Study shows problems with EPO test

[Robert Chung]

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."

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<75d8b0bd-82c0-43ce-8995-308a274ee08c@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 ****?

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 protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Kyle Legate]

Robert Chung wrote:
> 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.

 

[Kyle Legate]

Robert Chung wrote:
> 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.

 

[Donald Munro]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 7:43 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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!!!

 

[RicodJour]

Robert Chung wrote:
> 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

 

[Robert Chung]

On Jun 25, 11:20 pm, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article
> <75d8b0bd-82c0-43ce-8995-308a274ee08c@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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 ****?
>
> This seems to vindicate both Lafferty and Kunich.

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

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Robert Chung wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:37 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Um, holy ****?
>>
>> 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.

 

[Phil Holman]

"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article
>> <75d8b0bd-82c0-43ce-8995-308a274ee08c@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 ****?
>>
>> 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

 

[Phil Holman]

"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article
>> <75d8b0bd-82c0-43ce-8995-308a274ee08c@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 ****?
>>
>> 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

 

[Amit Ghosh]

On Jun 25, 10:43 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

 

[Amit Ghosh]

On Jun 25, 10:43 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Phil Holman wrote:

> 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.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Phil Holman wrote:

> 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.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:43 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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".

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:43 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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".

 

[Robert Chung]

On Jun 25, 11:20 pm, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

 

[Robert Chung]

On Jun 25, 11:20 pm, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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