Serious concerns over urinary EPO test

[Eldrack]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/epotest_problems

An interesting read. Fortunately a new EPO test has been developed that addresses some of the concerns about the old one:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep05news2

 

[bobke]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/epotest_problems

An interesting read. Fortunately a new EPO test has been developed that addresses some of the concerns about the old one:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep05news2

Yes, the EPO test is unreliable.
We must have read different articles.
The one I read indicated that most of the concerns listed by the independent scientists have NOT been addressed.
Lance is innocent.
So is Tyler.
**** Pound is a worthless lawyer who knows nothing about science.

Rock on in the free world

 

[JohnO]

Well, hang on a minute... I hate to bring this up, but have to mention it...

If Lance registers a false positive on his 1999 Tour samples, then why didn't he also register a false positive in 2000-2005? Something doesn't sound right there. Which leads to...

One bit of information that has not been confirmed (and requested by the UCI, by the way) is exactly what testing procedure was used in the 98-99 Tour experiment? Before, the assumption was that it was the existing EPO test that LNDD has patented, but now there is reason to doubt that, with all of the talk about flaws and 2 dimensional tests. If LNDD used the old EPO test, which was known to be flawed at the time the experiment was started, then what was the purpose of the experiment? Publishing those results is despicable - the test is under a cloud of suspicion. If L'Equipe was at all diligent in their 'research', they would have known that - Peltre and Thormann's report was a public document. If it was a new test, then leaking the results is doubly despicable - the test hasn't been verified for accuracy.

And despite what Pound says, WADA may well be held financially accountable for false positives, especially if they had reason to doubt the test. If they proceed with reckless disregard, by accusing based on a test that their own experts were doubting, they are accoutable for the financial losses that the athletes suffer.

 

[bobke]

Well, hang on a minute... I hate to bring this up, but have to mention it...

If Lance registers a false positive on his 1999 Tour samples, then why didn't he also register a false positive in 2000-2005? Something doesn't sound right there. Which leads to...

One bit of information that has not been confirmed (and requested by the UCI, by the way) is exactly what testing procedure was used in the 98-99 Tour experiment? Before, the assumption was that it was the existing EPO test that LNDD has patented, but now there is reason to doubt that, with all of the talk about flaws and 2 dimensional tests. If LNDD used the old EPO test, which was known to be flawed at the time the experiment was started, then what was the purpose of the experiment? Publishing those results is despicable - the test is under a cloud of suspicion. If L'Equipe was at all diligent in their 'research', they would have known that - Peltre and Thormann's report was a public document. If it was a new test, then leaking the results is doubly despicable - the test hasn't been verified for accuracy.

And despite what Pound says, WADA may well be held financially accountable for false positives, especially if they had reason to doubt the test. If they proceed with reckless disregard, by accusing based on a test that their own experts were doubting, they are accoutable for the financial losses that the athletes suffer.

The 2000-2005 tests didnt register false positives because the tests were done according to strict control by UCI/WADA. Actually the 2000 ones were tested probably by the same lab but done so not as part of routine doping control but as part of a police investigation.

Or because they were really his urine, unlike 1999
or because no one spiked the urines
or because no one changed the numbers on the samples or sheets
or because he doped in 1999
or because he wasnt using masking agents in 1999 and sis afterwards
or because the tests doesnt work 6 years later
or the protocol wasnt followed
a different protocol was used
the test is unreliable

a lot of possibilities...

honey, can you reach over and turn off the lighjt

 

[musette]

The EPO test is fundamentally flawed, as I argued when the L'Equipe article was originally published. I made almost all of the arguments in this forum that are described by that expert in the cyclingnews article. False positives have been demonstated on multiple occasions to occur. That's why the French lab had to get samples of urine to test how the test could be improved upon -- because the existing test was FLAWED.

 

[whiteboytrash]

The EPO test is fundamentally flawed, as I argued when the L'Equipe article was originally published. I made almost all of the arguments in this forum that are described by that expert in the cyclingnews article. False positives have been demonstated on multiple occasions to occur. That's why the French lab had to get samples of urine to test how the test could be improved upon -- because the existing test was FLAWED.

Cheers, could you let Chris Sheppard know ? First step deny everything, why didn't he do this ? Everyone else did..... (oh, could you tell the 27 Chinese atheletes who have tested positive, the 19 cyclists who have test positive and admitted its use and the 19 track athletes whilst you're at it?)

Chris Sheppard, the Canadian national mountain bike representative given a two-year suspension after he was found to have evidence of recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) in his system, has admitted that after 17 years of racing clean, he "gave in during hard times".

Sheppard stated via his lawyers that, "Point blank I wish to acknowledge I cheated; I'm not trying to raise sympathy, nor have people feel sorry for me. Cycling is a tough sport and after years of racing clean and pointing the finger, I gave in during hard times. I wanted what was taken away from me - years of hard work culminating in a solid season that ended with an accident and my spiral into depression."

 

[tcklyde]

Meanwhile, at least four riders have been excluded from World Championship events because of blood problems.

The people denying doping tests are beginning to sound like creationists: the science is wrong! We must just take the cheaters at their word! If these cyclists don't mind cheating in the first place, they certainly won't mind lying about it later.

It's ridiculous. The sport will never get clean if athletes don't stop preying on the loyalties of their fans and the fans don't stop caring more about their athletes than the sport itself.

 

[musette]

Again, your reasoning does not focus on the key question of whether the EPO urinary test is FREE FROM FALSE POSITIVES, a point which I naturally made early on (with many cases of false positives). Trying to distract readers is again a futile tactic.

 

[JohnO]

I will confess to granting LA the benefit of the doubt - he got me back on a bike. Even so, the current EPO test seems to have a few problems, and problems that have been known to WADA for some time.

I don't think anyone wants doping. But that doesn't mean that the sport should be handed over to every muttonhead with a patent for a drug test, either. Those involved with the anti doping effort should be held to the same standards as the athletes - the consequences of a doping accusation (true or otherwise) are devastating to a cycling career. This is about stopping doping, not generating the greatest number of accusations.

What is most concerning is WADA's stewardship of the EPO test. Just listen to them: We certified the test in 2000, but oops, our own experts found it capable of producing false positives in 2003. Not to worry, we'll get a better test in 2005, after quite a few people have been suspended based on the current faulty test's results, and get that damned report off our website before someone notices it. That's a rather casual attitude towards a test that can wreck an athlete's future.

Somewhat like a cyclist saying, sure I have a problem with doping, maybe I'll fix it in a coupe of years, after I've won some races.

 

[davidbod]

I will confess to granting LA the benefit of the doubt - he got me back on a bike. Even so, the current EPO test seems to have a few problems, and problems that have been known to WADA for some time.

I don't think anyone wants doping. But that doesn't mean that the sport should be handed over to every muttonhead with a patent for a drug test, either. Those involved with the anti doping effort should be held to the same standards as the athletes - the consequences of a doping accusation (true or otherwise) are devastating to a cycling career. This is about stopping doping, not generating the greatest number of accusations.

What is most concerning is WADA's stewardship of the EPO test. Just listen to them: We certified the test in 2000, but oops, our own experts found it capable of producing false positives in 2003. Not to worry, we'll get a better test in 2005, after quite a few people have been suspended based on the current faulty test's results, and get that damned report off our website before someone notices it. That's a rather casual attitude towards a test that can wreck an athlete's future.

Somewhat like a cyclist saying, sure I have a problem with doping, maybe I'll fix it in a coupe of years, after I've won some races.

Not to mention the fact that the head of WADA has a history of making public statements against athletes prior to any due process for the athlete. Also Pound seems a whole lot more interested in nailing an athlete depite the fact that his agencies process for protecting athletes from wrongfull persecution and protecting to keep the doping control above repproach is in shambles.

 

[thebluetrain]

Not to mention the fact that the head of WADA has a history of making public statements against athletes prior to any due process for the athlete. Also Pound seems a whole lot more interested in nailing an athlete depite the fact that his agencies process for protecting athletes from wrongfull persecution and protecting to keep the doping control above repproach is in shambles.

Davidbod, Glad to see you survived the hurricane. Did you have to evacuate?

 

[davidbod]

Davidbod, Glad to see you survived the hurricane. Did you have to evacuate?

I had the house prepared and was ready to leave Thursday morning for relatives house in Austin with my mother, mother-in-law and another family all together. My mother-in-law decided to leave early Thursday around 4:45 AM and called around 6:00 AM to tell us she had managed to go about 2 miles. She called again at 8:00 AM and was back at her house having made maybe 3-4 miles and used up 1/2 tank of gas.

The rest of us, since we live on the West side and seeing the major traffic problems and the fact that the storm was turning more and more to the East decided to stay. I didn't even get enough rain out of it to water my lawn. Wind gusts were maybe 30-40 mph and less severe than a severe thunderstorm.

Very lucky realy. The kids are out of school till next Wednesday and everyone is board out of their minds as nothing is open.

 

[patch70]

Again, your reasoning does not focus on the key question of whether the EPO urinary test is FREE FROM FALSE POSITIVES, a point which I naturally made early on (with many cases of false positives). Trying to distract readers is again a futile tactic.

Once again, your stupidity knows no bounds.

There is not a single test in existence that is "FREE FROM FALSE POSITIVES". That is right - not one. Not for anything.

The only way you can have a test that has no false positives is to have a test that has no positives (which you and Lance would be very happy with).

The question for any test is: what is the odds that a positive result is true or false? Ditto for a negative result. This varies with the sensitivity & specificity of the test and with the pre-test probability for the person being tested. For most tests for PED's, this ratio for true positives to false positives will be in excess of 100:1.

Because people like you say stupid things like "One confirmed false +ve therefore all +ve results are wrong" every athlete is now claiming to be Rutger Beke's twin.

Stick to talking about things you know about: pom poms and stalking Lance.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Again, your reasoning does not focus on the key question of whether the EPO urinary test is FREE FROM FALSE POSITIVES, a point which I naturally made early on (with many cases of false positives). Trying to distract readers is again a futile tactic.

According the WADA website in 2003, "WADA collected a total of 5004 samples: 4229 urine, and 775 blood. Many of the urine samples were analyzed for EPO, as well as undergoing the regular out-of-competition screen. The 2003 program resulted in 28 adverse analytical findings and 3 refusals."

So if the test is flawed why did they conduct 5004 tests in 2003 ? (of which 4229 were urine tests) There were 28 adverse tests out of 5004 test equals 0.55%. Adverse does not mean flawed all it means that they could not determine a result. From the 5004 there were 3 refusals (false positives) which it equals 0.33%.

So in 2003 0.33% of tests were flawed ? I’m not sure any court of law would accept this figure under the term ‘flawed’.

When it comes to fact it’s your analysis which is flawed.

I’m sorry but 0.33% of 5004 tests does not constitute flawed testing. End of story.

 

[mises]

According the WADA website in 2003, "WADA collected a total of 5004 samples: 4229 urine, and 775 blood. Many of the urine samples were analyzed for EPO, as well as undergoing the regular out-of-competition screen. The 2003 program resulted in 28 adverse analytical findings and 3 refusals."

So if the test is flawed why did they conduct 5004 tests in 2003 ? (of which 4229 were urine tests) There were 28 adverse tests out of 5004 test equals 0.55%. Adverse does not mean flawed all it means that they could not determine a result. From the 5004 there were 3 refusals (false positives) which it equals 0.33%.

So in 2003 0.33% of tests were flawed ? I’m not sure any court of law would accept this figure under the term ‘flawed’.

When it comes to fact it’s your analysis which is flawed.

I’m sorry but 0.33% of 5004 tests does not constitute flawed testing. End of story.

Those numbers are very impressive but unfortunately were all pulled out of someone's ass. The only way they could have calculated accurate rates for false positives is if they knew who was and wasn't using EPO. For the population in question they don't have that information. Any numbers given regarding the accuracy are just WAGs until large scale blinded studies are done. Extrapolating rates from the very small sample studies to date is interesting but hardly scientific.

Based on the minute number of positives to date I would expect the false positive rate to be extremely low but there is no proof of that in the research done so far. All of the positives could be false positives with the confessions extracted after some of the positive results simply the result of dumb luck due to the high % of dopers in the population (if half of them are doping throwing darts at the start list will catch a lot of people too).

 

[bobke]

Fabrizio Guidi's EPO test, the all new infallible EPO test came back positive!!!

Then it was just announced the B test came back negative.
This test not only sucks, but it is wrecking people's careers. Guidi was suspended and missed several of the big races he should have been doing for the last weeks.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct01news