Just finished watching an interesting show on Discovery Health Channel on, of all things, chimerism. Found the show entirely by chance, while flipping through the channels to see what was on. Chimerism is what’s been referred to as the “vanishing twin” theory when it came to Tyler Hamilton’s defense against blood doping charges in 2004. Not that I necessarily believe that Hamilton is a chimera (he’d have to undergo some pretty extensive testing to prove that).
But what caught my eyes and ears was a statement by one of the experts being interviewed regarding the testing process. One of the first tests they do to diagnose chimerism is to look at the person’s blood and see if there is a mixed population of red blood cells. Sound familiar? That’s the same approach used to determine whether an athlete has undergone homologous blood doping.
Of course, the thing that has my interest piqued in terms of blood doping is Alexander Vinokourov’s alleged positive test, which appears to have been confirmed over the weekend. Vinokourov was fired by the Astana cycling team today, as a result of the B sample confirmation. Having already hired Howard Jacobs and Maurice Suh, I suspect that Vino — who maintains his innocence — is going to mount a spirited defense. Expect to be hearing a whole lot more about this over the coming months.
[Interesting sidebar: The Independent, in reporting Vinokourov’s dismissal mentions that Michael Rasmussen still remains on the Rabobank team. This is the first time I’ve seen that information in an English-language publication, but articles in Politiken and other parts of the Danish press have made it clear that the Rasman has not been fired by Rabobank — he’s currently on suspension.]
And if Vino’s situation wasn’t bad enough news today, Iban Mayo also got hit with a dose of the anti-doping blues. Mayo allegedly tested positive for EPO (that would be synthetic, or rhEPO) on the Tour’s second rest day, July 24th. Despite what Eurosport seems to believe, EPO is a naturally occuring hormone. The test allegedly determines whether any synthetic EPO is present, however, at least one peer-reviewed article in the journal Blood, suggests that the test is based on (to use their term) “faked science.” That won’t matter in an anti-doping hearing, as according to WADA rules the test is deemed to be valid. Which in essence says you can’t argue the science behind the test. Just ask Tyler Hamilton whether such a defense works. But just for fun, here’s a description of the article, from the link above:
In the Blood journal study research group led by Associate Professor Monique Beullens and Professor Mathieu Bollen (of the Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and their colleague Dr. Joris R Delanghe (of the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Gent, Belgium) shows that widely-used by IOC and WADA Epo test can lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo in post-exercise, protein-rich urine of the endurance sports athletes.
As a result of a disputed case of alleged rhEpo-abuse by an endurance athlete with post-exercise proteinuria, European scientists wondered whether the test for rhEpo can lead to false-positive results, perhaps as a result of cross-reactivity of the Epo-antibodies with unrelated to Epo other proteins of urine.
Straightforward experimental protocol of the reported study leaves little doubt that the major urinary protein that [the] WADA test visualizes with the ani-Epo antibodies is not Epo.
Mayo has been suspended without pay from his squad, Saunier Duval, pending the results of a B sample analysis. He may also want to give Jacobs and Suh a call is my guess. Haven’t had enough time to troll the Internet to see Mayo’s response. I suspect, like many others, he’ll maintain his innocence.
Seems that the media is going to have a few doping scandals to chew over for the coming months. The drumbeat gets louder and louder. Pretty soon the doping stories are going to drown out any other sports news, at this rate. Another day, another doping story.
Sad, sad, sad.
It’s all about justifying your existence sometimes. If you can’t get positives, why test? So the use of half-researched, questionable testing methods should be no surprise. The real issue is power in cycling and too many people want it. It’s sad to see. It’s also sad to see the gross misuse and misunderstanding of what science is and is not. Science is flexible as knowledge and evidence changes. The inability to question the science based on new information is, well, not scientific.
Hi Rant
I think there is an easier and cheaper way to determine who the dopers are.
1. If you win a stage you will automatically be declared a doper and eliminated from the race
2. If your average speed over any stage is faster then the average speed over a similar stage by the older generation ie Lemond, then you are a doper.
3. If you ‘bonk’ on any stage and if you finish ahead of the peloton on any other stage in the tour, then you are a doper
4. If you refuse to answer any reporter’s questions or give an interview when requested then you are a doper.
5. If in a room of officials, be it WADA, UCI, ASO etc and you fail to kiss their rings or back out of the room while bowing then you are a doper.
6. If you belong to a team with a known doper and you finish in the top 10 then you are a doper.
7. If you wear your hat backwards, then you are a doper (oops that was last years rule).
Wouldn’t that make life easier?
LuckyLab,
Right you are.
Luc,
You’re right, if we had some simple rules like that, everything would be much, much simpler.
– Rant
In the case of rhEPO it would be interesting to know whether Mayo was tested at any point prior to or following the second rest day, and what the commonly agreed upon “clearing time” is for rhEPO.
It is fairly well understood that synthetic EPO is most effective when taken a number of weeks in advance of the time when the athlete wishes to be at peak performance. With that in mind, it would stand to reason that an isolated positive finding following a negative finding should definitely be called into question. If the initial test is positive and subsequent follow ups are negative, that would perhaps be a thornier issue.
Luc:
You forgot, if you punch the air after winning a stage, you are a doper.
Luc/Rant/Everyone –
Maybe we should come at this from a new angle.
why not just allow doping?
just stop testing, ban the WADA, send Dick Pound (anyone else have to giggle when they say his name?) back to doing colour commentary on men’s figure skating and let them go as fast as their little chemically enhance bodies can go.
People keep talking about leveling the playing field but always assume that means NO ONE should be doping. but if everyone is doping, the field is just as level.
I mean, sports stopped being sports years ago. Its just a business now. Why keep pretending its anything else? People wanna see men on bikes ride fast and the faster the better.
the end result is the same (the level playing field) and all the hypocrisy (that all the winners were always clean/no one is doping) is gone
And also, then the teams would stop pressuring their riders win at all costs and into doping and then fining them or sacking them, when -shock horror – the team ‘discovers’ their star rider was doping. Like these teams aren’t aware of/arranging/paying for all this stuff anyways.
before everyone launches into long diatribes about what a wanker i am for even suggesting this, just consider what it means if only from an intellectual angle. interested to hear your thoughts….
Daner,
Good point. How fast it clears from the system would be crucial to knowing if/when someone took rhEPO. And given how long it takes for maximum benefit, would it make sense to take it during the Tour? I suspect not.
i-heart-rien,
That would make things simpler, wouldn’t it? Legalize it and then regulate it, even. It would save a lot of time, money and heartache over positive tests. And with proper medical supervision, it would be less harmful to the athletes’ health. But it’s unlikely to happen — at least, anytime soon. Too many vested interests in keeping the current system going. Too much money and power at stake.
*
The big question is: Just how many people are already doping? Is it as bad as people like Dick Pound would have us believe, or is it more like the statistics from WADA show (about 1 in 25 A samples from cyclists come back positive, no documentation exists on how many B samples confirm the initial findings, however)?
– Rant
Many errors here as usual.
Rant, if you want to atack some tests with sciences you must see if the allagations of the belgians are correct or not. Their articles was stongly desapprouved by all other scientists. No one backup them end 2006!
I am sure you can find someone who can say you that Earth is still plane or no one has walked on moon. We all know that media or governement can say to us that a truck is a terrible weaspon but a lot of us are able to not buy such argument. I hope Rant want not do the same.
Daner,
EPO can be use during training to allow an athlete to make more work as normal, the famous story sells by some dopers : “I train harder than other”. He Forgot to say that yes he trains harder just because he can do it because he is doped, but it would be impossible without PED!
I-heart-rien
Allow doping is very dangerous, for example, look at recently despite Dr. Ferrari said that EPO were safe as orange juice.
—–
world-wide sales of EPO is $10 billion/year. It is Amgen’s biggest drug. It is also medicare’s largest expense ($2/5 billion/year). Also, in March the FDA warned doctors that EPO is a lot more dangerous than intitally thought. These warnings have really hurt Amgen’s stock.
—–
How many of this product is used by athletes? Some people say mre than half, and there is chinese or russian EPO too which are widely used by athletes.
The Vino case is interestingly different from Tylers (if the media is to be believed). Tyler was busted on a single blood draw analyzed twice while Vino was busted on a A and B test from a single day, plus another A test from a few days later.
Homologous blood doping uses antibodies for unique structures on red blood cells that are variable in the human population (I need powerpoint). Thus my RBC may have some of these structures, while yours may a few of mine plus a whole new set, and so on.
If you have a panel of 15 antibodies that are specific for each of these structures, then you simply screen suspect blood for a contaminating population of cells: the rider’s cells may possess some of these markers and thus all of their cells would be identified with them, but a small subset of cells from someone else would be identified with one of the antibodies that bound to them but not the riders cells.
What this really means is that if they busted Vino for having a small subset of donor cells with a B15 marker today, then that same subset of cells should be there tomorrow and the next day and the next. But if they bust today wth B15, but B15 is normal tomorrow and instead they find C7, then the test is bad. I don’t know what markers they used nor the reproducibility of the findings.
The fact, however, that he was busted on two different days from two different blood draws indicates to me he is 98% guilty.
Jean –
taking the métro to work is dangerous and millions of people do it every day. Eating at Quick is dangerous and the place is always full. Drinking red wine and eating cheese is also dangerous. delicious and fun but dangerous if you exceed the recommended dosage.
but all those things are legal and even held in quite high regard in some circles.
I’m even guessing you can find a scientist somewhere who says too much orange juice can kill you. something about all the acid in it destroying your digestive system.
take smoking! smoking has been proven (by our much beleagured mistress science) to kill you. and despite all those threatening warnings (smoking will reduce your sperm count and cause impotence – actual warning in the UK) people still smoke by the millions.
So, in the great scheme of what’s dangerous, how high up the list would doping in cycling actually come?
If up to half the riders are already doping already in unsafe, unsupervised conditions(i’m picturing the back all doping facility with dirty needles and stuff) isn’t that already more dangerous than a regulated open doping program would be?
We could get rid of the LNDD all together and turn their highly skilled (sic) scientists loose on finding solutions to other more pressing problems in the world like diseases and stuff. and spend less time trying to prevent doping!
food for thought no?
WHAT?!! Am I actually hearing something from free thinkers – wow – All yuz guyz must be old hippies man…worse still – RADICALLS, all’z yuz…next thing you knows – we be talking about legalizing that dread curse of mankind, shudder, gasp…marijuana…So what is wrong with letting Dicky Pound and McQuikie fool us into thinking they’re actually looking out for our own good! And of course the good of all them little kiddies that may actually like a doper, doing 200 on the autobahn, on an old Schwinn 3 speed.
*
Have you guys no shame? Or are you just being clever and by getting it legalized, we could maybe all dope cheaper…have you people looked at what a good grade goes for by the ounce? OUTRAGEOUS!
*
Have yuz considered that such action would actually take control away from people who are heavy into fixin’ – my gosh – think! All dem poor bums have families, childrin, mouths to feed, dogs and cats to care for…have a heart people! Dey be out of jobs!
*What about our superbly trained newshounds? – you know reporters have mothers too – there is no truth that they are artificially created and grow best under rocks…
*
What about all dem “support “personel”! Think people – The unemployment offices will be over run – a regular stampedie. Not to mention that if it was legalized – no fixer could assure himself ever again of being able to fix a race…
*
I am flambuzzeld – any of yuz old communists? You new ones – forget about getting into dis!
Jean,
If you can point me to articles in scientific publications that take issue with the one I’ve cited, I’ll be happy to read them and write about what I find.
– Rant
Wide-open, no holds barred legal doping could perhaps “level the playing field”. Whether it would be any safer than back-room doping, I don’t know.
Suppose that it is determined that a certain dosage of EPO will increase your performance by, say 5% with a 50% chance of undesirable side-effects; and this is determined to be the highest “safe” and recommended dosage. Might there be riders who would be tempted to do a higher dosage, increasing their performance (back to the unlevel playing field) but also increasing the health risks to perhaps a dangerous level. Are we prepared for riders dying a la Simpson during a race? Are we prepared to see junior riders doping at much higher levels than what might be occurring now, because the pros are doing it? Are we prepared to see 16 and 17 year old riders drop dead in a race, or during training, from unregulated PES use?
Before we do anything like this, I think we really need good scientific research on just how much PES do enhance performance and what health risks are associated with their use. Consider the questions raised during the Landis affair re whether or not testosterone would have been of any use to Landis. Many people weighed in on both sides of the issue with opinions, but they all were that: opinions, not based on any scientific research. If, after proper research, it turns out that T is not any help in a stage race, then perhaps we should forget about testing for it and maybe riders would also forget about using it.
We also should do something to get some kind of handle on just how extensive the problem really is. Some hold the opinion that most if not all riders dope, others point the the relatively low number of riders actually caught by tests, and still a third camp is of the opinion the matter is somewhere in between. I am not sure exactly how to do this, perhaps something in the way of an unannounced test of all riders one day, perhaps with the provisio that the results will not be used in any disciplinary way, but simply to see how many are clean and how many are dirty. The extent of the problem should dictate how to solve it.
On this page, at the end you will find other article which dismiss the present article. If I am right, one is from the author of the first article:
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/12/4711
hey Morgan –
actually where i grew up Marijuana IS legal(prostitution too!) without any problems!
we tend to have way less bar fights cause while drunks tend to get aggressive, potheads are nice and gentle!
also, prices of the bud have remained high (contrary to your assertion that prices will drop) its just that the quality and reliability of the product have improved greatly. not to mention the fact that you no longer need to search out a dealer (someone by their very nature who was a criminal with links to other less harmless substances) you just need to pop into your neighboorhood coffeeshop and check out a menu!
but thats a horse of a different colour no?
sorry to diverge from our topic.
btw, jean … do you work at the LNDD?
d
I-heart-rien
No, I am not working at LNDD, but my piss could be have tested by them because I am a former athlete.
William write exactly what I want to say. Thanks to him. Don’t forget some athletes (or riders) have no limit, some of them have stated that they are ready to die young if they have receive honours and money. But I would never challenge this guys. It would be like a return to Colisée. So government would put some limits and again we need testing and labs. New game. With no PEDs, it’s easier and safer.
William,
You raise some very good points, regulated use might be no safer. To have a regulated system, as you say, would require greater knowledge about the effects of the drugs, both pro and con. Safest of all, of course, is no drug use. EPO, itself, may even (ironically) have a link to cancer.
Jean,
I’ll take a look at those letters when I have some time and write more about them later. But you’re right, one of those letters is by several of the authors of the study. I’ll agree that with no PED’s, it’s probably safer for the athletes. Easier, too, unless you’re talking about the people who test for the drugs. Their jobs just seem to get harder and harder. And there seems to be a population who will find ways around any rules you make, and find any way to beat the testing system, so they’re always going to have to be developing new and better ways of detecting drugs.
– Rant
i-heart-rein – my comments were meant completely in jest – Every word is meant as nothing more then a put on – so please excuse my poor attempt at humor. Actually, I do take this whole issue very seriously. I am also familiar with such coffee shops, they are not so very far away from me.
*
William if you study the body building scene – you will get all the studies you need. Sadly the belief that a little is good, more and more is even better. There There is no rational logic to such dysfunctional thinking. There is also a small matter that people have become accustomed to the idea that there is complete safety if done under medical supervision. I do not believe this to be true.
*
To attempt to enact laws that are based on ensuring an across the board “fairness” or a kind of universal formula that defines all parameters is complete illusion. There is no such thing. Perhaps I am being redundant, but laws are made to prevent the weak from dominating the strong.
*
When a so called “moral” issue is added on to it – then a law becomes skewed, mostly in the favor of the so called “moral” proponents of such laws. Dickie Pound and McQuikie cannot open their mouths without addressing their world view in achieving exactly such “moral” based laws. Look around you – there are many such laws we have to live with – IE: the unlawful over taxation of smokers because “morally” they should be taxed because they have a life threatening habit – you cannot smoke in public places, because the surgeon general has found that smoking is damaging to your health. I am not saying that smoking is not damaging to your health – fact is – its a lousy habit. But to pass laws that try to make people not smoke is done from a moral stand point – and pardon me – but what may be morally wrong for you, may not be for me. Therefore to pass a law against smokers because we have a right to stop them from killing themselves is insane.
*
It may be a difficult thing to accept – but people have a right to do what they wish as long as it does not infringe on another. We may not like it – but we have no right to try to control such people by passing “moral” based laws.
*
Lest you think I have lost sight that we are discussing cycling – I have not. Its a tough world out there and it will only get tougher. You build a better mouse trap – someone is going to build a better mouse. If 16 and 17 year olds are biking and they believe that taking something is going to make them better – there is no law on earth that will stop them from doing so.
*
So whatever kind of “legalizing we are considering – my hope is that we understand that what we are actually doing is taking the “moral” question out – how about simply making it possible so that young Johny, Dick or Mary who are seventeen and they’ve heard that taking EPO will make them all into Lance Armstrong – will get SANE AND PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL guidance.
*
Jean C – How you doing – I am glad you keep coming back to discuss views – Salud! –
Jean,
Have you actually read the article and the letters associated with it? If not, I can send them to you if you’d like. Just let me know if the email address you use is your comments is the correct one. If not, then use the correct email address I can reach you at with your next comment.
*
Now, on to the article and the letters. I’m not going to write a full “rant” about it just now, as I have a number of other things to dig into, but here’s what I see in a nutshell.
*
There are, indeed, two letters challenging the article. One from Don Catlin and others at UCLA, and the other from Françoise Lasne, of LNDD. What appears like the original article’s authors being a part of her letter is just a quirk of the journal’s web site.
*
Both letters do take issue with the authors’ conclusions, but there is also a response from the authors of the original article. I’m going to go easy on the non-scientific readers here, and not cite all the arguments on both sides. Suffice it to say that the study claims to have used WADA’s testing methods and found one particular set of circumstances that can lead to a false-positive test. This leads the authors to believe that other, additional testing needs to be done to verify the detection of rhEPO. Some of those techniques are discussed in Lasne’s letter.
*
What the authors say in response includes an interesting (and not unfamiliar) story. According to the authors, their subject was judged to be positive for EPO by 2 WADA labs (neither one identified) and negative at a third (also not identified). Sounds a bit like the claims Team Landis made about whether his results from Stage 17 should be called a positive or not. But that’s just an aside.
*
The bottom line is that the WADA scientists defend their test, and a group of outsiders say that some additional testing needs to be carried out to ensure that results aren’t type 1 errors (commonly called false positives). If you go by the number of articles cited, then the authors of the study have more to back up their opinions with. Catlin, et. al. cite 3 articles. Lasne cites 3 in her letter. The authors cite 18 articles for their original article and 6 articles in their response.
*
But beyond the numbers, Catlin cites himself and Lasne, along with the authors of the original article. Lasne cites herself and the original article. And just in their response, the authors cite WADA twice (a technical document and a WADA study into a similar phenomenon), their original article and three other unrelated sources.
*
One can’t judge the quality of a person’s arguments merely on how many articles he or she cites, and I suspect neither you nor I have the time to read all of them. So, at the end of all this, it appears that there’s some controversy about the test and whether it’s a good test or whether better, more sophisticated tests should be used.
*
Again, if you want to see the original article and the letters, I’m happy to send you copies.
– Rant
Thanks for checking into those articles. I went to read them and hit the “fee” area of the site and just couldn’t bring myself to fork over the cash.
We have hit a difficult and obvious problem with the system: the governing body, WADA, is the judge, jury, and police. They write the laws, invent the rules of prosecution, and prevent anyone from questioning their methods.
How is it possible that cycling, as a supposed professional organization, gave them the power to do all this?
Thanks for your reading and analysis Rant,
It’s not my email because I dislike to give it on site which can be hacked and I don’t need the articles.
The main of the article is the recurrent question of the false positive and/or when the measurement is good.
EPO test is a particular test and need from operators some background to analyse the pictures. When the test was enforced some errors were done by new operators. To avoid it, when doubts exist a lab can request help from senior operator of other labs.
PEDs testing it’s like the real live, nothing is absolute sure but there is an high confidence in results, and EPO test is more difficult than other.
Testing PED is like the measurement of your weight. Are your sure your measurement is correct? Should we say : are you sure if the measurement of your weight? is it enough good to see if you put on weight weekly? Certainly, put someone could say that you need to weigh you just after sleeping, before or after to go to toilets and so. But if don’t use this recommendation and if the balance shows 2kg after a week and you can touch more fat on your belly, what can you say of your measurement?
The measurement show that you have put on weight, but a lawyer could say that your measurement is not valid.
Jean,
Understood about the email. I like the analogy about one’s weight and a lawyer arguing that the measurement should be different than what the scale says. If I could get rid of those extra kilos by paying a lawyer, it would be a heck of a lot easier than doing it the old-fashioned way (i.e. eating less and exercising more). 😉 Funny, since I stopped competing on a regular basis, a few extra kilos have somehow snuck on to me.
*
You’re right, there are no absolutes in PED testing. What we all hope for, I suspect, is that the testing will be accurate enough that no innocent people are convicted of wrong-doing. Maybe I shouldn’t speak for others, but that’s what I hope for, at any rate.
– Rant