So. The FDA in an ideal world takes lots of time before it approves medications for prescription or OTC use. So how in the freaking world do the UCI and WADA come up with "definitive" tests for EPO that open the governing bodies to lawsuits left and right? And gee, is this convenient timing since LANCE is now under scrutiny (no, they cry -- it's the triathletes we're talking about here)? Inquiring minds want to know.
So. The FDA in an ideal world takes lots of time before it approves medications for prescription or OTC use. So how in the freaking world do the UCI and WADA come up with "definitive" tests for EPO that open the governing bodies to lawsuits left and right? And gee, is this convenient timing since LANCE is now under scrutiny (no, they cry -- it's the triathletes we're talking about here)? Inquiring minds want to know.
J "And what about Naomi" F
That raises a good question. I can't think of any clinical significance for the medical use of an EPO test. (I suppose one could rationalize it if there was an unexplained anemia. I haven't been paying attention, really--do any of these tests give reliable quantitiative data?) So I'm assuming that the FDA has no jurisdiction regulating this test in the US. Of course, approval of a pharmaceutical by the FDA is no guarantee that the lawyers won't get involved (see Vioxx).
