|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
Quote from link:-
"In short, while testing for drugs has improved, that mainly means only athletes who are too poor to access sophisticated drug gurus and tech, or too stupid to try, tend to get caught by testing." http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/0...g-allegations/ -- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:34:48 AM UTC-7, atriage wrote:
Quote from link:- "In short, while testing for drugs has improved, that mainly means only athletes who are too poor to access sophisticated drug gurus and tech, or too stupid to try, tend to get caught by testing." http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/0...g-allegations/ -- Interesting article. It states that the test for EPO requires judgement. Can someone please explain this in a non-technical manner? Is it simply that there can be variations in the weights themselves? Or that the limits of the tests themselves have a sufficiently large margin of error? Or ??? From the article: "The test used to find the drug involves a complex process called isoelectric focusing which separates molecules by weight across a gel. The drug version’s molecular weight is slightly different. "However, declaring somebody a doper based on the test requires a judgment call, so labs tend to err on the side of caution." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
On 26/08/2012 09:04, yirgster wrote:
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:34:48 AM UTC-7, atriage wrote: Quote from link:- "In short, while testing for drugs has improved, that mainly means only athletes who are too poor to access sophisticated drug gurus and tech, or too stupid to try, tend to get caught by testing." http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/0...g-allegations/ Interesting article. It states that the test for EPO requires judgement. Can someone please explain this in a non-technical manner? Is it simply that there can be variations in the weights themselves? Or that the limits of the tests themselves have a sufficiently large margin of error? Or ??? From the article: "The test used to find the drug involves a complex process called isoelectric focusing which separates molecules by weight across a gel. The drug version’s molecular weight is slightly different. "However, declaring somebody a doper based on the test requires a judgment call, so labs tend to err on the side of caution." Far from being non-technical the link below is in sci-speak but the extract from it illustrates part of the problem. You may recall that Contador was only caught because of the availability of an ultra-sensitive Clenbuterol testing machine at one particular lab. The cut-off limit for the quantity of a doping product in the blood has to be decided (see page 4 of the link for a discussion on the limitations of this judgement call) and dopers with access to the right (corrupt?) technical help will know how to work the (micro-dosing) system so that they reap some benefit from illegal preparation substances without ever testing over this cut-off limit. This will also take into account how long the substance will be detectable for after use, which will be something else dopers will be reliant on technical help for. So the point is that as long as 'sophisticated drug gurus and tech' are available (presumably for money) then statements like 'We are solving the doping problem' are probably ********. It seems to me that the main focus shouldn't be on the athletes who are using the products but on the gurus providing the 'help' they are getting. Personally I don't see sport ever being clean as long as the rewards (and hence doping temptation) for success are so enormous. Then of course there are the 'pipeline' drugs that no tests currently exist for so they can be used with impunity. When Tony Martin fell of his bike the other day the commentator remarked on how thin he looked (gaunt in fact), many cyclists are looking thinner than they ever have, this 'could' be down to new training regimes of course and I'm in no way implying that this isn't the case. http://www.antidoping.ch/files/downl...lysis_2009.pdf "In an anti-doping context, where false-positive results must be excluded, the establishment of a decisional limit (cut-off limit) taking into account the eventual matrix effect is mandatory". -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
yirgster a ¨¦crit profondement:
| Interesting article. It states that the test for EPO requires judgement. Can someone please explain this in a non-technical manner? Is it simply that there can be variations in the weights themselves? Or that the limits of the tests themselves have a sufficiently large margin of error? Or ??? | From the article: | "The test used to find the drug involves a complex process called isoelectric focusing which separates molecules by weight across a gel. The drug version¡¯s molecular weight is slightly different. | "However, declaring somebody a doper based on the test requires a judgment call, so labs tend to err on the side of caution." Simply put, the natural and externally introduced molecular weghts are very similar, and, particularly in a microdosing situation, are virtually impossible to identify with, let's say, a 95% confidence level. So the athlete's previous tests and other known factors are taken into account and a value(less) judgement is made. Which is bull**** in the highest degree. Passing, or even failing, a Drug Test(sic) in and of itself really means nothing. -- Davey Crockett Flying the Flag of the English The Flag of Hengest and Horsa http://azurservers.com/images/whiteDragon.jpg |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
On 26/08/2012 13:01, Davey Crockett wrote:
yirgster a ¨¦crit profondement: | Interesting article. It states that the test for EPO requires judgement. Can someone please explain this in a non-technical manner? Is it simply that there can be variations in the weights themselves? Or that the limits of the tests themselves have a sufficiently large margin of error? Or ??? | From the article: | "The test used to find the drug involves a complex process called isoelectric focusing which separates molecules by weight across a gel. The drug version¡¯s molecular weight is slightly different. | "However, declaring somebody a doper based on the test requires a judgment call, so labs tend to err on the side of caution." Simply put, the natural and externally introduced molecular weghts are very similar, and, particularly in a microdosing situation, are virtually impossible to identify with, let's say, a 95% confidence level. So the athlete's previous tests and other known factors are taken into account and a value(less) judgement is made. Which is bull**** in the highest degree. Passing, or even failing, a Drug Test(sic) in and of itself really means nothing. Other than if you fail it it means you're a **** in that you didn't fail a 'dope test' per say, you failed a 'savvy' test. Gunderson may be many things but stOOpid enough to fail a dope test he ain't, although he may have got careless once or twice but was able to 'fix' that anyway. -- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
atriage wrote:
Other than if you fail it it means you're a **** in that you didn't fail a 'dope test' per say, you failed a 'savvy' test. Gunderson may be many things but stOOpid enough to fail a dope test he ain't, although he may have got careless once or twice but was able to 'fix' that anyway. You might be unlucky in the case of microdosing EPO and having an out of competition test inside the narrow detection window, or careless as in forgetting that you may have traces of an easy to detect diet drug in your old blood bags from pre-season training, or really stupid like mixing up blood bags with a teammate. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
On 28/08/2012 10:59, Simply Fred wrote:
atriage wrote: Other than if you fail it it means you're a **** in that you didn't fail a 'dope test' per say, you failed a 'savvy' test. Gunderson may be many things but stOOpid enough to fail a dope test he ain't, although he may have got careless once or twice but was able to 'fix' that anyway. You might be unlucky in the case of microdosing EPO and having an out of competition test inside the narrow detection window, or careless as in forgetting that you may have traces of an easy to detect diet drug in your old blood bags from pre-season training, or really stupid like mixing up blood bags with a teammate. Yuk, imagine ending up with Riccardo Ricco's blood inside you. Now that would be careless. -- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wired take on the 'never failed a test' line.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:00:00 AM UTC-7, Simply Fred wrote:
atriage wrote: Other than if you fail it it means you're a **** in that you didn't fail a 'dope test' per say, you failed a 'savvy' test. Gunderson may be many things but stOOpid enough to fail a dope test he ain't, although he may have got careless once or twice but was able to 'fix' that anyway. You might be unlucky in the case of microdosing EPO and having an out of competition test inside the narrow detection window, or careless as in forgetting that you may have traces of an easy to detect diet drug in your old blood bags from pre-season training, or really stupid like mixing up blood bags with a teammate. Or forgetting to simply hydrate to beat the test while microdosing per Thomas Frei. From cyclingnews.com 4/27/2010: Swiss rider admits to taking micro-dose of EPO Switzerland's Thomas Frei has confessed that he has doped for the last two years, revealing he tested positive for EPO after taking a micro-dose the evening before the early-morning test. He said he would not have his B sample tested and admitted that he doped without the knowledge of the BMC Racing Team. While Frei was confessing, BMC Racing issued a statement from co-owner Jim Ochowicz thanking him for his honesty but immediately terminating his contract. “It is correct, that I have taken EPO. Therefore there is no sense in opening the B sample. There is no point in hoping for the off-chance that it will be negative,” the 25-year-old said Tuesday in a press conference in Olten, Switzerland, according to the Basler Zeitung newspaper. Frei said that he had been doping since the summer of 2008, and that his inner circle was aware of it. “I am not a hardcore liar, I had to talk about it.” Frei rode for Astana in 2007 and 2008, before joining BMC in 2009. He said that his positive test on March 21 happened almost by chance, revealing details of how athletes try to avoid being caught. The previous day he had given himself a micro-dosage of EPO for the first time in three months. Frei claimed that if he had drank enough water after the injection, the urine test would not have shown the EPO. He didn't drink the required litre of water however, even when the controller arrived at six o'clock the next morning. “I would otherwise now be preparing for the Giro d'Italia,” he noted. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2nd Failed Test Puts Heat on Contador | max | Racing | 29 | October 6th 10 06:35 PM |
Floyd Landis has failed DUI test | Tim | Australia | 0 | July 29th 06 03:12 PM |
Wired to Win | warrwych | Australia | 3 | February 10th 06 10:09 AM |
Test The On The Start Line | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | October 7th 05 11:25 PM |
Jimmy failed drug test | Fritz M | General | 15 | September 9th 05 11:59 PM |