Looking for the latest race results? - We got you covered right here!
brul12 said:Did anyone hear any recent news about this, current amounts of samples being EPO free? Or is there a non-doping explanation for some being EPO free even?
"Axelsson is accused of taking EPO, which is detectable via urinalysis. About the time of Operation Puerto, however, riders were defeating the urine-based EPO test by spiking their samples with small doses of enzymes like protease, which break down proteins — including EPO — in urine in the space of a few minutes.
Typically an athlete would conceal a supply of protease powder in his jersey before a test, transfer it to his fingers with a quick movement and then urinate over his hand into the sample bottle to ensure that the test is meaningless. Alternatively, once doping control officers (DCO’s) began to insist that the athletes wash their hands first, male athletes switched to secreting the powder under their foreskin and transferred it that way."
Señ said:Honestly? I think the Heras positive was a set up. Not because I like the guy or saying that he didn't dope (he did) mind you. From what I've read...
Master50 said:Lets just look at this in the simplest terms. No EPO = tampering with the sample or masking. Evidence of cheating. The absence of Synthetic EPO is not the consideration but if the naturally occurring EPO is missing too then the athlete is sick or tampering with his samples. Seems simple.
Merckx index said:No, the point of my earlier posts was that many urine samples have no detectable levels of EPO, natural or synthetic. The sample is first tested for generic EPO, a test that does not distinguish natural from synthetic. Only if it tests positive is a further test run to see if some of the EPO is synthetic.
As I also noted, there is a test to determine if lack of EPO resulted from protease, or was natural, i.e., the athlete simply did not excrete much EPO, again, natural or synthetic. Another thing they could do is put a protease inhibitor in the jar in which the rider ****es, and they certainly should chill the samples immediately. The degradation takes some time.
Wrt Heras, the reason there was a problem with the B sample is because the electrophoretic run was smeared. This has nothing to do with a questionable positive, it's something that occasionally happens in the lab. Maybe the sample wasn't loaded carefully, or the temperature during the run was not constant, there are several possibilities. A sample can be a definite positive, but if the run is not technically clear, it can't be visualized.
An analogy is if a camera catches someone robbing a store at night, but the picture is blurry. You might not be able to use the picture as evidence, not because it hasn't caught the thief, but because it isn't technically clear enough to reveal the identity. Same with the Heras case. When the re-ran the sample, they got a clear positive.