questions for the biochemist:
is epo undetectable after 3 days even with the blood passport??
is the hct back at normal levels after 3 days??
and if so why is there still a performance boost?
(as i thought it was the elevated hct that gave the boost?)
i know they use a ratio and not hct for test purposes
thanks
coach d wrote:
It was a real test result where the sample was improperly handled and stored (left in a trunk or something at high temperatures as I recall).
The result was thrown out as invalid and useless. Could happen to anybody.
You're such a piece of work; if it had happened to a Duck or a former Duck athlete, you'd be taking the opposite position...
Lagat is clean. Same blood sample split into two cannot produce two different results, one good, one bad.
It is really that simple.
Since the fake A sample results, there have been no further positive results. That's all you need to know. The lab screwed up. Not the first time a lab screwed up, nor the last.
just wonderin wrote:
questions for the biochemist:
is epo undetectable after 3 days even with the blood passport??
is the hct back at normal levels after 3 days??
and if so why is there still a performance boost?
(as i thought it was the elevated hct that gave the boost?)
i know they use a ratio and not hct for test purposes
thanks
Not the biochemist but epo is what induces rbc production. The rbcs stay around far longer than the epo and odd variations in hct are what biopassport can detect even if the epo isn't detected.
It's interesting how something stored incorrectly always just happens to give a positive result for doping. Convenient
It's interesting how meat stored in my hot trunk always causes food poisoning. Convenient...TOO convenient!
ukathleticscoach wrote:
It's interesting how something stored incorrectly always just happens to give a positive result for doping. Convenient
Since I'm innocent of this crime, I find it to be decidedly inconvenient.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
It's interesting how something stored incorrectly always just happens to give a positive result for doping. Convenient
Synthetic EPO can appear randomly in a sample if it's not stored correctly, everybody knows that.
(Or was that something quickly invented to make this whole sorry affair seem plausible?)
trollism wrote:
Synthetic EPO can appear randomly in a sample if it's not stored correctly, everybody knows that.
(Or was that something quickly invented to make this whole sorry affair seem plausible?)
Ask Joris Delanghe, MD PhD, Profession of Clinical Chemistry:
"This high ambient temperature has major consequences for the quality of the specimen: the bacterial growth in the urine specimen is promoted. In urine specimens, bacterial growth is strongly dependent on the temperature (ref: European Guidelines for urinalysis, Scand J Clin Lab invest 2000; 231:1-86).
Since the urine specimen contained an important amount of protein (as evidenced by the USADA lab), this specimen contained a lot of nutrients promoting bacterial growth.
Since the specimen was not prelevated under sterile circumstances and given the fact that no “mid-stream catch” technique has been used for urine prelevation, it is certain that already during the time of prelevation, a female athlete’s urine did contain an important number of bacteria.
The high ambient temperature and the long transportation time (the sample arrived in Los Angeles on July 29 2005 at a.m.) undoubtedly have significantly increased the bacterial count of the urine specimen. Furthermore, the pH value of the specimen (pH 6.0 measured by the lab in Los Angeles) was optimal for promoting bacterial growth (a more acid pH value would have inhibited the growth). Also the high density of the sample (1020 kg/m3) (which is due to the pronounced dehydratation of the athlete following the strenuous physical exercise at a high ambient temperature) indicates that there was a high concentration of nutrients in the specimen which is in favour of bacterial growth. It can be estimated that Ms. Jeanson's urine sample may already have contained over 100,000,000 bacteria/ml (vs. the reference interval ± 1,000 - ± 100,000/ml) upon arrival in the USADA lab.
In human urine, Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) is the most abundant microorganism. Recently, scientific evidence has been published that certain E. Coli proteins do cross react with the AE7A5 monoclonal antibodies used in the official epo test in use (reference: Franke W, Heid H, Clin Chim Acta 2006, 373:189-190)"
'Recently, scientific evidence has been published that certain E. Coli proteins do cross react with the AE7A5 monoclonal antibodies used in the official epo test in use (reference: Franke W, Heid H, Clin Chim Acta 2006, 373:189-190)"'
What else do they produce as it seems that the whole range of PED's can conveniently appear when a sample is stored incorrectly.
Depends on what you mean by "proof" I guess. According to the detailed report, "Lagat's sample had been transported for 28 hours at extremely high summer temperatures in a car, before it arrived in the Cologne lab where it was stored in the refrigeration at 4 deg. C".Michael Ashenden explained in 2009, why that can be a problem:"There is evidence that sometimes if a urine sample is stored unfrozen, there can be some contamination of the sample that shifts the band up towards the area we associate with synthetic EPO. Now, it can still be distinguished but it makes it more difficult"In Lagat's case, "the B-sample showed an IEF pattern different from that in the A-sample. The results also revealed that, without any doubt, there was obvious enzyme activity in this urine sample which had also altered the controls, rhEpo and Nesp".It's not that the "B" sample was clearly "negative" -- the "B" sample did not corroborate the findings of the "A" sample. And both samples looked "degraded".A closer re-inspection of the "A" sample showed that the bands didn't match natural EPO, and also didn't match synthetic EPO.This strong evidence of enzymatic activity, and the fact that the "A" bands and "B" bands were completely different, are the factors that cleared Lagat.www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatfull.dochttp://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
figure this out wrote:
There is no proof that the "A" sample was mishandled. Even if it was it would be irrelevant. The result of the "B" sample is the only one that matters because the "B" sample testing is the only one that permits the athlete or his/her representative to witness the test in person.
The "A" sample results are only to serve notice of an irregularity. Once an athlete's result is flagged, then it leads utlimately to the testing of the "B" sample.
For an insider, you are full of misinformation.Lagat's A sample was tested on Aug. 8, and B sample tested on Sept. 29. This hardly looks like "(Lagat) did wait as long as possible to have the b sample tested." Rather it looks like he tested it as soon as practical, so he could compete again. Considering Lance's 1999 samples did not deteriorate after 5 years, 7 weeks seems too short to rely on the kind of deterioration you claim is key.
drug insider wrote:
While I have long been a defender of Lagat's "positive" and the explanation you just gave it is worth noting that with epo testing the key has always been to have the b sample tested as long as possible after the test as it will have essentially deteriorated as such and no longer provide a positive. Athletes delay the actual testing until their window reaches the deadline and then have it tested and voila they are exonerated.
Again not saying this was the case or not for Lagat but he did wait as long as possible to have the b sample tested. Testing has also supposedly become more advanced but it is true many believe this is what happened in several postive A's that produced negative B samples including Marion Jones.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
What else do they produce as it seems that the whole range of PED's can conveniently appear when a sample is stored incorrectly.
Such as?
You understand that all healthy humans produce EPO in their kidneys, meaning that there is the opportunity for the outside factors (bacterial activity, resulting from improper collection/storage) to affect the naturally occurring EPO in the urine? And you understand how an EPO test is read, that it's not a red light vs. green light result, but bands that show up on an electrophoresis gel?
I would think that you would agree that simply because you may not understand the science, does not mean that the science is wrong.
my previous post was deleted.
let's not forget that BALCO publicly was outed for having technology to make B samples ALWAYS come negative due to the addition of an enzyme.
razor razor O wrote:
my previous post was deleted.
let's not forget that BALCO publicly was outed for having technology to make B samples ALWAYS come negative due to the addition of an enzyme.
Yes it does.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/f21/racing-clean-167194/"Racing Clean"
Detergent enzyme to mask EPO? Ullrich named
Urine samples being tested for EPO are supposed to show a certain amount of EPO, which is naturally produced in the body. But what if the sample shows absolutely none? This is happening more and more frequently, according to the Neue Züricher Zeitung, and allegedly some cyclists are using some sort of powder to affect their urine tests. The paper reports that Swiss TV SF1 has identified this powder as protease, an enzyme in laundry detergent which usually works as a stain remover, giving a whole new twist to the term
"racing clean". And a familiar big name is mentioned in association with the new problem - Jan Ullrich.
The theory goes this way: The athlete puts a little of the powder in the pockets of his pants. Before urinating, he puts his fingers into it, and urinates over his fingers at the control, so that the enzyme is mixed with his urine in the container. This little amount is sufficient to destroy the protein, and therefore the EPO, in the urine. "Protease is simply easy to use, cheap and available without prescription - and thus an almost perfect aid for the deceptive athlete," says the NZZ.
The process doesn't seem to have become too popular yet. Marial Saugy, director of the Lausanne doping laboratory, said that "less than 10 percent of the samples" showed a zero EPO value. This did not necessarily mean that protease was being used, but the lab is currently testing the enzyme. "We should have legally acceptable evidence within a few months," he said.
Matthias Kamber, head of the antidoping department of the Swiss federal agency for sport, was reportedly the first to identify the problem. He noticed that over the last few months, more than a dozen doping samples containing no EPO at all were delivered. He listed the cases and noticed that some of them matched certain athletes. "That led us to suspect manipulation," he said. After conferring with other experts, he came to the
conclusion that protease was involved and turned the matter over the Lausanne lab in spring 2006.
According to SF1, one of the doping samples without EPO belonged to Jan Ullrich and was taken in South Africa in December 2005. The NZZ reported that there were at least two other similar samples form Ullrich according to its sources, and that a link to the evidence uncovered in Operation Puerto was possible: Certain documents uncovered by the Spanish Guardia Civil relating to Ullrich repeatedly used the word "polvos" - powder.
somebody with more details, well reputed?
Has there been any more news yet on these 17 positive tests?
agip wrote:
has makhloufi competed recently? I sure hope it is him, and the two turkish women who won the 1500
BINGO
HAHA. All the fools who though Lagat was clean have been revealed as the morons they are.
Where you seeing proof Lagat is dirty? Funny you hop on and say this when nothing has come out on any of the so called 17 bustees.