Lloyd Flandiss wrote:
I'm also open to the idea that there is something wrong with the EPO test
Wot?? Said No One, ever.
(well, maybe rekrunner, but that doesn't count)
Only you can control how informed you are.
Maybe not the EPO test per se, but it is a difficult test to get right, and the execution and interpretation of the tests have been the target of broad criticism, as far back in time as 2003 with Bernard Lagat's tests, to Peter Bol, and in several other cases highlighed by Prof. Erik Boye of Erik Tysse, Steven Colvert, Vojtech Sommer, and Benedikt Karus. Prof. Boye was an invited guest speaker in Ross Tucker's "sportsscientists" blog, to discuss issues with EPO testing and interpretation of the results, although Ross did provide a "his opinions are his own" disclaimer, while justifying the importance of debate and discussion as his motivation.
As far as I know, these criticisms were all based on presence in urine tests, pointing to sub-par procedures for transporting or storing the samples (in the case of Lagat), or manipulations in photographs of the results, and using these manipulated photographs in anti-doping proceedings. Some cases looked like oversaturation, and in others, like obvious bleeding from the next "control" lane. Biwott's case is the first time I've seen an AAF based on the presence of EPO in the blood, in addition to the urine testing, rather than the non-analytical ABP violation based on a Bayesian analysis of blood parameter variations. I have not followed EPO testing enough to form an opinion on the scientific validity of detecting and confirming the presence of exogenous EPO in blood.