Study shows problems with EPO test

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 <rech...@gmail.com> 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 <rech...@gmail.com> 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 <lega...@hotmail.com> 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/conte...ct/90529.2008v1

Robert Chung

On Jun 25, 11:20*pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com> 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/conte...ct/90529.2008v1

Phil Holman

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
news:Fb6dnY1s_Y8NUf7VnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.

OK, we're all aware of the plot and the Lafferty hypothesis. Reasonable
people expect a higher standard of proof than that previously discussed
in this forum. Reasonable people may have their suspicions but they do
not allow these to cloud their judgment. The cloud of suspicion will
always loom over Lance's head but that is a far cry from a
scientifically proven or indisputably determined fact.

Some mistake rigorous adherence to the scientific method or a high level
of proof as hero worship of LA. Reasonable people have required these
standards of proof before, during and after LA's era.

Phil H

Ryan Cousineau

In article <Fb6dnY1s_Y8NUf7VnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> 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.

The trick with being funny is that when you're being serious but stupid,
it covers that too.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Kyle Legate

Robert Chung wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:20 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com> 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/conte...ct/90529.2008v1

Thanks.