I would add that I think this the thing that is always overlooked with these "limit" violations is that these limits are set really high. They are meant to take into account extreme natural outliers (say people with really high hematocrit, hormonal levels etc) and then put as little a buffer as possible on the top of them to give an almost certain indication of foul play. For an athlete to broach that EPO threshold, it's almost medically impossible for them to do it naturally and would need insane extenuating circumstances (like eating the wrong burrito you ordered that coincidentally had offcuts of an animal fed with food containing performance enhancing substances) ;)
That's why the lab "f--k-up" is such an unlikely occurrence and bad excuse. Funny that a lab messing up would cause just hematocrit to spike - why not testosterone levels? Or nandrolone levels, Or anything else? And it's always a perfect coincidence that it's always just enough of a mess-up to get someone into the danger zone above the legal limits.
Of course what most likely happens is men and women try and push the boundaries of what's legal and every now and then they slip because it's an inexact science. Then they cross fingers that say if they "hit 51" on the A sample of their hematocrit, that they might get lucky and hit 49 or even 50 on the B sample at which they get off (which is honestly ridiculous when you know how high that limit really is). Which is exactly what Mr Nice Guy but straight up cheat Bernard Lagat did back in '03.
What makes you think that this is a so-called "limit violation"? This has been reported as a positive result for synthetic EPO, not for having too much EPO.
Offhand, I'm aware of very few "limit violations" under WADA rules, though perhaps more have been instituted recently or are at least being considered now. One well-known and obviously controversial "limit violation" that comes to mind is the in-competition test for marijuana metabolites. "Limit violations" used to be found in caffeine doping cases (I recall a number of cycling competitors in the 1984 U.S. Olympic trials being disqualified for caffeine "limit violations"), but I believe that caffeine has since been removed entirely from the banned (or controlled) substances list used by WADA. Conversely, nandrolone has had a long history of questionable doping adjudications under WADA rules, leading to a switch to various efforts to establish reliable "limit violations." But many substances on the WADA list are simply banned, which is intended to reflect a "no tolerance" policy for doping, but ironically gives rise to cases in which the unwillingness of WADA to switch to "limits" tests for particular drugs gives rise to some seemingly implausible negative doping results (such as cases involving tiny amounts of cocaine metabolites that may have been the result of kissing someone with cocaine-contaminated saliva). These are not easy matters to resolve.
Your extensive comment about hematocrit levels suggests that you have no understanding of testing for the existence of synthetic EPO, which is not determined by hematocrit levels, and is in particular not determined by the almost laughable 50% hematocrit test that used to be applied in the Tour de France as a cheap way of allowing competitors to blood-dope by various means up to a particular concentration of blood cells. (It did not, by the way, actually allow equal amounts of cheating, since the hematocrit threshold test gave a significant advantage to competitors who, like Lance Armstrong, had relatively low natural hematocrit levels combined with high blood volume.)
I do. And because of this I know that the markers of synthetic EPO only last in the blood a short period of time (2-3 days), yet the effects last multiple weeks. So you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the most effective way of catching abusers is still via red blood cell count which is also the essence of the biological passport. So you need to stay in your lane you absolute handbag of a man.
What's the difference between synthetic and non-synthetic EPO? Is the EPO increase in this study (due to Ketone ingestion) mentioned in this study synthetic or non-synthetic?
EPO is a naturally occurring substance produced in and secreted by the kidneys, and has the effect of stimulating the production of red blood cells. When EPO is produced by the body in this manner, it will often be referred to as endogenous EPO. Synthetic EPO, on the other hand, is produced in a lab with recombinant-DNA technology and typically injected into the body. The EPO increase in the study you cite appears to be an increase in endogenous (that is, produced by the body itself) EPO, although it's unclear to me whether the so-called "ketone monoesters" are synthetic substances themselves. (Another example of increasing endogenous EPO would be the use of altitude training or other techniques that create hypoxia low levels of oxygen in the body tissue to stimulate the production and secretion of EPO by the kidneys.)
Oddly, this exchange makes me wonder about my own production of EPO. I have had only one working kidney (so-called "solitary kidney syndrome") my entire life, but my hemoglobin and hematocrit levels have generally been quite normal, and I'm unaware of any negative effect that it's had on my running, even though almost all of my running as an adult has been at altitudes exceeding 6,000 feet. Apparently, one big kidney can produce a decent amount of EPO.
I would have found a way around it. Switching urine samples is my game. Athletics Australia has now named a meet after me.
Page 22 of one of the reports from the Senate enquiry states that Jane Flemming gave in camera evidence that: "Mr Plant came up to me at the javelin throwing area and asked me if I would urinate in a bottle for Sue Howland because she had been picked for testing. He gave me a drink bottle. I went and weed in the bottle and apparently it got passed off as Sue's urine sample." The report recognises that action as an "attempt to corrupt a drug test". Further down on page 28, the report says that: "The committee understands that Athletics Australia has now taken action against Mr Plant. The committee has received a copy of a letter dated 12 March 1990 from Athletics Australia to the Chairman of the Australian Sports Commission. The letter advsies that Mr Plant acknowledged a potentional error of judgement, and it has been agreed that he will not be considered for an further managerial positions with Australian Athletic teams." You can read the full Black report that contains the above quotes here:
Its time to start holding the management team and not the athlete responsible. .He was just following orders and trusted his team..They clearly made a mistake with his dosing protocol and now the poor guy has to take the fall.Very unfair on the athletes that test positive.
Or maybe don’t associate with a team that has dosing protocols in the first place?
What makes you think that this is a so-called "limit violation"? This has been reported as a positive result for synthetic EPO, not for having too much EPO.
Offhand, I'm aware of very few "limit violations" under WADA rules, though perhaps more have been instituted recently or are at least being considered now. One well-known and obviously controversial "limit violation" that comes to mind is the in-competition test for marijuana metabolites. "Limit violations" used to be found in caffeine doping cases (I recall a number of cycling competitors in the 1984 U.S. Olympic trials being disqualified for caffeine "limit violations"), but I believe that caffeine has since been removed entirely from the banned (or controlled) substances list used by WADA. Conversely, nandrolone has had a long history of questionable doping adjudications under WADA rules, leading to a switch to various efforts to establish reliable "limit violations." But many substances on the WADA list are simply banned, which is intended to reflect a "no tolerance" policy for doping, but ironically gives rise to cases in which the unwillingness of WADA to switch to "limits" tests for particular drugs gives rise to some seemingly implausible negative doping results (such as cases involving tiny amounts of cocaine metabolites that may have been the result of kissing someone with cocaine-contaminated saliva). These are not easy matters to resolve.
Your extensive comment about hematocrit levels suggests that you have no understanding of testing for the existence of synthetic EPO, which is not determined by hematocrit levels, and is in particular not determined by the almost laughable 50% hematocrit test that used to be applied in the Tour de France as a cheap way of allowing competitors to blood-dope by various means up to a particular concentration of blood cells. (It did not, by the way, actually allow equal amounts of cheating, since the hematocrit threshold test gave a significant advantage to competitors who, like Lance Armstrong, had relatively low natural hematocrit levels combined with high blood volume.)
I do. And because of this I know that the markers of synthetic EPO only last in the blood a short period of time (2-3 days), yet the effects last multiple weeks. So you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the most effective way of catching abusers is still via red blood cell count which is also the essence of the biological passport. So you need to stay in your lane you absolute handbag of a man.
No, you obviously don't understand, because you specifically talk about 50% as being a ridiculously high level of hematocrit above the level of "extreme natural outliners," whereas it's actually a quite common level of hematocrit in the absence of any use of synthetic EPO, and you accuse Bernard Lagat of being a "straight up cheat" on the basis of high hematocrit levels, even though neither his "A" nor "B" sample was determined to be positive or negative based upon hematocrit levels or a biological passport. (Also, if someone is using synthetic EPO to increase the production of read blood cells, elevated hematocrit levels can thereafter be quickly and easily lowered by increasing blood plasma levels.) You simply don't know what you're talking about.
It would be refreshing if someone gets busted and their social media post says, “yes I did it. I wanted to win at all costs.”
Kisorio and Schwazer did that when caught the first time (in interviews, not social media).
But indeed it's often funny to read DT or CAS reports that destroy lame excuse after lame excuse of the drug cheat. Houlihan and Kiprop stand out because there was so much wrong with both their stories....
In a slow race like that you want to run the shortest line. Sure, Kinyamal dealt with taking the wind, but Bol ran extra the first lap and then was left with a decent gap after Kinyamal shifted gears. If you don’t look strong after a 55 first lap as a 1:44 guy something has gone horribly wrong. Kinyamal is the bigger talent and he outfoxed Bol on the day. You could argue Bol would’ve also had a better shot if he took a bold risk between 500 and 250 to go to sprint all-out and steal the lead. But letting Kinyamal control it and hoping he’d misjudge it was poor.
It would be refreshing if someone gets busted and their social media post says, “yes I did it. I wanted to win at all costs.”
Not only that, if Bol's B sample is positive also front up with all the other details, where he got the gear from, who from, where was he when he injected it, who else knew, etc, etc.
Failure to do that will forever undermine and taint his coach Rinaldi, and anyone who knows Rinaldi will tell you he's not involved.
What's the difference between synthetic and non-synthetic EPO? Is the EPO increase in this study (due to Ketone ingestion) mentioned in this study synthetic or non-synthetic?
EPO is a naturally occurring substance produced in and secreted by the kidneys, and has the effect of stimulating the production of red blood cells. When EPO is produced by the body in this manner, it will often be referred to as endogenous EPO. Synthetic EPO, on the other hand, is produced in a lab with recombinant-DNA technology and typically injected into the body. The EPO increase in the study you cite appears to be an increase in endogenous (that is, produced by the body itself) EPO, although it's unclear to me whether the so-called "ketone monoesters" are synthetic substances themselves. (Another example of increasing endogenous EPO would be the use of altitude training or other techniques that create hypoxia low levels of oxygen in the body tissue to stimulate the production and secretion of EPO by the kidneys.)
Oddly, this exchange makes me wonder about my own production of EPO. I have had only one working kidney (so-called "solitary kidney syndrome") my entire life, but my hemoglobin and hematocrit levels have generally been quite normal, and I'm unaware of any negative effect that it's had on my running, even though almost all of my running as an adult has been at altitudes exceeding 6,000 feet. Apparently, one big kidney can produce a decent amount of EPO.
The whole obsession with RBC boosting is silly anyway. Our body reacts to changes in pace by moving plasma out of the bloodstream to increase hemoconcentration, and back in again when we need it.
I learned this 30 years ago. It never gets discussed. Why? No profits to be made?
EPO is a naturally occurring substance produced in and secreted by the kidneys, and has the effect of stimulating the production of red blood cells. When EPO is produced by the body in this manner, it will often be referred to as endogenous EPO. Synthetic EPO, on the other hand, is produced in a lab with recombinant-DNA technology and typically injected into the body. The EPO increase in the study you cite appears to be an increase in endogenous (that is, produced by the body itself) EPO, although it's unclear to me whether the so-called "ketone monoesters" are synthetic substances themselves. (Another example of increasing endogenous EPO would be the use of altitude training or other techniques that create hypoxia low levels of oxygen in the body tissue to stimulate the production and secretion of EPO by the kidneys.)
Oddly, this exchange makes me wonder about my own production of EPO. I have had only one working kidney (so-called "solitary kidney syndrome") my entire life, but my hemoglobin and hematocrit levels have generally been quite normal, and I'm unaware of any negative effect that it's had on my running, even though almost all of my running as an adult has been at altitudes exceeding 6,000 feet. Apparently, one big kidney can produce a decent amount of EPO.
The whole obsession with RBC boosting is silly anyway. Our body reacts to changes in pace by moving plasma out of the bloodstream to increase hemoconcentration, and back in again when we need it.
I learned this 30 years ago. It never gets discussed. Why? No profits to be made?
