• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

AICAR, GW1516 Wada can test, can the French ?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 14, 2012
67
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
Its great that they are testing them, but isn't AICAR something that would be used more out of competition ?
Well they found AICAR packaging at team ASTANA hotel room during the 2009 tour. I remember a certain former Tour winner bragging about how he was weighing less than in in his previous years. They should've started at the 2009 Tour just to shut him up.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/doping-nachweisverfahren-fuer-aicar-gefunden.1346.de.html?dram:article_id=272119

I think it would be of benefit to use during a race. It isn't just used as a weight loss tool, it helps to improve lipid utilization so riders would definitely benefit from this during a race, although certainly OOC use would be likely as well.
 
Mar 9, 2013
1,525
0
0
Oh i cant wait for this and you guys will look such fools especiall uber Troll the Sceptic i think the guy has actually turned septic. What will you say now then dude when this comes back nothing wrong come on big mouth what will you say? Afterall this is the drug everyone actually thinks he is on.
 
TANK91 said:
Oh i cant wait for this and you guys will look such fools especiall uber Troll the Sceptic i think the guy has actually turned septic. What will you say now then dude when this comes back nothing wrong come on big mouth what will you say? Afterall this is the drug everyone actually thinks he is on.
What the **** are you talking about?
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
OOC blood banking whilst using AICAR and then blood transfusion IC may catch someone. Similar to Clentador.
 
sideshadow said:
If I used AICAR, well I would be worried right about now..
If this is the test that got the go ahead than it could be detected for up to 120 days after use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23828211
No, the test in that link is not what is used. That measures concentration of a metabolite in red blood cells. The test to be used assays urine.

If I understand the other link correctly, there is a screening test and a confirmation test, much as with testosterone. The screening test measures the concentration of the substance (probably some metabolite, actually) in urine. If it is significantly higher than what is considered physiologically normal, then the confirmation test is applied. Just as with testosterone, this involves measuring the ratio of two carbon isotopes.

Those familiar with Floyd's appeal will appreciate that the isotope test is expensive and tricky. If the results are not clear-cut, there could be a window for a successful appeal. But we shall see.

Dear Wiggo said:
OOC blood banking whilst using AICAR and then blood transfusion IC may catch someone. Similar to Clentador.
If the test in sideshadow's link were used, yes. But in the actual test, probably not. The amount of AICAR transferred during a blood transfusion would be unlikely to trip the screening test, given the high limits allowed.
 
Dec 14, 2012
67
0
0
Merckx index said:
No, the test in that link is not what is used. That measures concentration of a metabolite in red blood cells. The test to be used assays urine.

If I understand the other link correctly, there is a screening test and a confirmation test, much as with testosterone. The screening test measures the concentration of the substance (probably some metabolite, actually) in urine. If it is significantly higher than what is considered physiologically normal, then the confirmation test is applied. Just as with testosterone, this involves measuring the ratio of two carbon isotopes.

Those familiar with Floyd's appeal will appreciate that the isotope test is expensive and tricky. If the results are not clear-cut, there could be a window for a successful appeal. But we shall see.
Oh, ok. I know in the link the guy talks of CIR testing but I thought that he meant CIR would be used in the urine testing and the test I linked would be the confirmation, as you say. The urine test has been around for a long time, 2010 I think?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-010-3560-8

The test I linked was developed by the Cologne lab, the same guys who developed the urine test so I was thinking that this is what they were talking about. But I could be wrong. So if I understand you correctly than there is a urine screening test, confirmed by urine CIR test?
 
Oct 17, 2011
943
0
0
There were already talks about a Aicar test almost being available before the Tour started so all the smart riders would have avoided using it during the tdf.. Might bust 1 or 2 low level riders again as usual.

Benotti69 said:
If Cookson was anti doping he would retest for AICAR to at least 2009.
Yea but he won't. He will be like "no no we gotta look in to the future, that's our priority. The past does not matter it's all clean now."
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Le breton said:
How could he?
AICAR, as far as I know got on the prohibited list only in 2010.
Test for it in the interests of transparency.

Taking anything that enhances performance is banned whether on the list or not.
 
Sep 23, 2011
481
0
0
Benotti69 said:
If Cookson was anti doping he would retest for AICAR to at least 2009.
He can only legitimately test for it as far back to when it was banned.
There were probably plenty of people using it in 2009, and someone might reasonably say "I wasn't doping on my comeback" if they were taking it back then.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Morbius said:
He can only legitimately test for it as far back to when it was banned.
There were probably plenty of people using it in 2009, and someone might reasonably say "I wasn't doping on my comeback" if they were taking it back then.
He can test for anything he wants, he is the President of UCI. He could test and find out who was using it. He couldn't issue bans, but the riders would be 'outed', which is just as important.

Transparency is important. To find out who was using AICAR back then helps in more ways than bans.
 
Sep 23, 2011
481
0
0
How can he "out" a rider for taking a substance which was perfectly legal at the time? Sure if UCI follow process they can test for whatever they want, but they cannot release results if no rules were broken.

Edit: They could probably say "xx % of riders were using AICAR" but not name them
 
Morbius said:
How can he "out" a rider for taking a substance which was perfectly legal at the time? Sure if UCI follow process they can test for whatever they want, but they cannot release results if no rules were broken.

Edit: They could probably say "xx % of riders were using AICAR" but not name them
If the purpose is driving a clean culture, the AICAR users should be announced regardless of whether the chemical was on the banned list or not.

At this point, no one takes a black market substance without intentions to cheat.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Morbius said:
How can he "out" a rider for taking a substance which was perfectly legal at the time? Sure if UCI follow process they can test for whatever they want, but they cannot release results if no rules were broken.

Edit: They could probably say "xx % of riders were using AICAR" but not name them
If Cookson was anti doping and sincere about cleaning up the sport he would do this and ensure that UCI rules allow that riders be named.

Pedro Delgado tested positive for a substance that was banned by the IOC but not UCI. It came out in the TdF 1988. There is precedence.;)
 
Dec 14, 2012
67
0
0
Morbius said:
How can he "out" a rider for taking a substance which was perfectly legal at the time? Sure if UCI follow process they can test for whatever they want, but they cannot release results if no rules were broken.

Edit: They could probably say "xx % of riders were using AICAR" but not name them

Catwhoorg said:
AICAR may have been mentioned by name in 2010.

I bet one of the "coverall clauses" in the WADA code can be used to sanction for it in 2009.
Exactly this. Just because it isn't named doesn't mean it isn't banned. If you were to find a new blood boosting substance and call it something else, it's still banned, even if it isn't named.

Usually a substance is added to the list when there is medical or other scientific evidence that the substance or method has the potential to enhance performance. This evidence is available long before even the most up to date athletes use it.

In any case it was on the 2009 doping list and fell under Gene Doping, AMPK agonists. Page 6 of the 2009 code.

http://stage.wada-ama.org/en/Footer-Links/Search/?quicksearchquery=AICAR

Since Cookson is on Twitter we should put pressure on him and see what comes out.
 
Nov 10, 2009
1,398
0
0
Embarrassing

sideshadow said:
......
Well they found AICAR packaging at team ASTANA hotel room during the 2009 tour. I remember a certain former Tour winner bragging about how he was weighing less than in in his previous years. They should've started at the 2009 Tour just to shut him up....
Since nobody challenged you on your post, I assumed it was a well-known fact.

I posted something to that effect on another website and was challenged to find some serious backing for that piece of information/(disinformation?)

So logically I am now leaning on you to tell us where you got that from.

Thanks for your reply.
 
sideshadow said:
Oh, ok. I know in the link the guy talks of CIR testing but I thought that he meant CIR would be used in the urine testing and the test I linked would be the confirmation, as you say. The urine test has been around for a long time, 2010 I think?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-010-3560-8

The test I linked was developed by the Cologne lab, the same guys who developed the urine test so I was thinking that this is what they were talking about. But I could be wrong. So if I understand you correctly than there is a urine screening test, confirmed by urine CIR test?
Isotope testing would never be used for screening. It's too expensive and time-consuming, and accurate enough so that no further test would be required.

The VN article is not very well-written, actually not at all clear about the test. I assume they got it from the German news report, but that doesn't seem very clear, either, even allowing for problems in translation. But this must refer to the screening test:

"We have a reference population of 1000 athletes has been studied from different regions, genders, age groups, etc, with whose results a kind of limit is created,” explained Professor Mario Thevis from the Cologne, Germany, lab. “That is, if values fall within this range or above, you can view this urine sample as suspect. If that is the case, then it is subjected to further investigation.”
And this suggests, though does not actually state, that the confirmation test is based on isotope ratio:

"In nature there are two versions of carbon; this is the carbon 12 with the mass 12, and the carbon with mass 13 and the mixing ratio reflects exactly what carbon is in the food we we eat,” Thevis explained. “If you produce a synthetic product, then this ratio, this signature of the carbon, is different and that can be distinguished with the help of modern analytical techniques.”
The study you linked to is very interesting, but there's no reference to it in the reports of the new test, so I assume it's not being used. Being a blood test is problematic, because you would have to take a blood sample every time you wanted to test for it. Whereas urine samples are taken all the time and used to test for a variety of different drugs. The screening and confirmation tests need to be carried out on the same sample.
 
Mar 31, 2015
153
0
0
Trying to find more out about AICAR as pretty much every thread includes accusations that someone is on it. Searching the old interweb there was a lot of buzz on it a couple of years ago and then nothing, this thread also went dead.

Interested to hear in an interview with Antoine Vayer that he doesn’t think it is being used, certainly not widespread.

Cyclingtips highlighted the short comings of it.

“And there are some drawbacks to AICAR use. For a start, it’s very expensive — somewhere in the vicinity of half a million euro for a treatment in a lab in Vienna, according to French paper Libération. There’s also a suggestion that athletes using AICAR would see a significant increase in lactic acid creation. And finally, only limited testing has been done on humans when it comes to AICAR so there might be further complications we don’t even know about yet.”

Anyone seen anything new? If does look to have been a flash in the pan that has only lived on in some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories without being re-examined.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts