Where Your Dreams Become Reality
|
Where Your Dreams Become Reality |
|
WADA Science Director Olivier Rabin Strongly Defends EPO Urine
Test On Tuesday, Dr. Olivier Rabin, the Science Director for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), strongly defended the urine test that is used to detect erythropoieten (EPO) doping by athletes. Rabin defended the test despite the fact that Bernard Lagat, the #2 fastest runner of all time at 1500m, recently tested positive for EPO on his "A" sample, but negative on his "B" sample. (Both samples must come back positive before an athlete is sanctioned with a doping offense). With the discrepancy in test results, Lagat has called for the suspension of the EPO urine test saying, "My experience suggests to me that there are serious flaws with the way the testing is currently being undertaken." Dr. Rabin stressed that the EPO urine test had been validated on three different levels (by peer review in scientific journals during the last 2 years, by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in cases involving EPO positives (where scientific experts present evidence before the court), and by outside experts in an independent report commissioned by WADA on the urine EPO test that was approved by the WADA Executive Committee on June 7th of this year (click here for the report)). The main point Rabin made is that no matter how valid a test is, scientists never put 100% confidence in the "A" sample. He stressed that the whole purpose of having the "B" sample is to confirm the findings of the "A" sample. If the tests and procedures used in carrying out the tests led to 100% reliability there would be no need for "B" sample analysis. As he said ,"We request analysis of the 'B' sample before any decision is taken (against the athlete) because we know that none of the methods are 100% reliable on the 'A' sample." Rabin does not consider an athlete to be positive until the "B" sample confirms the analysis of the "A" sample. In the case of Lagat, he said the real problem was not the validity of the tests (which eventually cleared Lagat), but rather in the results of the "A" sample being leaked to the press. As he said, "(In the Lagat case), there is no doping offense. The only problem we have in the Lagat case is that the information of the 'A' sample has been leaked to the press (by the Kenyan Federation). We have a well established procedure, and I understand that his reputation has been tarnished and I deeply regret it for him, but the fact is the procedure is supposed to be confidential." Rabin said it was rare for a "B" sample not to confirm
an "A" sample but it can happen for a variety of reasons,
thus the need for the "B" sample to confirm the results
of the "A" sample. He said that WADA is waiting to get
more specifics on Lagat's test results before he could make any
sort of comment that possibly could explain the discrepancy in the test
results. In this case, WADA commanded the test, paid for it and for the analysis, but the International
Federation (IAAF in this case) is responsible for the results management,
keeping WADA informed. Rabin stated, "Coming back to the Lagat case, there clearly is a need to understand a little better what happened, why the 'B' sample was not confirmed by the 'A' or why the 'A' sample returned positive but the 'B' was a negative sample, but I don't think it creates any doubt on the validity of the EPO urine method which has been used on a lot of positive cases." Rabin did concede that the EPO urine test "is a rather complex test which needs (the testers) to be careful and requests some investments in human (training) and equipment." A lab in Cologne, Germany analyzed both Lagat's "A" and "B" samples. Although this lab was not among the 6 specifically mentioned as being able to carry out the test by the independent analysis commissioned by WADA on the urine EPO test, but they have been certified. Rabin said there are a few reasons not every lab that carries out drug tests is certified to carry out the urine EPO test. As mentioned above, the test is complex and requires an investment in equipment and human training. Also, the urine EPO test is not carried out on most urine samples (the test is very expensive to conduct and only done when the federation or organization carrying out the test requests it), so WADA "did not want to impose on the labs to do that (the urine EPO test) without making sure they were going to be practicing (carrying out) the test on a routine basis." Rabin noted how quality controls are built into the tests conducted on samples, and the labs that carry out the tests are given proficiency tests to make sure they are following proper procedures. He stressed that the Lagat situation, should not be viewed as a "crack in the (testing) system" since the "B" sample cleared Lagat. In his mind, a test is not producing a false positives until the "B" sample and "A" sample both come back with a positive result, and the athlete in actuality was not doping. According to Dr. Rabin, in the Lagat case the real problem was that the Kenyan Federation leaked the results of the "A" sample to the press before the "B" sample could be analyzed. As he said, if proper procedures had been followed, "he (Lagat) certainly wouldn't have suffered the damage to his reputation". Nonetheless, even if the Kenyan federation had not leaked the positive "A" sample results, Lagat would have been unable to compete at the World Championships until the "B" sample exonerated him. The track and field world will have to wait a little bit longer for information to be released possibly explaining why the "B" sample did not confirm the "A" sample. Lagat's camp is expected to release more information to the public this week, possibly explaining this "rare" situation according to Dr. Rabin. Editor's note: We believe there are three possible explanations for the discrepancy of the "B" and "A" samples. 1) The test is invalid and can produce many false positives. 2) If proper procedures are not carried out or the test results are misread or perhaps due to some small random chance, a positive sample can be erroneously found. 3) An athlete doping could fall outside of the safety margin built into the test on the "A" sample, thus producing a positive "A" sample, but inside of the safety margin on the "B" sample, thus producing a negative "B" sample. Many contend this is what happened in the case of cyclist Bo Hamburger. Corrections: This article has been modified since it first appeared. Originally, it stated that Lagat's "A" sample was tested in Tubingen, Germany and his "B" sample in Cologne as indicated by this IAAF article. This was incorrect. WADA has informed us Lagat's "A" sample was taken from him while he was in Tubingen, but it was tested at the lab in Cologne. It also said, WADA was just an independent observer in this case, but they did order and pay for the test to be carried out on Lagat. Also, the article had the date of the urine EPO test that was commissioned by WADA as being March 11st, the day it was written, but this report did not become public until it was approved by the WADA executive committee on June 7th.
|
Cross Country Spikes 10% off Injured?
|
