A more reasonable way of EPO testing
The drug testing entities are driving themselves nuts. Why? Because every
time they think they have the lid on one thing, the lid pops off another. EPOs, testosterone, HGH, caffeine.... Well, the list is too long to delve into here, but the list of banned drugs is looooooooong. EPOs are the topic at hand. Questions of who has used and who (if any) haven't. And the testing is expensive and not always completely reliable. Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are involved. There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs as part of his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for saving the patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was given them when he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing whether they gave him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his red cell count to "within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure. He may not even know. The point is that there are times when banned substances are required to keep an athlete functioning normally. Cortisone *MAY* have been a requirement to keep Landis' hip functioning during TDF. For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game! And the testing is so much easier and cheaper. Oh... A question was recently asked about what drugs are banned. If you have any questions, you can call the IOC (or in the U.S. call USOC) Medical Hotline and ask. They have a current list for everything from cough meds that contain banned substances (and cough meds that don't) to blood doping no-nos. (God, I hope this information isn't out-dated!) Caroline |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
Caroline wrote:
A question was recently asked about what drugs are banned. If you have any questions, you can call the IOC (or in the U.S. call USOC) Medical Hotline and ask. They have a current list for everything from cough meds that contain banned substances (and cough meds that don't) to blood doping no-nos. (God, I hope this information isn't out-dated!) Quicker to go to http://www.didglobal.com/page/didenqs/home |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
"Caroline" wrote in message
news:Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07... Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are involved. There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs as part of his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for saving the patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was given them when he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing whether they gave him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his red cell count to "within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure. He may not even know. Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in France with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of 38%. |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com a écrit dans le message de news:
. net... | "Caroline" wrote in message | news:Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07... | | Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are | involved. There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs | as part of his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for | saving the patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was | given them when he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing | whether they gave him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his | red cell count to "within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure. | He may not even know. | | Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in France | with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of | 38%. | What "phoney "blood test" " are you referring to? |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:53:04 GMT, "Caroline"
wrote: For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game! For all of the drugs? Some of the tests take three days if the lab is ready for them. Most take several hours at a minimum because the machinery necessary to make all testing equal has to be set up first (single assay testing in lots of over 100 isn't a great way to prep for the later legal battles), followed by the actual testing. You'd still be disqualifying people hours and days after the day's racing. FWIW, it still won't be cheap - some test kits - if you do all the drugs - will cost you in the hundreds for the kit alone, if done in batches. That will be for one drug in some cases, per person... Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
On May 28, 7:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Caroline" wrote in message news:Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07... Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are involved. There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs as part of his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for saving the patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was given them when he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing whether they gave him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his red cell count to "within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure. He may not even know. Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in France with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of 38%. dumbass, you are confused and your argument based on your confusion just makes you look stupid. the EPO test was on urine, there was never a blood test as you claim. |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
in message Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07, Caroline
') wrote: For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are in balance, or "within normal limits." Â*Soooo.... Â*Wouldn't it be so much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Â*Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be disqualified. Â*Period. Â*Then who cares if people take EPOs? Â*If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game! I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits. I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their body tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined. However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your enhanced haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ pSchroedinger's cat is blinkstrongNOT/strong/blink dead./p |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:51:14 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:
in message Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07, Caroline ') wrote: For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are in balance, or "within normal limits." *Soooo.... *Wouldn't it be so much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? *Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be disqualified. *Period. *Then who cares if people take EPOs? *If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game! I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits. I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their body tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined. However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your enhanced haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical. I just call them unable to live in the mountains. Ron |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
"Simon Brooke" wrote in message ... in message Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07, Caroline ') wrote: For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game! I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits. I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their body tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined. And we all know there must be at least 250,000 cyclists world wide who fall into this category, right? '-) Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully, there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an exception could be made. However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your enhanced haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical. Well, not so much. You don't inject altitude tents into your body. But maybe I'm unaware of the latest trends? Caroline |
A more reasonable way of EPO testing
Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
Caroline a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully, there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an exception could be made. Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are treated by the IOC. -- Sandy Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort. Je veux seulement ne pas être là quand elle arrivera. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com