
>

L'Equipe is hardly a cheap tabloid as most people understand that word.
L'Equipe should be congratulated for practicing some real journalism. This
is pretty rare these days, Most reporting today is merely repeating what was
spoon-fed at official press conferences.
Pierre

 

[Fritz M]

Roger Zoul wrote:

> Hmm....I have some big rides coming up over the next couple of
> months....where can I get some EPO?

Local to me (Longmont, Boulder County Colorado USA) is an Amgen plant
that manufactures synthetic EPO.

Out of 600 employees at the plant, about 100 are members of the company
cycling club. Coincidence?

Another interesting coincidence is that many club rides out of Boulder
just happen to go on Airport Road through Longmont, right in front of
the Amgen EPO factory.

I think we should have some of L'Equipe's crack investigative
journalists come check this scandal out.

RFM

 

[Pat]

:
: > Common sense says doubtful any samples from Lance still exist with the
: > above criteria; proper storage; concurrent storage of standards; chain
of
: > custody..
:
: "Proper storage" brings up another question. As I understood it, the test
: looks for differing Ph levels between the recombinant EPO produced as the
: drug, versus the EPO produced in the body. These samples were stored in
: frozen urine for 5 years. Couldn't that affect the results?
:
: Also, since half a dozen other samples tested positive, why is it that
: only Lance's could be identified?
:
: --
:
: David L. Johnson

I had a doctor's visit today, so I asked him about this and he said that it
would degrade after being in storage for awhile and he doubted any valid
test was possible.

Pat in TX

 

[Pete]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I had a doctor's visit today, so I asked him about this and he said that
> it
> would degrade after being in storage for awhile and he doubted any valid
> test was possible.
>
> Pat in TX
>

Your doctor needs to stick to medicine. What the test measures would degrade
to a negative finding, not a positive.

 

[gds]

Pat wrote:
> :
> I had a doctor's visit today, so I asked him about this and he said that it
> would degrade after being in storage for awhile and he doubted any valid
> test was possible.
>

Not commenting on the underlying question - but why do you think that
your "doctor" is an expert on the latest in lab testing for EPO? My
guess is that there is more discussion here than in the medical
journals he would be reading.

 

[Bob the Cow]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Your understanding of the hematocrit test is....too simple. The hematocrit
> level can *not* be used to prove EPO use since it can vary both naturally
> and in response to legal methods (like living at altitude or sleeping in
> an altitude tent).

Smoking is another way to raise your hematocrit.

 

[dgk]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:29:09 -0500, "Bob the Cow" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Your understanding of the hematocrit test is....too simple. The hematocrit
>> level can *not* be used to prove EPO use since it can vary both naturally
>> and in response to legal methods (like living at altitude or sleeping in
>> an altitude tent).
>
>Smoking is another way to raise your hematocrit.
>
I doubt that Lance is a smoker.

 

[plew@csus_abcdefg.edu]

On 2005-08-30, dgk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:29:09 -0500, "Bob the Cow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Your understanding of the hematocrit test is....too simple. The hematocrit
>>> level can *not* be used to prove EPO use since it can vary both naturally
>>> and in response to legal methods (like living at altitude or sleeping in
>>> an altitude tent).
>>
>>Smoking is another way to raise your hematocrit.
>>
> I doubt that Lance is a smoker.

"second hand" smoke? like what the anti-cigarette people say?

 

[Robert Uhl]

dgk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Smoking is another way to raise your hematocrit.
>
> I doubt that Lance is a smoker.

I doubt that he smokes cigarettes, but it wouldn't surprise me if he
smoked the occasional cigar without inhaling. I don't think that a
non-inhaling athlete would hurt his performance much if at all anyway.

The major bad side effect (for sports) of tobacco use is supposed to be
on the lungs--if the smoke doesn't enter 'em it can't hurt 'em.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
There's only so many cookies one can pull out of a floppy drive before
losing faith in mankind.

 

[gds]

Robert Uhl wrote:
>.
>
> The major bad side effect (for sports) of tobacco use is supposed to be
> on the lungs--if the smoke doesn't enter 'em it can't hurt 'em.
>
So, assuming that one needs to breath, and that the air that one
breathes comes from the same general area as the (non inhaled) cigar;
just how would one not get smoke into their lungs?

 

[Robert Uhl]

"gds" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The major bad side effect (for sports) of tobacco use is supposed to
>> be on the lungs--if the smoke doesn't enter 'em it can't hurt 'em.
>
> So, assuming that one needs to breath, and that the air that one
> breathes comes from the same general area as the (non inhaled) cigar;
> just how would one not get smoke into their lungs?

It's not nearly as strongly concentrated, and thus not nearly as harmful
(I'd not be surprised if it's exponentially less so). Moreover, I've a
sneaking suspicion that it's the larger particles in smoke which cause
the most trouble, and that these fall out of the air more quickly.

See, for example, the difference in cancer rates between inhalers and
non-inhalers. Cigarette smokers (almost all inhalers) die ten years or
so before non-smokers; cigar smokers (split) die two years before
non-smokers; pipe smokers (almost all non-inhalers) die six months
_after_ non-smokers. There could be other factors at play, of course.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
It was then I realized how dire my medical situation was. Here I was, a
network admin, unable to leave, and here was someone with a broken network.
And they didn't ask me to fix it. They didn't even try to casually pry a
hint out of me. --Ryan Tucker

 

[gds]

Robert Uhl wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> See, for example, the difference in cancer rates between inhalers and
> non-inhalers. Cigarette smokers (almost all inhalers) die ten years or
> so before non-smokers; cigar smokers (split) die two years before
> non-smokers; pipe smokers (almost all non-inhalers) die six months
> _after_ non-smokers. There could be other factors at play, of course.
>
I'm surprised by your pipe smoking figure. It differs from what I've
seen. But in any case with smoking there is lots of morbidity data that
may even outweigh the mortality data. And you referenced athletic
performance not death. I think few now doubt the strong negative effect
of second hand smoke.