help analyze this data?

Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
It's interesting that the 47.4% Hct occurs in the blood of someone showing 16.9g/dL Hgb. The basic rule of thumb is Hct = 3 x Hgb.

3 x 16.9 = 50.7

You might say so what, but given the off score is still being calculated and reported, I'd say it makes a difference. One (medical care, not WADA blood analysis) book I read mentioned retests being required if Hct > 3 x Hgb + 3, as it indicated an anomaly.

That trivia aside, there's not a lot of analysis that can be done without knowing who the individuals are and seeing their long-term values, coupled with competition date info relating to testing times.
 
T/E ratio goes from basically 1 to nearly 4, I'd have to plot it out to get a better feel.
I'm no expert on steroid panels, but you probably need to look at raw T plus T:e ratio on the same plot to look for anything tricky.


Ret% goes from sub 1% to over 2% - that latter carrying the warning flag over a late delivery.

Off scores generally 80-90, with one out at 99.9.
 
Jun 27, 2013
116
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
It's interesting that the 47.4% Hct occurs in the blood of someone showing 16.9g/dL Hgb. The basic rule of thumb is Hct = 3 x Hgb.

3 x 16.9 = 50.7

You might say so what, but given the off score is still being calculated and reported, I'd say it makes a difference. One (medical care, not WADA blood analysis) book I read mentioned retests being required if Hct > 3 x Hgb + 3, as it indicated an anomaly.

That trivia aside, there's not a lot of analysis that can be done without knowing who the individuals are and seeing their long-term values, coupled with competition date info relating to testing times.
they are 2 fighting athletes, they fight 3x5 min with 1 min of rest between rounds.
original article which i got the data from:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/2/11/5402242/nsac-ufc-drug-testing-steroid-cir-ped
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Nice trying to proof he did something dodgy... but you don't really know.

But no problem, just post the confidential report with the name of the athlete and the name of the laborant.

DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Franklin said:
Nice trying to proof he did something dodgy... but you don't really know.

But no problem, just post the confidential report with the name of the athlete and the name of the laborant.

DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR.
He reposted information from an online, publicly accessible sport-specific article, and asked for comment / analysis.

Anything but disgusting.

Your post, on the other hand...
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
T/E ratio goes from basically 1 to nearly 4, I'd have to plot it out to get a better feel.
I'm no expert on steroid panels, but you probably need to look at raw T plus T:e ratio on the same plot to look for anything tricky.


Ret% goes from sub 1% to over 2% - that latter carrying the warning flag over a late delivery.

Off scores generally 80-90, with one out at 99.9
.
bingo to the highlighted except it is far from clear that you are looking at a trend for one athlete on other pages. that's why i am not sure of the validity of your comments regarding the t/e ratio probably related to another specimen number.

the op asked only about the page 9.

another potential flag, if it was part of a data set trending a profile, would be % of immature rets fraction - 13.9% is a tad high and may smell epo...

also, since we do not see a clear sign that the a and b sample were taken, we are likely looking at a target test as opposed to a fully sanction-able blood passport, as per the wada procedure.
 
Jun 27, 2013
116
0
0
Franklin said:
Nice trying to proof he did something dodgy... but you don't really know.

But no problem, just post the confidential report with the name of the athlete and the name of the laborant.

DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR.
there are 2 athletes, but you cannot see which one they test, and like dear wiggo said, its from an online source.
 
Jun 27, 2013
116
0
0
python said:
bingo to the highlighted except it is far from clear that you are looking at a trend for one athlete on other pages. that's why i am not sure of the validity of your comments regarding the t/e ratio probably related to another specimen number.

the op asked only about the page 9.

another potential flag, if it was part of a data set trending a profile, would be % of immature rets fraction - 13.9% is a tad high and may smell epo...

also, since we do not see a clear sign that the a and b sample were taken, we are likely looking at a target test as opposed to a fully sanction-able blood passport, as per the wada procedure.
Would like to have your opinion/s on all the pages?, i was just stating, i only could find a high Hct on page 9.
 
I know its been a little while, but I did get to plot these out.

The T:E ratios all do not flag anything in of themselves, nor do the T or E concs themselves. The other steroids looked at are not red flags.

One of the DHEA levels (>100) on 12/28 is enough that it should flag an IRMS study under the WADA guidelines. That's a cold hard fact.

Looking at the T:E ratios with time. WADA suggests that a T:E variation within 30% is normal for males.



The lines are for guidance, we don't know FOR SURE which sample is associated with which athlete, though I think its pretty clear in most cases.

That T:E of 3.98 is a clear spike, and suspicious, being outside of 30% variation.

So my interpretation:
1) One IRMS would be justified under WADA guidelines (that looks for synthetic versus natural T)
2) One sample is clearly outside the normal variation expected. Strongly suggestive of testosterone doping.


Of course we don't know which one, but it looks like one guy wasn't training clean.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS