• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

New test for blood transfusion - can trace people using their own blood!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
DirtyWorks said:
Thanks for posting this. We'll put this one next to the last anti-doping test that dramatically improved catching cheats and actually ended up with no additional sanctions.

Not sure what you are trying to say? Mocking me for posting?

DirtyWorks said:
Just to make it clear, there isn't a 100% accurate test.
-true positive
-false postive
-false negative
-true negative
-"Suspicious" (presence of doping artifacts, but not alot. Not a positive.)

Of course. What they said was that 100% of the people they intentionally doped has been tested positive with this test. Hence the ability to detect transfusion is effective.

DirtyWorks said:
Best case scenario, you have to give WADA some time to ratify the test and labs to acquire and be trained for the test. Doping will be dialed back by the sophisticated doper during this time because all of WADA's proceedings are public. Later on, will any anti-doping authorities pay for the new test??

Does anyone know how much will the test cost?

No idea. As far who will pay for the specific test (I assume this is what you are asking since the article states that WADA is at least co-funding this project) it should be like any other test. I don't know who pays for all the EPO-tests during the Tour but the ones who are will probably pay for these new tests if they decide to use them.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Netserk said:
– Ja, de forskningspersoner som vi dopat så är det 100 procent säkert och vi kan spåra blodtransfusionerna tre-fyra veckor bak i tiden, säger Christer Malm.

Now your Swedish may be better than mine, but I get that to mean "100% certain", instead of "100% safe"
Your Swedish is probably better than mine, as I have none - but thanks, good to know you have some useful purpose.
 
I haven't seen a translated article, but it sounds as though it's based on effects on red cell membranes of storage. I assume it's not just frozen storage, as not all blood doping involves frozen storage, probably most does not. There are other approaches in the works which potentially could be ready sooner than three years.

Keep in mind, too, that the test has to be validated for both sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is the % of dopers it identifies, and apparently that is what the article refers to. Specificity is the % of positives that are dopers. Usually they are inversely related, the higher the one, the lower the other. A higher sensitivity means fewer false negatives, whereas a higher specificity means fewer false positives. So specificity is very important. No test will be approved without a very high specificity, whereas a low sensitivity is typical of most doping tests. Think EPO, for example.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
100% accuracy sounds incredible. Too good to be true, almost...

May be a case of 100% no false positives, or some other subgroup. I vaguely remember some of the early EPO test protocols were heavily invested in avoiding false positives, although I think the 'catch' rate was something like 9 from 11 - that is, it produced no false poistives, but 2/11 false negatives - but that is entirely from vague memory, so feel free to shoot it down.

I agree that unlikely any test can ever realistically approach 100% accuracy both in clearing and in condemning
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
major logic fail :rolleyes:. By that thinking there should be 0 irish positives, since he said the UCI Pres would cover up positives. He never said the UCI Pres would win the TDF for their compatriots, you invented that bit up yourself.:rolleyes::cool:

Speaking of which, how many Irish positives were there in the past era?

How many truly elite Irish cyclists were there to even test in McQuaid's reign - Nico, Deignan, Dan Martin...Irvine at a push. McCann popped in 2002. Power had a pretty good reputation. Scanlon.

It's a pretty small pool, to be honest.
 
martinvickers said:
How many truly elite Irish cyclists were there to even test in McQuaid's reign - Nico, Deignan, Dan Martin...Irvine at a push. McCann popped in 2002. Power had a pretty good reputation. Scanlon.

It's a pretty small pool, to be honest.

matt brammeier would probably be offended to be excluded from this list
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
manafana said:
why are some people even cycling fans with the attitude going around here sometimes?
My understanding is that it won't work on blood that has been frozen to keep the sample

Some people in here aren't. Understand that, everything else false into place.
 
Ferminal said:
Bit suspicious of the motives whenever we hear researchers claiming "new test coming soon".

researcher_translation.png
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
A 2011 study showed small, frequent (and effective) doses of EPO didn’t trigger alarms. And antidoping scientists fear that athletes can use other drugs to tweak blood levels and fool the test.

Pitsiladis, whose background is in genetics, thinks the secret to a foolproof test may lie inside cellular anatomy. He spent years picking through the DNA of East African runners, looking for a source to their prowess. But he couldn’t find a genetic cause. In fact, he started to wonder if they were just doping, and that suspicion led him to search for evidence of cheating on a genetic level, specifically in RNA.

RNA attaches to DNA and executes its code, to produce proteins the body needs to grow and function. If the body has been fooled into making more blood cells, the RNA should reveal it. To check his theory, Pitsiladis had to do some doping of his own. In Scotland and Kenya, he and colleagues drew blood from runners, then had them inject EPO and checked their blood several more times over a month. He plugged that blood into a machine that looks like an oversize CD player and scans for 47,000 RNA sequences, measuring how much of each one is present in the sample.

The results showed unique fluctuations in more than 100 RNA sequences in the doped blood. Pitsiladis likens it to a dimmer switch. Hit with a dose of EPO, the body responds by turning up or down the expression of certain genes. Some fragments of RNA were 16 times more plentiful in the doped blood. He could still find this fingerprint four weeks after the injection. “Most exciting data of my career,” Pitsiladis said.

Catching someone doping with their own blood can be trickier. But in Umea, Sweden, 250 miles south of the Arctic Circle, Christer Malm thinks he might have found a way. He extracted blood from 11 people, froze it for 15 weeks and then reinjected it. When comparing these samples to normal blood, Malm could always pick the doped blood out of a lineup by looking for unusual amounts of certain proteins. He suspects the changes are caused by the body’s reaction to the new blood, combined with a sort of freezer burn that develops as the blood ages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-secret-to-a-bulletproof-antidoping-test.html?&_r=0
 
gooner said:

All good, but WADA certified labs need a commercialized test for each. And the commercialized test needs to have very good accuracy. And then either the UCI or race organizer needs to order the test and actually sanction positive.

Even then, because of the nature of the tests, the results will range negative->suspicious->positive. The doping doctors will have all the documentation needed to modify their routines to never test positive.

If we get lucky, I see national-level athletes getting popped as the warning to elites to change their program.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/bioteknik_lakemedel/bioteknik/article3892433.ece

Google translate:
Our method breaks up proteins in the blood with a powerful laser. The fragments gets measured and compared against a database that can identify different combination of thousands of proteins.

Pro Test Diagnostics has now received fresh venture capital from Fort Knox. The goal is for the test to reach the market within three years.

- We are now waiting for tests to verify that it works for different scenarios. We do not know how good test answers depending on diet, exercise or genetics. We also need to think hard about how samples are to be transported from the sample to the nearest lab and develop a software to analyze the samples, says Christer Malm.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
dont forget testing samples in future, back-testing. like say, 1999 Tour de France samples, but not for research purposes.

Like testing the entirety of 2007 for Myacera, and not just picking on Ricky Riccio and Saunier Duval.

back testing, never happens, the sport authorities dont wanna catch you.

<Brecht quote on heroes>

<Professor Don Catlin on his research testing for the track and field trials for the LA 1984 Olympics, and allowing athletes a "wide berth" to prepare for international meets>
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
If there were systematic retesting, tests like this and the MAIIA microdose test would be a deterrent, even if these tests never actually comes to anything. McQuaid was blatant about it: UCI didn't want to dig in the past, so UCI retesting anything after the CERA test was introduced wasn't going to happen. But if you know that there is a big chance your sample will be retested within the 10 year SOL it would probably make at least some think twice about what they are risking. Systematic retesting is not just digging in the past, it is a deterrent against doping right now. It is also one of the changes CIRC recommends. But as it stands McQuaids words are still UCI's policy.

"From the UCI's point of view, we prefer to look forward rather than look backward," McQuaid said in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday. "To randomly say 'OK, let's take all the samples from 2007 from the Tour de France and put them all through testing processes' ... it's futile, it's expensive and it's not going to serve the purpose in the anti-doping fight of today."
"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organizer and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium' .. it makes a complete mockery of sport,"
 
The history of cycling is filthy and it needs to be exposed. We can go back one year, 20 years or 100 years and see that. By the reluctance of Pat and even the current UCI only shows they are unwilling to truly make the sport clean. All just a show. If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past we are bound to continue making them. Honest retro testing will be a strong deterrent to doping hopefully. Question will always arise though of who can be trusted to initiate the process. I don't believe in Cookson for one second either.