Lance EPO questions

I sure wish someone would take the time to explain what EPO is and why
it is dangerous to take it.

Man o' Tea said:

Does EPO truly degrade in urine
in a matter of months?

Even if the urine is frozen?

Does it degrade to the point of
being undetectable as EPO?

"cardarch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I sure wish someone would take the time to explain what EPO is and why
it is dangerous to take it.

EPO is an acronym for erythropoietin, a glycoprotein. It is one of many
glycoproteins that in humans stimulate the production of various types of
blood cells (phytohemagglutinin, for instance, stimulates the production of
lymphocytes).

EPO stimulates erythrocytes, the "red" blood cells. These are the cells
that transport oxygen and carbon dioxide. The possible benefits to an
endurance athlete should be obvious (endurance meaning an event lasting
longer than about 5 minutes, such as the 800 or 1500 metre swimming races).
The longer the event the greater the influence of this energy system and so
any additional erythrocytes.

The amount of erythrocytes in blood is commonly measured by centrifuging a
whole blood sample. The cells collect at the bottom of the test vial, and
the haematocrit percentage varies between about 40 to 50 in normal males.
Females tend to be lower by about 5%; training at altitude can increase it
by about 5%.

Dehydration, by reducing the volume of fluid, can also result in an
increased level, as can various medical conditions. Some medical
conditions, and some medications (e.g. high doses of <some> steroids) can
reduce the production of erythrocytes.

Normal levels of EPO, as currently meaured, range up to about 20 milliunits
per millilitre. An EPO "unit" is an amount that has a certain specified
effect; orginally it was the same as that of 5 micromoles of cobalt. Since
then, of course, research has shown variations between natural and
recombinant version of EPO, and between situations.

The medical danger of EPO (as opposed to any moral ones) is that with abuse,
the blood haematocrit can rise to such a level that circulatory difficulties
ensue. The cyclist Pantani in 1996 had a bad accident, after which doctors
found his haematocrit to be 60%. In his defence it was said that he had
been training at altitude, and the effect of the crash may have reduced his
blood volume - both would show an increased value; but the UCI was testing
riders for haematocrit prior to a valid EPO test, and banning them when they
were above 50%.

If I remember correctly, urine EPO tests are based on ELISA with an
antibody specific against recombinant EPO. For reaction with the
anitbody, all you need is a fragment of EPO that corresponds to the
short peptide used to creat the antibody. So degradation of EPO in
urine is not a very strong arguement. The real issue is how selective
is the antibody under the condition of the test. In other words, what
is the rate of false positive?

If I remember correctly, urine EPO tests are based on ELISA with an
antibody specific against recombinant EPO. For reaction with the
anitbody, all you need is a fragment of EPO that corresponds to the
short peptide used to creat the antibody. So degradation of EPO in
urine is not a very strong arguement. The real issue is how selective
is the antibody under the condition of the test. In other words, what
is the rate of false positive?

If I remember correctly, urine EPO tests are based on ELISA with an
antibody specific against recombinant EPO. For reaction with the
anitbody, all you need is a fragment of EPO that corresponds to the
short peptide used to creat the antibody. So degradation of EPO in
urine is not a very strong arguement. The real issue is how selective
is the antibody under the condition of the test. In other words, what
is the rate of false positive?

fz said:

If I remember correctly, urine EPO tests are based on ELISA with an
antibody specific against recombinant EPO. For reaction with the
anitbody, all you need is a fragment of EPO that corresponds to the
short peptide used to creat the antibody. So degradation of EPO in
urine is not a very strong arguement. The real issue is how selective
is the antibody under the condition of the test. In other words, what
is the rate of false positive?

If it is only a reaction to the antibody, the accusation is invalid
since LA admits to taking EPO as a cancer patient. Wouldn't the
antibodies stick around for years?
Madelaine

Fz: Did you forget your parkinson's medication this morning?

LA's body would not make any antibody against EPO. If it did, he
would suffer EPO deficit right now. Typically, peptides are injected
into rabbits or other animals as immunogen and creat antibody against
it. For antibody against EPO, the immunogen is a short peptide
containing some unique sequence found only in the recombinant EPO made
by the drug company. SO it will not recognize the EPO made by your
body. At least that is the theory. You do not need the whole EPO to
generate a possitive reaction, only need a short piece of it. So that
's why in theory the old urine sample can produce positive response.

No. It is too much coffee :-)

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

fz said:

If I remember correctly, urine EPO tests are based on ELISA with an
antibody specific against recombinant EPO. For reaction with the
anitbody, all you need is a fragment of EPO that corresponds to the
short peptide used to creat the antibody. So degradation of EPO in
urine is not a very strong arguement. The real issue is how selective
is the antibody under the condition of the test. In other words, what
is the rate of false positive?

If it is only a reaction to the antibody, the accusation is invalid since
LA admits to taking EPO as a cancer patient. Wouldn't the antibodies
stick around for years?
Madelaine

No. The french method is based on direct detection of EPO in urine.

This is the reason why it can unfortunately detect EPO only during 3 days
after injection, even though EPO will enhance performance for much longer.

Now cheater know that, and take EPO _before_ these 3 days.

But in 99, EPO was not detectable, so cheaters didn't care and took it
routinely everyday or so.

-- Olivier

"fz" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If I remember correctly, urine EPO tests are based on ELISA with an
antibody specific against recombinant EPO. For reaction with the
anitbody, all you need is a fragment of EPO that corresponds to the
short peptide used to creat the antibody. So degradation of EPO in
urine is not a very strong arguement. The real issue is how selective
is the antibody under the condition of the test. In other words, what
is the rate of false positive?

There are 2 way to detect artificial EPO.

The australian method is based on indirect detection in blood.
The french method is based on direct detection in urine.

The french method is surer (no false positive) and more expensive, but can
only detect EPO during 3 days after injection. The australian method can
detect it 2 weeks after.

-- Olivier

You are correct on the testing. The method is published in Nature back
in 2000. The method seems really reliable and LA has some explanation
to do.

You are correct on the testing. The method is published in Nature back
in 2000. The method seems really reliable and LA has some explanation
to do.

"fz" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You are correct on the testing. The method is published in Nature back
in 2000. The method seems really reliable and LA has some explanation
to do.

Yes.
But, he doesn't feel obliged to give serious explanations.
He just has to declare on CNN that "the french" did it to get an instant 80%
approval rate in the USA.
I guess we are still paying for W's transatlantic gap...

-- Olivier

I sure hope, Larry, that you watched Jon Stewart's take on the epo
question. He said Lance overcame cancer of the ball and he (Jon) didn't
care if he had a jet engine in his anus. He then showed a drawing he
made of Lance with the mechanical advantage in place. Anything Stewart
said in the past about the Tour being boring and all that stuff pales in
the light of this spectacular sort of news report.

Ruth Kazez

LA looks silly on CNN.
LA ""So why are six of them positive and the other 11 aren't? I'm
saying there were 17 samples. So, if the drug would stay around for
two, three, four weeks, we have 17 samples given, and only six of them
positive. What happened to the other 11?"

rEPO does not stay around for 2-4 weeks in urine. As long as he did
not use it within three days, the urine sample would look clean. So
it actually possible to reconstruct when he did the injection during
the ToF if all 17 samples were collected during the tour based on the
pattern of the positive and negative. The reconstructed timeline can
then be compared with the allegation in the book if the allegations in
the book are date-specific. Another wonder of the modern technology
and the rapid shrinking privacy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is one of many

glycoproteins that in humans stimulate the production of various types
of
blood cells (phytohemagglutinin, for instance, stimulates the
production of
lymphocytes).<<

You are mostly correct in your explanations, jtaylor, but I think that
you are implying that phytohemagglutinin is an endogenous human
hormone, like erythropoietin. Phytohemagglutinin is a plant product
("phyto"😉 which, among other things, causes red blood cells to
agglutinate. But it does stimulate normal lymphocytes to transform
into blastic type cells and to transform from a non-proliferating,
"resting" cell into a proliferating cell. Phytohemagglutinin is
isolated from the red kidney bean (phaseolus vulgaris).

The title of my PhD thesis (lo these many years ago) was "Content and
catabolism of non-histone chromatin proteins in control and
phytohemagglutinin-stimulated lymphocytes, leukemic leukocytes, and
Burkitt lymphoma cells." In over 13,000 Usenet postings, this is the
first time I've had the opportunity to discuss phytohemagglutinin, and
I am absolutely delighted to do so!

Thanks!

- Larry W