Dope tests

How and when do they do testing for drug use? It seems like many riders
that have never tested positve for performance enhancing drugs, admit to
using it after being confronted by the police with circumstantial evidence.
For example the Festina affair, David Miller etc.

I recall years ago when the riders union protested against surprise drug
tests. They claimed it was disruptive to their racing to be tested during
the evening when they are trying to recover after a stage. Is it really
disruptive or would they catch more positves, since riders wouldn't have
time to use masking agents? I think Bassons the Festina rider that did not
use drugs, was one of the few that supported this kind of testing.

I'm curious how effective the protocal for drug testing is since the users
that have been caught, "Have never failed a drug test".

"AC" writes:

How and when do they do testing for drug use? It seems like many riders
that have never tested positve for performance enhancing drugs, admit to
using it after being confronted by the police with circumstantial evidence.
For example the Festina affair, David Miller etc.

I recall years ago when the riders union protested against surprise drug
tests. They claimed it was disruptive to their racing to be tested during
the evening when they are trying to recover after a stage. Is it really
disruptive or would they catch more positves, since riders wouldn't have
time to use masking agents? I think Bassons the Festina rider that did not
use drugs, was one of the few that supported this kind of testing.

I'm curious how effective the protocal for drug testing is since the users
that have been caught, "Have never failed a drug test".

I had quite a conversation with my doctor recently about doping.

It seems that if the drugs are administered, for want of a better word,
properly, they will never be detected in the UCI/WADA/IOC tests.

Techniques such as microdosing and the use of undetectable masking
agents preclude discovery.

Nor are substances naturally produced by the body either totally stable
or predictable.

For instance, my HDL tends to bounce around a bit despite the fact that
my diet is stable and I log all fuel intake.

Possibly the only two ways to detect the presence of performance
enhancers is to actually catch the athlete in the act or to
``fingerprint`` any substance in the doping Pharmacopeia.

wrote in message ...
"AC" writes:

How and when do they do testing for drug use? It seems like many riders
that have never tested positve for performance enhancing drugs, admit to
using it after being confronted by the police with circumstantial evidence.
For example the Festina affair, David Miller etc.

I recall years ago when the riders union protested against surprise drug
tests. They claimed it was disruptive to their racing to be tested during
the evening when they are trying to recover after a stage. Is it really
disruptive or would they catch more positves, since riders wouldn't have
time to use masking agents? I think Bassons the Festina rider that did not
use drugs, was one of the few that supported this kind of testing.

I'm curious how effective the protocal for drug testing is since the users
that have been caught, "Have never failed a drug test".

I had quite a conversation with my doctor recently about doping.

It seems that if the drugs are administered, for want of a better word,
properly, they will never be detected in the UCI/WADA/IOC tests.

Techniques such as microdosing and the use of undetectable masking
agents preclude discovery.

Nor are substances naturally produced by the body either totally stable
or predictable.

For instance, my HDL tends to bounce around a bit despite the fact that
my diet is stable and I log all fuel intake.

Possibly the only two ways to detect the presence of performance
enhancers is to actually catch the athlete in the act or to
``fingerprint`` any substance in the doping Pharmacopeia.


It also seems that there are likely 10's if not 100's of little Balco's out there...

Still, for my money a centrifuge and a good freezer is the most sure fire way...

First test: Is he driving faster than you? Then he's a dope.

Second test: Is fumbling at the cash register for his wallet, when he
could have extracted it while the clerk was ringing up his purchase? Then
he is a dope.

Had the Tour, Giro, Vuelta, UCI WADAwada, Pounding Dick used these simple
criteria, bike racing would be cleaner the the films at Blockbusters in
Provo.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:41:41 GMT, wrote:

Nor are substances naturally produced by the body either totally stable
or predictable.

The IOC has got a test to detect synthetic HGH that will tell if it's
been used for up to 84 days prior to the test.

Oh well, back to harvesting HGH from dead bodies.

"AC" wrote in message news:2QoNc.125235$ek5.1504@pd7tw2no...
How and when do they do testing for drug use? It seems like many riders
that have never tested positve for performance enhancing drugs, admit to
using it after being confronted by the police with circumstantial evidence.
For example the Festina affair, David Miller etc.

I recall years ago when the riders union protested against surprise drug
tests. They claimed it was disruptive to their racing to be tested during
the evening when they are trying to recover after a stage. Is it really
disruptive or would they catch more positves, since riders wouldn't have
time to use masking agents? I think Bassons the Festina rider that did not
use drugs, was one of the few that supported this kind of testing.

I'm curious how effective the protocal for drug testing is since the users
that have been caught, "Have never failed a drug test".

Not enough.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20...e/?id=jame0409
..
..
..

Sorry for getting off on this tangent, but it is as good a time as
there is. Doping in America is a problem. Some people can deny it all
they want, but it is here, and a problem. In the US, USADA basically
only tests at selection events and only does no advance notice (NAN)
testing for a very select few individuals. This basically means if you
are not on the NAN program and you are not chasing the dream of
Olympic or World Championship selection, you can almost 100 percent
avoid being tested. If you were to cut out all of the selection events
in the USA from your schedule, there would be less then a one percent
chance that you would be tested in the US at an event. Let's say you
show up to an event and it is a miracle and USADA is the They are
going to tell everyone before the event that there is testing and at
most they will only test the top three and a random. If you are a
doper, you can simply not get in the top 3 and then play the odds
game. The chances of you being tested now is about 1 in 147 chance
since about 150 cyclists show up to our big events. Basically what I
am saying is that the chances is lees than one percent of one percent
that you will be tested in the US if you are just a little careful. Do
you see the problem now? Remember, I am just talking about avoiding
testing, not beating it. Obviously there are a lot of people out there
that know how to beat the tests too. Here is one last little tidbit
for you; when randoms are tested in the US, the percentage of them
that go positive is much larger than you would expect. Nobody wants
you to know this. Why? Because it is shocking. Something has to be
done. Please run out in the street right now and scream, "Why Nixon,
why?"

..
..
..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20...e/?id=jame0409

Jame is definitely correct about drug testing. The problem is that the
current method has a selection bias. If you only test elite level riders at
elite level events the only people you will catch are the fast guys. The
message that goes out is "In order to be fast you have to dope. All the
fast guys dope. If you are going fast you must be doping." This is not only
the wrong message but it is likely inaccurate. With the exception of EPO
there is very little performance enhancement associated with any of the
banned drugs. Mostly they are on the list because they are dangerous and
have been abused. If the testing algorithm was changed so that all
competitors at all levels were tested then you would see a whole lot of slow
guys getting caught and the message sent would be a whole lot different.

Mike Murray MD

wrote in message
...
"AC" writes:

How and when do they do testing for drug use? It seems like many riders
that have never tested positve for performance enhancing drugs, admit to
using it after being confronted by the police with circumstantial
evidence.
For example the Festina affair, David Miller etc.

I recall years ago when the riders union protested against surprise drug
tests. They claimed it was disruptive to their racing to be tested
during
the evening when they are trying to recover after a stage. Is it really
disruptive or would they catch more positves, since riders wouldn't have
time to use masking agents? I think Bassons the Festina rider that did
not
use drugs, was one of the few that supported this kind of testing.

I'm curious how effective the protocal for drug testing is since the
users
that have been caught, "Have never failed a drug test".

I had quite a conversation with my doctor recently about doping.

It seems that if the drugs are administered, for want of a better word,
properly, they will never be detected in the UCI/WADA/IOC tests.

And your doctor learned all this in medical school, right?

Andy Coggan

Jack Hollis wrote:
The IOC has got a test to detect synthetic HGH that will tell if it's
been used for up to 84 days prior to the test.

Yes, their next target is a test to detect placebo usage.

Oh well, back to harvesting HGH from dead bodies.

Necrophilia is dead boring.

Donald Munro wrote:

Jack Hollis wrote:

The IOC has got a test to detect synthetic HGH that will tell if it's
been used for up to 84 days prior to the test.


Yes, their next target is a test to detect placebo usage.


Oh well, back to harvesting HGH from dead bodies.


Necrophilia is dead boring.

This argument is just flogging a dead horse now.