Question about Lance's EPO retro-test

Mark Hickey said:

Reading through all the info about the testing, it's clear that not
everyone believes the testing to be valid, whether their doubt it due
to scientific issues with storing frozen urine, the validity of the
new test methods, or the potential for game-playing by swapping tags
on samples or altering records, etc.

But, simple guy that I am, it all seems quite simple to me.

EPO, after all, is a drug used to increase the red blood cell count.

The method of testing athletes at the time was to test their hemocrit
level. If someone showed a level that was too high, they were assumed
to be using EPO or other blood-doping method.

So... IF Lance was taking EPO, it would be to boost his hemocrit from
its "normal level".

So... DID Lance show an increase in hemocrit level during the '99 tour
- higher than his subsequent level (during the years when they had a
valid test for EPO)? Or has his hemocrit level been statistically
"flat" during his pro cycling career?

If his hemocrit has been level, it means only one of two things...

1) Lance didn't take EPO or,
2) EPO doesn't really increase hemocrit levels

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

The EPO drug is also used in cancer/chemo treatments. How long
after the use of this drug for a legitimate purpose does its
effects remain in the blood/body?

Mike

Mark Hickey said:

If his hemocrit has been level, it means only one of two things...

1) Lance didn't take EPO or,
2) EPO doesn't really increase hemocrit levels

I see an obvious third alternative:

3) Lance took something else to raise his hematocrit level after 1999,
when there was a test for EPO.

Disclaimer: I don't think Lance was doing anything the others were
not, was getting unfair advantage, is a bad person or isn't a great
champion.

-as

Mark Hickey said:

Reading through all the info about the testing, it's clear that not
everyone believes the testing to be valid, whether their doubt it due
to scientific issues with storing frozen urine, the validity of the
new test methods, or the potential for game-playing by swapping tags
on samples or altering records, etc.

But, simple guy that I am, it all seems quite simple to me.

EPO, after all, is a drug used to increase the red blood cell count.

The method of testing athletes at the time was to test their hemocrit
level. If someone showed a level that was too high, they were assumed
to be using EPO or other blood-doping method.

So... IF Lance was taking EPO, it would be to boost his hemocrit from
its "normal level".

So... DID Lance show an increase in hemocrit level during the '99 tour
- higher than his subsequent level (during the years when they had a
valid test for EPO)? Or has his hemocrit level been statistically
"flat" during his pro cycling career?

If his hemocrit has been level, it means only one of two things...

1) Lance didn't take EPO or,
2) EPO doesn't really increase hemocrit levels

One problem with testing for EPO is that EPO is naturally present in
the body; EPO doping increases the natural levels, but other factors
can increase natural levels, too. So an increased EPO level is not
evidence of doping per se.

- rick

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The method of testing athletes at the time was to test their hemocrit
level. If someone showed a level that was too high, they were assumed
to be using EPO or other blood-doping method.

So... IF Lance was taking EPO, it would be to boost his hemocrit from
its "normal level".

So... DID Lance show an increase in hemocrit level during the '99 tour
- higher than his subsequent level (during the years when they had a
valid test for EPO)? Or has his hemocrit level been statistically
"flat" during his pro cycling career?

If his hemocrit has been level, it means only one of two things...

1) Lance didn't take EPO or,
2) EPO doesn't really increase hemocrit levels

One problem with testing for EPO is that EPO is naturally present in
the body; EPO doping increases the natural levels, but other factors
can increase natural levels, too. So an increased EPO level is not
evidence of doping per se.

- rick

The original form of blood doping was to extract a couple of litres of the
athlete's own blood and then extract the red blood cells. Once the body has
naturally replaced it's lost red blood cells, the previously extracted blood
cells are extracted back into the athlete, resulting in an increased
red-blood cell count without using drugs.

Paul

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One problem with testing for EPO is that EPO is naturally present in

the body; EPO doping increases the natural levels, but other factors
can increase natural levels, too. So an increased EPO level is not
evidence of doping per se.

- rick

The kidneys naturally produce epo. But this isn't the same as synthetic epo.
The test, which wasn't available in 1999, tests for traces of chemicals
present when synthetic epo was used. It's not the same thing. I happen to
take a dose of epo (Eprex) once a week - because I have kidney failure and
I'm on dialysis.

Also, epo doesn't necessarily raise hematocrit automatically. It works with
iron and vitamin B12, plus, a dose of epo will take about 6 weeks to raise
hemoglobin. It usually requires quite a bit of dose adjustment as well.

Mark Hickey said:

But, simple guy that I am, it all seems quite simple to me.

Somehow that fails to surprise me.

Quoted message said:

EPO, after all, is a drug used to increase the red blood cell count.

The method of testing athletes at the time was to test their hemocrit
level. If someone showed a level that was too high, they were assumed
to be using EPO or other blood-doping method.

Your understanding of the hematocrit test is....too simple. The hematocrit
level can *not* be used to prove EPO use since it can vary both naturally
and in response to legal methods (like living at altitude or sleeping in
an altitude tent). Riders with elevated hematocrit can supply a medical
certificate that testifies to their naturally-occurring level: Damiano
Cunego is an example of someone with naturally high hematocrit. The
cynical say that riders have responded by [doping|living at
altitude|sleeping in tents] right up to the hematocrit limit. During each
racing season, Armstrong used an altitude tent to artificially raise his
hematocrit, albeit legally. The bottom line is, his hematocrit did go up
and down.

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

But, simple guy that I am, it all seems quite simple to

me.

Quoted message said:

Your understanding of the hematocrit test is....too simple.

The hematocrit

Quoted message said:

level can *not* be used to prove EPO use since it can vary

both naturally

Quoted message said:

and in response to legal methods (like living at altitude or

sleeping in

Quoted message said:

an altitude tent). Riders with elevated hematocrit can

supply a medical

Quoted message said:

certificate that testifies to their naturally-occurring

level: Damiano

Quoted message said:

Cunego is an example of someone with naturally high

hematocrit. The

Quoted message said:

cynical say that riders have responded by [doping|living at
altitude|sleeping in tents] right up to the hematocrit

limit. During each

Quoted message said:

racing season, Armstrong used an altitude tent to

artificially raise his

Quoted message said:

hematocrit, albeit legally. The bottom line is, his

hematocrit did go up

Quoted message said:

and down.

Thi
--
Mike Kruger
You can't get even, you can just lower the standard for all in
that pursuit. Retribution is a mental state in a downward
spiral.
This calls for diplomacy and education on both sides. (Jobst
Brandt)

Sorry: I hit "send" too soon on the last message. Actual
comment below.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

But, simple guy that I am, it all seems quite simple to

me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This raises the interesting question of how bike racers look
at the ethical issue involved.
If natural EPO is OK, and synthetic EPO is banned, BUT if
there's no test at the time and the effective standard is
"your hemocrit has to be below X", then was it "really"
cheating to take EPO so long as your hemocrit stays low
enough?

Similarly, in soccer (football to the world) "delay of game"
is a penalty -- but if they are leading some teams will
intentionally try to get as close as possible to delay as a
tactic. In basketball, you might pull at an opponent's jersey
if you think the ref's not going to notice.

I know there's a big difference between drug use -- which can
be hazardous to the athlete -- and simple sports tactics, but
I wonder if that is the way they looked at it at the time
(1999)? Was the "real" rule "take no EPO" or was the real
rule "don't have too high a hemocrit"?

Mark Hickey said:

Reading through all the info about the testing, it's clear that not
everyone believes the testing to be valid, whether their doubt it due
to scientific issues with storing frozen urine, the validity of the
new test methods, or the potential for game-playing by swapping tags
on samples or altering records, etc.

What struck me about all the replies in the thread was that I didn't
see even one post that acknowledged that the results quoted were from
*validation* tests. IOW, the researchers weren't testing the samples.
They were testing the test itself. I'm no scientist but as I recall the
"scientific method" I was taught years ago until a new scientific test
is proven to produce accurate, verifiable, and repeatable results its
results aren't considered proof of anything. Since the tests performed
are in no way verifiable or repeatable- the B samples were exhausted by
the tests, right?- I have to wonder why the researchers chose to even
perform them. Was there grant money at stake?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

What struck me about all the replies in the thread was that I didn't
see even one post that acknowledged that the results quoted were from
*validation* tests. IOW, the researchers weren't testing the samples.
They were testing the test itself. I'm no scientist but as I recall the
"scientific method" I was taught years ago until a new scientific test
is proven to produce accurate, verifiable, and repeatable results its
results aren't considered proof of anything. Since the tests performed
are in no way verifiable or repeatable- the B samples were exhausted by
the tests, right?- I have to wonder why the researchers chose to even
perform them. Was there grant money at stake?

And I have to wonder WHY did the "anonymous" sample results get
matched up with other documents. Someone obviously had an axe to
grind.

We can assume their motives and actions were as pure as the driven
snow, or we can look at the record to see if those involved had any
history of trying to pin unsupportable accusations on Lance. Well,
I'll be.... they did!

Given a choice to believe an athlete who has been tested over many
years many, many times - and some clandestine witch hunters, I'd put
my money on Lance's side of the facts. There are just too many
questions that haven't (and probably can't) be answered...

1) Was it actually Lance's sample?

2) Is the test accurate (what's the potential for false positives)?

3) How long would aggressive EPO treatment during chemotherapy stay
detectable in the blood with the new test (and with a world class
athlete's peculiar body chemistry)?

4) What was the chain of custody for these samples from SO long ago?
Normally it's very tight while the initial samples are being
taken/tested - but six or seven years of storage? Who knows? It
seems like it would be possible to at least do DNA (or other
appropriate) testing on the samples to verify that they were even
Lance's - or possibly check to see if they'd been altered.

5) Are there other "reliable" tests for EPO, and any other samples
from 1999 from Lance around?

6) Is there any indication from Lance's hemocrit history that would
provide any statistical evidence that, everything else being
considered, his hemocrit trend showed some sort of increase during
that period. I know a person's hemocrit level varies (Robert), but
presumably one would only take a banned substance if it would produce
a measurable result. If Lance's 1999 hemocrit levels fall well within
the expected range since then, one can only assume that either he
didn't take EPO, or it had very little effect.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Bob said:

What struck me about all the replies in the thread was that I didn't
see even one post that acknowledged that the results quoted were from
*validation* tests. IOW, the researchers weren't testing the samples.
They were testing the test itself. I'm no scientist but as I recall the
"scientific method" I was taught years ago until a new scientific test
is proven to produce accurate, verifiable, and repeatable results its
results aren't considered proof of anything. Since the tests performed
are in no way verifiable or repeatable- the B samples were exhausted by
the tests, right?- I have to wonder why the researchers chose to even
perform them. Was there grant money at stake?

And I have to wonder WHY did the "anonymous" sample results get
matched up with other documents. Someone obviously had an axe to
grind.

We can assume their motives and actions were as pure as the driven
snow, or we can look at the record to see if those involved had any
history of trying to pin unsupportable accusations on Lance. Well,
I'll be.... they did!

Given a choice to believe an athlete who has been tested over many
years many, many times - and some clandestine witch hunters, I'd put
my money on Lance's side of the facts. There are just too many
questions that haven't (and probably can't) be answered...

1) Was it actually Lance's sample?

From a sample in the freezer to a number on a result sheet there is
potential for, say writing the info on the wrong line, or pipetting sample
4 into sample 5's cuvette. To do that several times seems unlikely, but
that's why there's and A and B sample.

Quoted message said:

2) Is the test accurate (what's the potential for false positives)?

Since we're testing the migration of a protein in a gel, and there are lots
of proteins which may migrate similarly, that proves the need for a control
sample run, and not only that, but run with every plate also. Typically a
plate would have a low, medium and high control run, taking up three slots,
and then the remainder of the slots for unknowns.

Quoted message said:

3) How long would aggressive EPO treatment during chemotherapy stay
detectable in the blood with the new test (and with a world class
athlete's peculiar body chemistry)?

I believe the time frame is a matter of weeks, not of months - so this is
not likely, -but- we don't know how long he was taking the medically
prescribed EPO either. If he did the Tour in July 99, one would imagine
that the treatment for his disease would have been completed by July 98, to
allow him to train properly, but no one knows how long he took medically
approved drugs of any kind, even other than EPO.

Quoted message said:

4) What was the chain of custody for these samples from SO long ago?
Normally it's very tight while the initial samples are being
taken/tested - but six or seven years of storage? Who knows? It
seems like it would be possible to at least do DNA (or other
appropriate) testing on the samples to verify that they were even
Lance's - or possibly check to see if they'd been altered.

I agree, the chain of custody has to be very weak and they'd be unable to
support it if challenged. If the chain of custody is broken on not
contiguous, then the evidence wouldn't even be admissible, imo.

Quoted message said:

5) Are there other "reliable" tests for EPO, and any other samples
from 1999 from Lance around?

Common sense says doubtful any samples from Lance still exist with the
above criteria; proper storage; concurrent storage of standards; chain of
custody..

Quoted message said:

6) Is there any indication from Lance's hemocrit history that would
provide any statistical evidence that, everything else being
considered, his hemocrit trend showed some sort of increase during
that period. I know a person's hemocrit level varies (Robert), but
presumably one would only take a banned substance if it would produce
a measurable result. If Lance's 1999 hemocrit levels fall well within
the expected range since then, one can only assume that either he
didn't take EPO, or it had very little effect.

My understanding is that it's common to give saline infusions to make sure
the blood is diluted to under 50 - I've heard that there was some warning.
I don't think they'd be able to test Hcts after a grueling 5-6hr ride when
everyone would be somewhat dehydrated, but dilution with saline isn't a
long-lasting solution - by the next day that saline would be excreted.
There may be solutions that would also dilute the blood which might not be
excreted too quickly, say an albumin/saline mixture.

Good points.
jj

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

jj said:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:36:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob said:

What struck me about all the replies in the thread was that I didn't
see even one post that acknowledged that the results quoted were from
*validation* tests.

Then Bob hasn't been following the full thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Was it actually Lance's sample?

From a sample in the freezer to a number on a result sheet there is
potential for, say writing the info on the wrong line, or pipetting
sample 4 into sample 5's cuvette. To do that several times seems
unlikely, but that's why there's and A and B sample.

It appears there's sufficient B sample left to re-do the existing tests as
well as to do a DNA test. The deeper issue is that, while re-doing tests
on the B sample takes care of the identification problem, it does not
eliminate any problem that may have occurred post-collection (like
contamination or tampering or degradation).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) How long would aggressive EPO treatment during chemotherapy stay
detectable in the blood with the new test (and with a world class
athlete's peculiar body chemistry)?

I believe the time frame is a matter of weeks, not of months - so this
is not likely,

With the current test, it's a matter of days, not weeks. Cynics say that's
the biggest loophole in the existing test: the ergogenic effects of EPO
outlast the ability of the current test to spot it. The current urine test
can detect EPO up to three days after use so taking it a week ahead of an
event is safe unless you're unlucky enough to get a random
out-of-competition control in that tiny window of time. The famous
wire-tapped phone call between Museeuw and his trainer had them discussing
how far in advance he should take "the wasp." Museeuw never tested
positive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

6) Is there any indication from Lance's hemocrit history that would
provide any statistical evidence that, everything else being
considered, his hemocrit trend showed some sort of increase during
that period. I know a person's hemocrit level varies (Robert), but
presumably one would only take a banned substance if it would produce
a measurable result. If Lance's 1999 hemocrit levels fall well within
the expected range since then, one can only assume that either he
didn't take EPO, or it had very little effect.

My understanding is that it's common to give saline infusions to make
sure the blood is diluted to under 50 - I've heard that there was some
warning. I don't think they'd be able to test Hcts after a grueling
5-6hr ride when everyone would be somewhat dehydrated, but dilution
with saline isn't a long-lasting solution - by the next day that saline
would be excreted. There may be solutions that would also dilute the
blood which might not be excreted too quickly, say an albumin/saline
mixture.

Yeah. The point is that hematocrit can't be used either to prove or to
exonerate.

Hello,

all the proofs that Armstrong took EPO during Tour de France 1999 and lied
are in the newspaper L'Equipe dated 23/08/2005

You can see my ebay auction if you like to know more about the documents
shown in that newspaper

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5234430435&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

Have a nice day

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

Quoted message said:

Bob said:

What struck me about all the replies in the thread was that I didn't
see even one post that acknowledged that the results quoted were from
*validation* tests. IOW, the researchers weren't testing the samples.
They were testing the test itself. I'm no scientist but as I recall the
"scientific method" I was taught years ago until a new scientific test
is proven to produce accurate, verifiable, and repeatable results its
results aren't considered proof of anything. Since the tests performed
are in no way verifiable or repeatable- the B samples were exhausted by
the tests, right?- I have to wonder why the researchers chose to even
perform them. Was there grant money at stake?

And I have to wonder WHY did the "anonymous" sample results get
matched up with other documents. Someone obviously had an axe to
grind.

We can assume their motives and actions were as pure as the driven
snow, or we can look at the record to see if those involved had any
history of trying to pin unsupportable accusations on Lance. Well,
I'll be.... they did!

Given a choice to believe an athlete who has been tested over many
years many, many times - and some clandestine witch hunters, I'd put
my money on Lance's side of the facts. There are just too many
questions that haven't (and probably can't) be answered...

1) Was it actually Lance's sample?

2) Is the test accurate (what's the potential for false positives)?

3) How long would aggressive EPO treatment during chemotherapy stay
detectable in the blood with the new test (and with a world class
athlete's peculiar body chemistry)?

4) What was the chain of custody for these samples from SO long ago?
Normally it's very tight while the initial samples are being
taken/tested - but six or seven years of storage? Who knows? It
seems like it would be possible to at least do DNA (or other
appropriate) testing on the samples to verify that they were even
Lance's - or possibly check to see if they'd been altered.

5) Are there other "reliable" tests for EPO, and any other samples
from 1999 from Lance around?

6) Is there any indication from Lance's hemocrit history that would
provide any statistical evidence that, everything else being
considered, his hemocrit trend showed some sort of increase during
that period. I know a person's hemocrit level varies (Robert), but
presumably one would only take a banned substance if it would produce
a measurable result. If Lance's 1999 hemocrit levels fall well within
the expected range since then, one can only assume that either he
didn't take EPO, or it had very little effect.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Laurent PELE top-posted, then surrendered:

Quoted message said:

Hello,

all the proofs that Armstrong took EPO during Tour de France 1999 and
lied are in the newspaper L'Equipe dated 23/08/2005

You can see my ebay auction if you like to know more about the
documents shown in that newspaper

Psst. Is that a German coming your way?

Made ya look! (Over your shoulder, that is.)

Spamming troll...

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

Quoted message said:

Hello,

all the proofs that Armstrong took EPO during Tour de France 1999 and lied
are in the newspaper L'Equipe dated 23/08/2005

You can see my ebay auction if you like to know more about the documents
shown in that newspaper

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5234430435&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

Have a nice day

Is your E-bay newspaper available in English?

The rationalizations and logical and ethical gymnastics in this thread and
the US media trying the somehow justify this now proven use of a banned
performance enhancing drug are astounding. EPO is worse than steroids. EPO
guarantees significant performance gains without even needing to build up
muscle. You get the EPO injection, and 6 weeks later once a full cycle of
red blood cells production has taken place, you have as high a hematocrit as
you can get away with.

Pierre-Georges wrote:
:: The rationalizations and logical and ethical gymnastics in this
:: thread and the US media trying the somehow justify this now proven
:: use of a banned performance enhancing drug are astounding. EPO is
:: worse than steroids. EPO guarantees significant performance gains
:: without even needing to build up muscle. You get the EPO injection,
:: and 6 weeks later once a full cycle of red blood cells production
:: has taken place, you have as high a hematocrit as you can get away
:: with.

Hmm....I have some big rides coming up over the next couple of
months....where can I get some EPO?

🙂

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

Quoted message said:

Pierre-Georges wrote:
:: The rationalizations and logical and ethical gymnastics in this
:: thread and the US media trying the somehow justify this now proven
:: use of a banned performance enhancing drug are astounding. EPO is
:: worse than steroids. EPO guarantees significant performance gains
:: without even needing to build up muscle. You get the EPO injection,
:: and 6 weeks later once a full cycle of red blood cells production
:: has taken place, you have as high a hematocrit as you can get away
:: with.

Hmm....I have some big rides coming up over the next couple of
months....where can I get some EPO?

🙂

LOL. You could develop kidney failure. I actually get an EPO injection once
a week as I do my dialysis. They will only let me go up to about a 36%
hematocrit though. Do I see improvement in my own cycling? You bet I do,
compared to being anemic, even a 35% hematocrit is a tremendous improvement.
Pierre

Pierre-Georges wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: Pierre-Georges wrote:
::::: The rationalizations and logical and ethical gymnastics in this
::::: thread and the US media trying the somehow justify this now proven
::::: use of a banned performance enhancing drug are astounding. EPO is
::::: worse than steroids. EPO guarantees significant performance gains
::::: without even needing to build up muscle. You get the EPO
::::: injection, and 6 weeks later once a full cycle of red blood cells
::::: production has taken place, you have as high a hematocrit as you
::::: can get away with.
:::
::: Hmm....I have some big rides coming up over the next couple of
::: months....where can I get some EPO?
:::
::: 🙂
::
:: LOL. You could develop kidney failure. I actually get an EPO
:: injection once a week as I do my dialysis. They will only let me go
:: up to about a 36% hematocrit though. Do I see improvement in my own
:: cycling? You bet I do, compared to being anemic, even a 35%
:: hematocrit is a tremendous improvement. Pierre

I guess I have my limits as to how far I'll go to improve
performance....thus, I'll continue to be a realy poor Wannabee Lance
Wannabee.