Trouble for UCI?

Tom Kunich said:

First we discover that UCI has been passing out confidential
information on riders.

Now it is suggested that the WADA has been faking blood EPO tests.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295

"The study published in the major international scientific journal on
blood science and medicine suggests International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing for Erythropoietin
(Epo) is based on faked science."

No wonder Brian likes these people so much. They all act just like
lawyers!

UCI admitted earlier it gave out the info, with Armstrong's permission,
to Ressiot for the article on exemptions Armstrong may have had on his
forms. The question was how many forms they gave out. We found out
yesterday it was 15, not 1 as they said earlier.

The article states that the test is based on "faked science". Besides
the fact that 'faked' means 'deliberately falsified' to most of us,
which is unlikely in this circumstance, the article doesn't explain how
this is shown.

The actual abstract simply says:
"...We show here that this widely-used (So they're all 'fake' too?)
test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo
(epoetin-) in post-exercise, protein-rich urine..."
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006-01-0028v1

As for the review article, does anyone know the reputation of
Medicalnewstoday.com? The article had lots of errors in English.

Both make me question if we should accept the contention the test is
'faked'.

mtb Dad said:

Tom Kunich said:

First we discover that UCI has been passing out confidential
information on riders.

Now it is suggested that the WADA has been faking blood EPO tests.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295

"The study published in the major international scientific journal on
blood science and medicine suggests International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing for Erythropoietin
(Epo) is based on faked science."

No wonder Brian likes these people so much. They all act just like
lawyers!

UCI admitted earlier it gave out the info, with Armstrong's permission,
to Ressiot for the article on exemptions Armstrong may have had on his
forms. The question was how many forms they gave out. We found out
yesterday it was 15, not 1 as they said earlier.

The article states that the test is based on "faked science". Besides
the fact that 'faked' means 'deliberately falsified' to most of us,
which is unlikely in this circumstance, the article doesn't explain how
this is shown.

The actual abstract simply says:
"...We show here that this widely-used (So they're all 'fake' too?)
test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo
(epoetin-) in post-exercise, protein-rich urine..."
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006-01-0028v1

As for the review article, does anyone know the reputation of
Medicalnewstoday.com? The article had lots of errors in English.

Both make me question if we should accept the contention the test is
'faked'.

It's not that the tests were faked, but rather they were based on false
science.

mtb Dad said:

Tom Kunich said:

First we discover that UCI has been passing out confidential
information on riders.

Now it is suggested that the WADA has been faking blood EPO tests.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295

"The study published in the major international scientific journal on
blood science and medicine suggests International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing for Erythropoietin
(Epo) is based on faked science."

No wonder Brian likes these people so much. They all act just like
lawyers!

UCI admitted earlier it gave out the info, with Armstrong's permission,
to Ressiot for the article on exemptions Armstrong may have had on his
forms. The question was how many forms they gave out. We found out
yesterday it was 15, not 1 as they said earlier.

The article states that the test is based on "faked science". Besides
the fact that 'faked' means 'deliberately falsified' to most of us,
which is unlikely in this circumstance, the article doesn't explain how
this is shown.

The actual abstract simply says:
"...We show here that this widely-used (So they're all 'fake' too?)
test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo
(epoetin-) in post-exercise, protein-rich urine..."
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006-01-0028v1

As for the review article, does anyone know the reputation of
Medicalnewstoday.com? The article had lots of errors in English.

Both make me question if we should accept the contention the test is
'faked'.

Your prejudice is showing. It was a Belgian study reported on by a UK
publication. Not sure how grammar and punctuation are supposed to be
used to evaluate the merits of a scientific research paper.

"The science sucks, but you boys get an A+ for spelling!"

R

FWIW, the paper in Blood (which is a very reputable journal with a high
impact factor) is a report on the experiments that cleared Rutger
Benke. Based on reading the paper, the data irrefutably demonstrate
that, in at least this one individual, the test for exogenous EPO as
currently used by WADA is unreliable. What is not known - and will
probably never be known - is how many other false positives there have
been.

The point was "faked" and "can occasionally lead to false positive
detection...", in the study authors' own words, are quite different.
Also not news since Betke was already exhonerated. Nor has the study
result been as well corroborated as the test (in the authors own words
"widely used"😉.

Also the language issue I raised was with the reviewing publication
(UK) , not the academic journal (US) which published much less loaded,
and better, language. No comment at all on the Belgian's language,
unless the abstract was theirs, which was fine.

As to whether "can occasionally lead to..." is enough to stop EPO
sanctions, please discuss.

But before one points out other's prejudice, maybe one should be aware
of the same in reviews like this?

RicodJour said:

Your prejudice is showing. It was a Belgian study reported on by a UK
publication. Not sure how grammar and punctuation are supposed to be
used to evaluate the merits of a scientific research paper.

If your paper has any, it usually comes back with "major revisions"
attached.

On 28 Feb 2006 10:47:54 -0800, "mtb Dad" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The point was "faked" and "can occasionally lead to false positive
detection...", in the study authors' own words, are quite different.
Also not news since Betke was already exhonerated. Nor has the study
result been as well corroborated as the test (in the authors own words
"widely used"😉.

Widely used and scientifically valid tests can be misused and applied
on erroneous presumptions that the test could be extended to close
and/or parallel situations, or that a level of precision used
primarily as an indicator in its primary use could be used as a metric
in another. The presumption is what makes it 'fake' in its results and
makes the basis of its application false science.

Generally, if the basis of extending the use of a test is found to be
invalid, it isn't enough that there are no clearly documented invalid
test results (since many would be self-validated by those reading the
results) - they would have to get the test re-approved for that use as
if it were new.

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

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

Quoted message said:

FWIW, the paper in Blood (which is a very reputable journal with a high
impact factor) is a report on the experiments that cleared Rutger
Benke. Based on reading the paper, the data irrefutably demonstrate
that, in at least this one individual, the test for exogenous EPO as
currently used by WADA is unreliable. What is not known - and will
probably never be known - is how many other false positives there have
been.

The paper also points out that Rutger Benke shows some evidence of mild
kidney disease which is likely responsible for the large amounts of protein
in his urine and the excess number of hyaline casts. The EPO antsera are
picking up something that is not EPO in his urine. His urine (hopefully) is
an outlier compared to other athlete's samples (i.e. those with normal urine
parameters). The authors also note that waiting 1 hour to take his urine
sample resulted in no false positives.

Lots of riders busted for EPO using the urine test have subsequently
admitted to it. The only one I can remember saying that he was innocent was
Heras, arguably the one EPO-positive rider with the most to lose by
admitting he cheated.

My summary - it's not a bad test but they need to get better antibodies.
-Mike

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
mtb Dad <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

First we discover that UCI has been passing out confidential
information on riders.

Now it is suggested that the WADA has been faking blood EPO tests.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295

"The study published in the major international scientific journal on
blood science and medicine suggests International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing for Erythropoietin
(Epo) is based on faked science."

The article states that the test is based on "faked science". Besides
the fact that 'faked' means 'deliberately falsified' to most of us,
which is unlikely in this circumstance, the article doesn't explain
how this is shown.

The actual abstract simply says:
"...We show here that this widely-used (So they're all 'fake' too?)
test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo
(epoetin-) in post-exercise, protein-rich urine..."
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006-01-0028v1

As for the review article, does anyone know the reputation of
Medicalnewstoday.com? The article had lots of errors in English.

Both make me question if we should accept the contention the test is
'faked'.

A daily, on-line publication (like CyclineNews) is pressed to publish at
short deadlines. Copyediting has been a lost art in most publications,
regardless of print or electronic form. So, the errors or lapses of good
English style may not indicate more that it is a paper for "Today".

As to the body of the article, I think you correctly read that it is
denigratory, thus the word "faked", as to the WADA and UCI claims of perfect
science.

The abstract is all I could access. I suspect that from amongst this
forum's contributors will arise someone with a subscription or dedicated
interest, who can relate the meat of that study. I'll wait.

If it's not clear that I am a lawyer, that I detest [censored] Pound, that I find
the pesky focusing on doping entirely out of proportion to the conduct of
bike racing, well, you just found that out.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
mtb Dad <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

First we discover that UCI has been passing out confidential
information on riders.

Now it is suggested that the WADA has been faking blood EPO tests.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295

"The study published in the major international scientific journal on
blood science and medicine suggests International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing for Erythropoietin
(Epo) is based on faked science."

The article states that the test is based on "faked science". Besides
the fact that 'faked' means 'deliberately falsified' to most of us,
which is unlikely in this circumstance, the article doesn't explain
how this is shown.

The actual abstract simply says:
"...We show here that this widely-used (So they're all 'fake' too?)
test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo
(epoetin-) in post-exercise, protein-rich urine..."
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006-01-0028v1

As for the review article, does anyone know the reputation of
Medicalnewstoday.com? The article had lots of errors in English.

Both make me question if we should accept the contention the test is
'faked'.

A daily, on-line publication (like CyclineNews) is pressed to publish at
short deadlines. Copyediting has been a lost art in most publications,
regardless of print or electronic form. So, the errors or lapses of good
English style may not indicate more that it is a paper for "Today".

As to the body of the article, I think you correctly read that it is
denigratory, thus the word "faked", as to the WADA and UCI claims of
perfect science.

The abstract is all I could access. I suspect that from amongst this
forum's contributors will arise someone with a subscription or dedicated
interest, who can relate the meat of that study. I'll wait.

If it's not clear that I am a lawyer, that I detest [censored] Pound, that I
find the pesky focusing on doping entirely out of proportion to the
conduct of bike racing, well, you just found that out.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Have you read Les Woodland's book The Crooked Path to Victory?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mtb Dad said:

Tom Kunich said:

First we discover that UCI has been passing out confidential
information on riders.

Now it is suggested that the WADA has been faking blood EPO tests.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38295

"The study published in the major international scientific journal on
blood science and medicine suggests International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing for Erythropoietin
(Epo) is based on faked science."

No wonder Brian likes these people so much. They all act just like
lawyers!

UCI admitted earlier it gave out the info, with Armstrong's permission,
to Ressiot for the article on exemptions Armstrong may have had on his
forms. The question was how many forms they gave out. We found out
yesterday it was 15, not 1 as they said earlier.

The article states that the test is based on "faked science". Besides
the fact that 'faked' means 'deliberately falsified' to most of us,
which is unlikely in this circumstance, the article doesn't explain how
this is shown.

The actual abstract simply says:
"...We show here that this widely-used (So they're all 'fake' too?)
test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo
(epoetin-) in post-exercise, protein-rich urine..."
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006-01-0028v1

As for the review article, does anyone know the reputation of
Medicalnewstoday.com? The article had lots of errors in English.

Both make me question if we should accept the contention the test is
'faked'.

Indications in the article suggest that it was translated
largely mechanically, or hastily by a person. One should
not read too much into fine distinctions until the
provenance is made clear.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Indications in the article suggest that it was translated
largely mechanically, or hastily by a person. One should
not read too much into fine distinctions until the
provenance is made clear.

--
Michael Press

I agree. And we should give about as much consideration to this
article as the editors did to journalistic integrity.

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

Quoted message said:

My summary - it's not a bad test but they need to get better antibodies.

The point is that if one case turns up false positives how many other cases
will? The studies validating the EPO tests were obviously a little too good
to be true.

Remember that a positive here results in essentially a man's entire life's
career being destroyed. "Oh, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles" isn't
sufficient.