MAIIA - the new EPO test

Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Have you heard of the new EPO-test called MAIIA? It has been claimed that it is cheaper than its predecessor and can detect micro-dosing rather easily. WADA (or was it the IOC?) has said that samples taken at the 2010 Winter olympics will be retested with this new method of analysis. It sounds pretty promising. There's a test for autologous blood doping under development as well.
 
Apr 1, 2009
187
0
0
Interesting stuff. The day we get the test for autologous blood doping will be very interesting, very interesting indeed.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Can we hope a retrotesting of some old samples ?

I would do it and give no sanction to positive athletes but put them under the threat of a live ban at the next infraction.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kerbdog said:
Interesting stuff. The day we get the test for autologous blood doping will be very interesting, very interesting indeed.
I wouldn't get your hopes up, it'll strangely only catch nobodies, same as all other tests.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hibbles said:
I wouldn't get your hopes up, it'll strangely only catch nobodies, same as all other tests.
....cause they're the only ones that dope.......
 
Feb 2, 2010
79
0
0
Kerbdog said:
Interesting stuff. The day we get the test for autologous blood doping will be very interesting, very interesting indeed.
A test already exists, it's been around for quite a while, however, it has not been "implemented" by WADA yet and nor likely will be in the future.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
but that test, cannot be used without compromising performance temporarily. I believe another test is in the works.

But there is zero chance that the UCI would use such a test. The entire top ten are on transfusions.
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Correct.

Look up Carbon Monoxide blood test. You'll find plenty of info on it, and we've discussed it plenty.
Actually, Joe Papp provided some information regarding an elegant method for detection, through the analysis for plasticizers. The problem with the method is that is won't distinguish between transfusions and infusions, as all use the plastic IV bags. Nevertheless, it's a very intersting approach.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Returning to the original topic. I would have thought that anyone familiar with a lab would be quite bemused by the persistence of the IEF/immunoblot test for EPO. Given the array of analytical technologies available these days the drug labs must still be run by those old coots who ramble on about "when I was a postdoc" and seem to think you can cobble together an electrophoresis tanks from a couple of pieces of perspex, elastic bands and a wire coathanger.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
******* Finally!

A new paper published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports has shown that in subjects given microdoses, the sensitivity of the test was 100% for at least twelve hours after an injection. Approximately thirty percent of plasma samples still exceeded the 99.9% passport threshold a full 72 hours after the substance is used in that way.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13859/New-EPO-test-could-help-stamp-out-microdosing.aspx

There is however cause for concern. It has come to my attention that the lead researcher behind this new EPO-test is in fact "some danish fellow that is not an anti-doping expert".

And I heard he may havegraduated last in his class at medical school!
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Great, so now anyone wanting to win a stage/tour/race has to micro dose EPO three days prior to any possible testing. Great advance :rolleyes:
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
luckyboy said:
A few questions about the CO test that weren't answered when I asked them last..

Why would WADA not implement the test?

And why didn't the AFLD?

UCI would never do it, as we all know..
In its current form, the CO rebreathing method is logistically too difficult to implement and too easy to sabotage the test as it is being conducted.


Elchingon said:
Great, so now anyone wanting to win a stage/tour/race has to micro dose EPO three days prior to any possible testing. Great advance
Well it is a great advance because microdosing is only effective if you're having injections everyday or every 2nd day for weeks or months at a time. If your "glowtime" increases from 12 to 72hrs that means the risk of going +ve during out of competition testing is dramatically increased.

The test itself seems a great advance. Whether or not that is linked to more effective out of competition testing in conjunction with strictly enforcing the "3 strikes and you're out rule" is the real issue. A few years ago Michael Ashenden suggested GPS tracking as a mean to improve athlete whereabouts. At the time it got shouted down as being too invasive to privacy. Pro cycling has been such a naughty little boy however that IMO they gave that right up.

GPS track every one of them. Target most of your resources on random surprise tests in the 4 weeks leading up to the biggest races. 3 no shows and you get an instant 2yr ban.

edit: in particular... hit them with tests whenever they go to remote, out of the way locations on team training camps!
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
. . .Pro cycling has been such a naughty little boy however that IMO they gave that right up.

GPS track every one of them. Target most of your resources on random surprise tests in the 4 weeks leading up to the biggest races. 3 no shows and you get an instant 2yr ban.

edit: in particular... hit them with tests whenever they go to remote, out of the way locations on team training camps!
You could make a TV show of it! It could be called "Big Brother: Pro Cycling!"
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
MarkvW said:
You could make a TV show of it! It could be called "Big Brother: Pro Cycling!"
Cameras in every team bus and hotel room!

srsly though, often I wonder why there has been no secret video footage of cyclists doping. Just bust out the hidden video cameras yo
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
GPS track every one of them. Target most of your resources on random surprise tests in the 4 weeks leading up to the biggest races. 3 no shows and you get an instant 2yr ban.

edit: in particular... hit them with tests whenever they go to remote, out of the way locations on team training camps!
All good suggestions. If you or I were running the UCI we'd be catching dopers early and often. Truthfully, it ain't even hard. The difference is we WANT to catch them though.

I agree, lengthening the window of detection even just a few days makes a big difference. Think about stage races and the way micro dosing manipulates retics and obscures transfusions. IOW both EPO and transfusions become riskier. JM said this pattern drove his study design. Nice work for a "non-expert".
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
******* Finally!



http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13859/New-EPO-test-could-help-stamp-out-microdosing.aspx

There is however cause for concern. It has come to my attention that the lead researcher behind this new EPO-test is in fact "some danish fellow that is not an anti-doping expert".

And I heard he may havegraduated last in his class at medical school!
Tyler, I aint PK, so you can change your sig. I got it off him at Geelong world champs when he was a key note speaker /sarcasm
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
lean said:
All good suggestions. If you or I were running the UCI we'd be catching dopers early and often. Truthfully, it ain't even hard. The difference is we WANT to catch them though.

I agree, lengthening the window of detection even just a few days makes a big difference. Think about stage races and the way micro dosing manipulates retics and obscures transfusions. IOW both EPO and transfusions become riskier. JM said this pattern drove his design study. Nice work for a "non-expert".
Yep didn't even think of that aspect. Since the primary function of microdosing in-competition is to mask the effect of transfusions on the biopassport, then if you combine this test with the biopassport it starts to make it much harder to stay inside the thresholds following an infusion.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Well it is a great advance because microdosing is only effective if you're having injections everyday or every 2nd day for weeks or months at a time. If your "glowtime" increases from 12 to 72hrs that means the risk of going +ve during out of competition testing is dramatically increased.
But only effective if they are actually tested OOC.

Average OOC urine tests for 2011 was 2 - ie twice a year. 70% of those urine samples were tested for EPO.

:-/
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
But only effective if they are actually tested OOC.

Average OOC urine tests for 2011 was 2 - ie twice a year. 70% of those urine samples were tested for EPO.

:-/
Not sure of the cost of this new test but it would also be a win if it was cheaper than the current version.

But you're right, the unfortunate sad reality is that anti-doping researchers and the test methods they develop can only go so far. Ultimately it is up to the governing body (my hope is that doping control in cycling is removed from the authority of the UCI) actually conducts enough tests and at the right time.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
But only effective if they are actually tested OOC.

Average OOC urine tests for 2011 was 2 - ie twice a year. 70% of those urine samples were tested for EPO.

:-/
It's still a strong deterrent. It would make the risk of the current microdosing regimes unacceptable.
 
Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
It just seems that history has shown us that with refined tests for doping comes new products and methods. It's an arms race that can only be slowed down in the attitude of the peloton changes. Which it has, if we are to believe certain people.

Not sure though... I usually like to base my optimism on, well, something.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY