Lance accused . . . again. . .

RapDaddyo said:

So, how do they (the anti-doping agency) test for EPO? Have they set an arbitrary limit and assume that if the athlete's level is in excess of the limit then they must have taken EPO?

That is the $64,000 question. They must have an arbitrary limit, but I have no idea of how the limit was set or how much above "normal" it is. Norml values reported by a clinical lab are only statistical norms. 95% of healthy people fall within that range, but that means that 2.5% can be above the range and 2.5% can be below the range. How much above the normal range have they set the standard?

RickF said:

That is the $64,000 question. They must have an arbitrary limit, but I have no idea of how the limit was set or how much above "normal" it is. Norml values reported by a clinical lab are only statistical norms. 95% of healthy people fall within that range, but that means that 2.5% can be above the range and 2.5% can be below the range. How much above the normal range have they set the standard?

EPO is a synthetic drug, AFAIK. There is no 'normal' range, like hematocrit. The test detects whether or not it has been used. Period.
Feel free to correct me on this...

ives said:

EPO is a synthetic drug, AFAIK. There is no 'normal' range, like hematocrit. The test detects whether or not it has been used. Period.
Feel free to correct me on this...

EPO is, as was said earlier, a naturally occurring protein present in everybody's blood. Prior to 2001 there was no way of telling if an athlete had injected EPO, and the only safeguard against athletes cheating in this way was an arbitrary 50% cap on blood haematocrit levels above which a rider is not allowed to race (higher levels of EPO cause a higher blood haematocrit.) The limit is arbitrary and exceeding it does not equate to failing a drugs test - some athletes might naturally exceed 50% (eg after a lot of altitude training) - and likewise any athlete with a good support system in place could inject just enough to keep haematocrit topped up to just below 50%

Post 2001 a test was developed which can detect the difference between naturally occurring EPO, and the synthetic version rhEPO which was being injected (the prefix rh tends to be dropped when people talk about injecting EPO, unfortunately.) This is the test which has been applied retrospectively to frozen samples from the 1999 tour.

While EPO itself decays rapidly in urine, the markers in rhEPO which the test detects may well not.

To deviate from fact into my opinion for just a moment, while I have no idea about this particular case, retrospective testing of frozen samples is the only realistic way to catch drug cheats nowadays. It's a safe bet (see BALCO scandal) that the cheats are still at least one step ahead of the testers, and that the majority of TdF cyclist who choose to dope (however many that may be) are doing so with a substance that can not currently be detected.

GettingFaster said:

retrospective testing of frozen samples is the only realistic way to catch drug cheats nowadays. It's a safe bet (see BALCO scandal) that the cheats are still at least one step ahead of the testers, and that the majority of TdF cyclist who choose to dope (however many that may be) are doing so with a substance that can not currently be detected.

You may be right. If true, this would pose some interesting issues for the sports regulatory authorities. How many years after an event will the results be considered "official?" We're talking about 6 years in this case. It's a good thing we don't have any of Jacques Anquetil's frozen urine samples lying around somewhere. God knows what he was on.