Gita,
At last some sanity amongst the masses.
Someone posted protocols on Marius Bakken's site a few years ago and there was a lot of overlap between false positives and false negatives.
I'd like to see such a validation report too.
If there is one.
Gita,
At last some sanity amongst the masses.
Someone posted protocols on Marius Bakken's site a few years ago and there was a lot of overlap between false positives and false negatives.
I'd like to see such a validation report too.
If there is one.
Gita
There are links on the WADA site to two .pdfs (one for blood, one for urine). There it talks about the size of the test group and the lack of false positives in the normal use.
I'll have a look later today and see if I can find them, but have a poke around the site yourself.
Martin
"The overall result will be a test that has a higher sensitivity and thus fewer false negatives while maintaining a very high specificity (no false positives). Not a single laborabory is able to achieve that goal.
Also the test was prepared based on results from anemia patients, NOT ATHLETES.
Additionally, the paper gives instructions on how to use EPO, for the purpose of setting up the protocol (yeah, right) -- and -- states the tests must be done rather quickly after starting the EPO use. "Preliminary results are showing over-expressions at the start of the EPO treatments but then again all the values are going back to normal."
Another comment is that there is "very poor quantitation of two main blood parameters."
So much for your unbiased test bull shit, Martin.
I don't know where you're getting these quotes - nor do I care.
Please go away.
Right now.
Martin
These are quotes from the WADA urine test "evaluation" which, along with the blood test "evaluation", is here:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/t1.asp?p=29626&x=1&a=68918
These evaluations are based COMPLETELY on nothing else but feeble attempts at conjecture and speculation.
Surely there is something besides this????????
Apparently ------ NOT!
Martin wrote:
Gita
There are links on the WADA site to two .pdfs (one for blood, one for urine). There it talks about the size of the test group and the lack of false positives in the normal use.
I'll have a look later today and see if I can find them, but have a poke around the site yourself.
Martin
Martin,
I scanned through both reports fairly carefully but could find no mention of the study that you cited. If you find it again, please do let me know where.
Here's a related message that I posted on another thread:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=209448&thread=209448dunes runner wrote:
"The overall result will be a test that has a higher sensitivity and thus fewer false negatives while maintaining a very high specificity (no false positives). Not a single laborabory is able to achieve that goal
I think the biggest fear is that innocents will be falsely condemned, so sensitivity is much less a concern than specificity. The WADA report says, although in a rather qualified way, that the specificity of the test is 100%. But it provides no basis for that statement (i.e., no reference to data or studies, published or unpublished) that I can find.
dunes runner wrote:
My IQ is about 10 times as high as yours.
since IQ is ploted as a standard deviation from the mean (100) this is statistically impossible.
Hmmmmmm don't most sprinters hold their breath? I'm not sure how a drug that boosts the O2 carrying capacity of blood could possibly help a guy who really doesn't need much O2 in his blood to begin with.
Using "static" 200m times to try and somehow argue that EPO doesn't help distance runners makes no sense.
As for "static" 200m times in the past 40 years...didn't some guy run an insanely fast 19.32 200m in the past few years?
IQ wrote:
dunes runner wrote:My IQ is about 10 times as high as yours.
since IQ is ploted as a standard deviation from the mean (100) this is statistically impossible.
not if person X has an IQ of ~15 and person Y has an IQ of ~150, which might have been the implication...
Gita Klough wrote:
The WADA report says, although in a rather qualified way, that the specificity of the test is 100%. But it provides no basis for that statement (i.e., no reference to data or studies, published or unpublished) that I can find.
Gita,
This is a direct quote from the urine test evaluation:
"The overall result will be a test that has a higher sensitivity and thus fewer false negatives while maintaining a very high specificity (no false positives). Not a single laborabory is able to achieve that goal."
Stater of the Obvious wrote:
Hmmmmmm don't most sprinters hold their breath? I'm not sure how a drug that boosts the O2 carrying capacity of blood could possibly help a guy who really doesn't need much O2 in his blood to begin with.
Using "static" 200m times to try and somehow argue that EPO doesn't help distance runners makes no sense.
As for "static" 200m times in the past 40 years...didn't some guy run an insanely fast 19.32 200m in the past few years?
Yes. And you no doubt believe he was clean.
dunes runner wrote:
So much for your unbiased test bull shit, Martin.
Well, for now, we'll have to hope they catch the athletes right after administration of the drug, eh? Like Lagat, who was popped by a surprise test two week earlier than what he and the Kenyan Federation thought would be the day. Nothing's perfect, especially the despicable behavior of the doped runners and their handlers.
By next season, it'll be easier to obtain Repoxygen, so the EPO test may be moot.
There's a very good chance that Bernard Lagat has never used any kind of performance enhancing drug.
There's an even better chance that you were dropped on your head as an infant.
Martin
Gita
http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/research_science/epo/Blood%20tests%20and%20conclusions.pdf
Selected quotes:
"These models were built using the data provided by a cohort of 1152 ELITE ATHLETES ... "
"The positive values of the test were derived from a double blind trial in which 57 recreational athletes werer adminsitered with either rhEPO or a placebo ...
Please ignore the foolish rantings of Dunce Runner ... the tests were built on the reaction to EPO of athletes, not anemics.
Check it out for yourself.
Martin
Martin wrote:
Please ignore the foolish rantings of Dunce Runner ... the tests were built on the reaction to EPO of athletes, not anemics.
Martin
Martin, Dung Runner is yet another of the army of PC lapdogs struggling with the fact that many of their idols may (probably) cheat like Hell.
Martin,
If that's the case then you should have been dropped too since you're dumb as hell.
Boy, you got me with that one!
Well done, Dunce. You win.
Martin
And our survey said....XXXXXX XXXXXXX