Study shows problems with EPO test

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men¹s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab¹s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

Um, holy [censored]?

This seems to vindicate both Lafferty and Kunich.

Also, who here thinks the big news from this report is "you can take EPO
without getting caught" and "the lab results are inconsistent and rife
with false positives"?

I choose B.

Also, yadda yadda, sample of 8 men suggests the strong need to repeat
this study, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is to make sure
it wasn't the researchers who somehow screwed up the study by accident.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

Further along, the article states that if EPO is detected in a sample
the WADA rules state that it must be tested again in a different lab.
This hardly ever happens in cycling, with the A and B samples both
tested by the same lab. It's this violation of the rules that should get
most suspensions overturned.

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

Here is the first paper, showing the physiological benefits of taking EPO:

http://tinyurl.com/5wvtut

The study involving the lab testing of the subjects used in this paper
is not yet on Pubmed.

Kyle Legate said:

Further along, the article states that if EPO is detected in a sample the
WADA rules state that it must be tested again in a different lab. This
hardly ever happens in cycling, with the A and B samples both tested by
the same lab. It's this violation of the rules that should get most
suspensions overturned.

In that case Mayo should have a good case since the only lab that could
find his sample positive was located somewhere in Paris.

Robert Chung said:

Fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

Allez cyclisme!!!

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men�s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab�s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

I guess Versus will have to come up with a new slogan.

Taking Back the Tour - One Acronym at a Time

R

Kyle Legate said:

Here is the first paper, showing the physiological benefits of taking EPO:

http://tinyurl.com/5wvtut

Some of the same authors on another paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668232

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men¹s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab¹s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

Um, holy [censored]?

This seems to vindicate both Lafferty and Kunich.

Time to start a "Lafferty was exactly right" thread.

Robert Chung said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Um, holy [censored]?

This seems to vindicate both Lafferty and Kunich.

Also, who here thinks the big news from this report is "you can take EPO
without getting caught" and "the lab results are inconsistent and rife
with false positives"?

I choose B.

You know where the WADA guy said that they tested the labs but not
anonymously and "in general, they agreed"? I kept re-reading that
little understated admission, "in general."

Lie detector test advocates sound about the same way. It's just another
form of divination like scattering bones, reading chicken entrails, etc.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a
performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men¹s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World
Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone
from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking
EPO,
was negative in this lab¹s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on
which
samples were suspicious."

Um, holy [censored]?

This seems to vindicate both Lafferty and Kunich.

Time to start a "Lafferty was exactly right" thread.

The test was unreliable and hence everyone (especially Lance) was
doping......give me a break. That conclusion is as flawed as the EPO
test (if the study is a true reflection).

Phil H

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a
performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men¹s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World
Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone
from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking
EPO,
was negative in this lab¹s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on
which
samples were suspicious."

Um, holy [censored]?

This seems to vindicate both Lafferty and Kunich.

Time to start a "Lafferty was exactly right" thread.

The test was unreliable and hence everyone (especially Lance) was
doping......give me a break. That conclusion is as flawed as the EPO
test (if the study is a true reflection).

Phil H

Robert Chung said:

Fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

dumbasses,

i don't see a false positive. what i see are patients that took epo
tested positive or didn't. one patient for some reason kept testing
positive beyond the expected window after taking the drug.

i don't see a control that suggests patients who did not take epo
would test positive.

Robert Chung said:

Fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

dumbasses,

i don't see a false positive. what i see are patients that took epo
tested positive or didn't. one patient for some reason kept testing
positive beyond the expected window after taking the drug.

i don't see a control that suggests patients who did not take epo
would test positive.

Phil Holman said:

The test was unreliable and hence everyone (especially Lance) was
doping......give me a break. That conclusion is as flawed as the EPO
test (if the study is a true reflection).

The test being unreliable was the subplot of a subplot in the "LANCE IS
A DOPER!!!" story that Lafferty told.

I read Ryan's statement as intentionally ironic. I was just going with it.

Phil Holman said:

The test was unreliable and hence everyone (especially Lance) was
doping......give me a break. That conclusion is as flawed as the EPO
test (if the study is a true reflection).

The test being unreliable was the subplot of a subplot in the "LANCE IS
A DOPER!!!" story that Lafferty told.

I read Ryan's statement as intentionally ironic. I was just going with it.

Amit Ghosh said:

Robert Chung said:

Fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

dumbasses,

i don't see a false positive. what i see are patients that took epo
tested positive or didn't. one patient for some reason kept testing
positive beyond the expected window after taking the drug.

i don't see a control that suggests patients who did not take epo
would test positive.

That's a good observation. But I don't think it affects the conclusion
that "Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a
performance-enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so
with little risk of getting caught".

Amit Ghosh said:

Robert Chung said:

Fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-
enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with
little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates

"The investigators gave eight young men EPO [...] The men’s urine
samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping
Agency, and EPO tests were requested.

"The first lab found some samples positive and a few others
suspicious. [...] The lab also declared a sample positive, although
the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from
his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO,
was negative in this lab’s test.

"The second lab never deemed any urine sample positive for EPO and
found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which
samples were suspicious."

dumbasses,

i don't see a false positive. what i see are patients that took epo
tested positive or didn't. one patient for some reason kept testing
positive beyond the expected window after taking the drug.

i don't see a control that suggests patients who did not take epo
would test positive.

That's a good observation. But I don't think it affects the conclusion
that "Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a
performance-enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so
with little risk of getting caught".

Kyle Legate said:

The study involving the lab testing of the subjects used in this paper
is not yet on Pubmed.

The abstract is here:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/90529.2008v1

Kyle Legate said:

The study involving the lab testing of the subjects used in this paper
is not yet on Pubmed.

The abstract is here:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/90529.2008v1