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

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

"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%.

"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?

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.

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%.

Please give the source for this.

wrote in message
ups.com...
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%.

Please give the source for this.

I can't remember the source. It was part of the report that they provided
when they did that claimed EPO test from 1999. Somewhere in there they'd
gotten a blood test for Armstrong and it was 38%. Of course they didn't
advertise that because it makes the EPO claim look pretty silly.

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...

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
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.


I'm not following how this relates to a "normal limits" overall blood
profile.



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...


Would it be absolutely neccessary to test *every* rider? I don't think so.
There would have to be a margin that would test any riders who might slip in
as top finishers late in the game, but no reason to test all.

My primary point is that there has to be a better way than what's happening
now.

Caroline

On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:55:29 GMT, "Caroline"
wrote:


Would it be absolutely neccessary to test *every* rider? I don't think so.
There would have to be a margin that would test any riders who might slip in
as top finishers late in the game, but no reason to test all.

And so when you said exactly one post ago that it would be easier to
collect and analyze the blood from 'all athletes', you didn't mean
every rider? Or are you arguing that 'every rider' is a larger set
than 'all athletes'? BTW, this is fine - it is known here as the KG
Master Fattie argument, but you need to try to be clear about that up
front.


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...