>>
I have seen the studies that set up the protocol and there was and is a wide range of overlap.
Then you have to show that especially when you posted countless wrong information,twisted facts,mind boggling speculations and people find you the most untrustworthy here and don't believe what you say without whatever the proof.
>>And again, the urine test has still not been approved as a stand alone test because it is not accurate as a stand alone test.
Yeah maybe not accurate by 1/10000 probablility .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1474992.stm
"The EPO test has been used by cycling, it's been verified by the UCI (International Cycling Union) but not by the IAAF and International Olympic Committee."
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/03/FFXG5I8FVPC.html
>>This comes as the EPO test is being further refined with the International Olympic Committee. The IAAF is accepting a urine-only test for the drug instead of the two-part blood-urine test adopted at the Sydney Olympics.
http://www.athletix.org/IAAFpr.htm
>>At this time, it remains the only means of testing for EPO that has been scientifically validated. Since Sydney, further extensive scientific research has been undertaken to finalise a single urine only test. The research is believed to be complete, but the IAAF has been informed that the test still awaits final validation. The IAAF believes that, in the circumstances, the test conducted by the French authorities on Ms Yegorova in Paris should not have been carried out.
Dr.Graham Traut(I'm not sure about spelling) who is one of the members who invented EPO test of blood sample,said in 2000 when it was anounced that EPO testing protocol was invented and begun from Sydney,that it was about 1/10000 of probability to mistake in each blood test and urine sample(in each both A sample and B sample or only one sample?),but combination of them made it near 0.
prefer blood and urine tests.But because it is just more of a confiramation and for law suit problems.