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

Unbelievable doping excuses

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Arizona's Alonzo Trier, a college basketball star, tested positive for ostarine, a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) with muscle-building and fat burning properties. His explanation--no, I'm not making this up:
it was left over from a previous positive test for the same substance more than a year ago.

This is bizarre, but may have relevance to Froome's case. Trier first tested positive for ostarine at the end of 2016, and at that time he claimed his step-father gave it to him without his knowledge in a drink to help him recover from injuries suffered in an auto accident. Apparently the NCAA bought that, and reduced his suspension to the period of time it took the drug to clear his system. The drug has a half life of about one day, and Trier tested negative for it several times after that initial positive.

So how could he test positive for it again after all this time?

James Dalton, dean of the University of Michigan’s College of Pharmacy and the inventor of a patent for Ostarine, said the drug usually disappears from the system in “about a week.”

Dalton said that led him to suspect that either Trier is still using Ostarine, that there is a problem in the NCAA’s testing, or that the drug somehow lodged in a tissue or cyst and was released before Trier tested positive last month during a random drug test — a theory the UA will likely use in its appeal.
Notice the similarity of the bolded to what Froome's team was reportedly considering: the drug accumulated some place in the body, then was suddenly excreted. Only Trier's claim is even more dubious, because of the far longer period of time involved, and because he's arguing he didn't take any of the drug during the intervening period.

“Some people have different levels of enzymes to process drug molecules and things can linger longer, but even if he has deficiencies in his clearance, it wouldn’t go to zero and then come back,” [pharmacologist David] Ferguson said. “That’s highly unlikely unless there was something really odd going on.”
http://tucson.com/arizona-s-allonzo-trier-practices-as-he-awaits-results-of/article_79afc236-1c3c-11e8-9f21-8faf3671b0be.html

https://sports.yahoo.com/experts-allonzo-triers-explanation-latest-failed-drug-test-highly-unlikely-190802793.html

For college basketball fans, you could say the Wildcats are going through a tough period. Their coach has been caught up in the ongoing NCAA scandal. An FBI wiretap reportedly caught him offering a player $100,000, and that player and Trier are the two leading scorers on the team.
 
Who knows. Maybe she is right. But for the time being She makes it into this thread:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/marion-sicot-says-menstrual-cycle-could-have-sparked-epo-positive/
There is research suggesting that endometrial Epo expression is higher in the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle, but the only paper I know of looking at serum levels shows that these do not significantly change during the menstrual cycle. Endocrinology isn't really my area, but I had a quick look and there isn't very much research on it that I can find.
 
Who knows. Maybe she is right. But for the time being She makes it into this thread:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/marion-sicot-says-menstrual-cycle-could-have-sparked-epo-positive/
Good grief, the article points out the blindingly obvious fact: the EPO test is for the synthetic, not endogenous, peptide. The fact that her endogenous levels might have increased is totally irrelevant, though if anything, that might have made it harder to detect the synthetic form.

There is some evidence that exercise, in some people, may result in changes to the endogenous form that make it appear like the synthetic form, but Sicot is not claiming that.
 
I'm fairly sure the test can tell the difference between synthetic and naturally occurring. So if that is the case, then it would exclude naturally occurring, which means means higher levels of naturally occurring either wouldn't show up or would not be relevent to being with, thus her menstruating or not shouldn't make a difference. Also if menstruation is going to cause higher levels of EPO would there not be a LOT of female cyclists being dinged by this test on a regular bases due to menstruation cycles?
 
Good grief, the article points out the blindingly obvious fact: the EPO test is for the synthetic, not endogenous, peptide. The fact that her endogenous levels might have increased is totally irrelevant, though if anything, that might have made it harder to detect the synthetic form.

There is some evidence that exercise, in some people, may result in changes to the endogenous form that make it appear like the synthetic form, but Sicot is not claiming that.
Do you have a link to this? The glycosylation is very dependent on species, tissue and media (or available biomolecules), so it'd be interesting to see why they think exercise changes this. If this is the case maybe there is an argument to check if this happens during the menstrual cycle too?



The article is fairly poor on information as it just states EPO, when what they were testing for is rHuEPO. What I'm uncertain of is what the current testing protocol is. Is it the new model developed by Gore et. al ? ( http://www.haematologica.org/content/88/3/333.full.pdf+html ), or is it the isoelectric focussing method from Lasne? ( https://www.nature.com/articles/35015164 ). I think that it's possible the Gore model could be affected by changes in EPO levels within an athlete, but I'm not sure? If this is the current test then the argument makes slightly more sense. I'm aware the answer is likely in the haematologica paper, but I don't have time to read it at the moment so I thought I'd ask in case you knew.

I'm fairly sure the test can tell the difference between synthetic and naturally occurring. So if that is the case, then it would exclude naturally occurring, which means means higher levels of naturally occurring either wouldn't show up or would not be relevent to being with, thus her menstruating or not shouldn't make a difference. Also if menstruation is going to cause higher levels of EPO would there not be a LOT of female cyclists being dinged by this test on a regular bases due to menstruation cycles?
It can, but depending on which test is used it could be questioned based on the results. Your final point is the most pertinent. It's possible that any model used takes this variation into account (if it's been shown to exist) and Sicot returned results just outside it (or way over it). It should be clearer when more info comes out.
 
Reactions: Koronin
Original study claiming EPO false positives:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16493001

Here is the CN story of a triathlete who got his positive rescinded based on the false positive argument:


However, Catlin published a rebuttal:

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/108/5/1778.1

I discussed this here a while back, with some of my own criticisms, but that was a long time ago. and I haven't heard any more about EPO false positives since. Heras got off on a technicality, the gel was not clear, which sometimes happens.

The Gore test is basically a passport approach, except that it includes EPO levels. AFAIK, it has not been adopted by WADA. E.g., a few months ago, USADA stated this:

How is EPO detected?

A test for EPO was first presented at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia that was based on a complementary analysis using blood and urine matrix. With this test, a blood screening took place first, followed by a urine test to confirm possible use of EPO.

Further published research established that urine tests alone can reliably detect recombinant EPO, a finding that WADA’s Executive Committee accepted in 2003, which led to the adoption of the current EPO detection method. WADA explains that the research “concluded that urinary testing is the only scientifically validated method for direct detection of recombinant EPO” and “recommended that urine testing be used in conjunction with blood screening for a variety of reasons, including the cost savings of performing blood screening prior to testing urine.”

“Recent advances in both direct and indirect detection methods, including the hematological module of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), allow for increased detection sensitivity through longitudinal monitoring of blood-based biomarkers in individual athletes,” explains WADA. Atypical ABP profiles are used to facilitate target testing and guide further ESA analyses.

Is the EPO detection method reliable?

The EPO detection method is widely accepted by the scientific community and has gone through an extensive scientific validation process. Accredited anti-doping laboratories worldwide have also successfully used it for years. In September 2005, the WADA Laboratory Committee reaffirmed its support of the method when applied appropriately. According to WADA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has also supported the validity of the EPO detection method in all its decisions relating to EPO.

There is a new method for detecting EPO isoforms from MAIIA Diagnostics:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421537

I don’t believe WADA uses this, either, though. There is a lot of research into detecting EPO gene doping, including a method that could simultaneously be used to detect use of any type of exogenous EPO:

 
Who said this: "I've been tested 867 times and never 1 positive! I didn't dope. Everyone's lying". :)

"I can get 10 people to say you doped too Greg"(offers up the princely sum of what was it, $300k to ANY rider who'd claim they saw Greg dope too"(crickets chirp).
 
Who said this: "I've been tested 867 times and never 1 positive! I didn't dope. Everyone's lying". :)

"I can get 10 people to say you doped too Greg"(offers up the princely sum of what was it, $300k to ANY rider who'd claim they saw Greg dope too"(crickets chirp).
What’s your point caller?..that was then, this is now, this has nothing to do with lance Armstrong
 
Adri van der Poel
Cycling
Busted for: Strychnine in 1983
Excuse: His pigeon-racing father-in-law fed him pie made from doped-up birds.
interesting... imagine, you bring up "family doping culture" as an excuse, certainly makes everyone more believable (any ideas about secret family recipe for the infamous "pot belge" mix?)
 
So Lance tested positive, it was pursued by the relevant anti-doping authority, it was reported in the press and that's when he made this claim? Which positive was this?
How many positives did he have, something like 5, 7? He's had more than 1.
The exact number of times he was supposedly tested is all on Wonderboy, as the numbers increased whenever talk of him doping came up. I just like manipulating them to show how ridiculous he was.

But the Usada report indicated that advances in EPO testing since then conclusively showed that he used the hormone. The report said the retesting produced “resoundingly positive values” from six samples. Armstrong's account of how often he has been tested has varied.Oct 11, 2012

I think the number is closer to 9 IIRC.
 
Last edited:
How many positives did he have, something like 5, 7? He's had more than 1.
The exact number of times he was supposedly tested is all on Wonderboy, as the numbers increased whenever talk of him doping came up. I just like manipulating them to show how ridiculous he was.

But the Usada report indicated that advances in EPO testing since then conclusively showed that he used the hormone. The report said the retesting produced “resoundingly positive values” from six samples. Armstrong's account of how often he has been tested has varied.Oct 11, 2012

I think the number is closer to 9 IIRC.
Maybe you could answer the question asked, rather than the one you want to?
 
UFC fighter Nate Diaz says he tested positive, and claims he was set up:

Diaz took to social media to reveal that he had, apparently, tested positive for some kind of performance enhancing drug. He then vehemently denied the charge and speculated that the test was a set-up by some entity — The United States Anti-Doping Association? The UFC?

He then took it even a step further by suggesting someone in power told him to hide the results until after the fight, the way other fighters do it, opening an entire different scandal if true.
 
The fight is back on. Diaz has been cleared. Apparently UFC has a threshold for the substance, a SARM, because it has been found in supplements.

Diaz took an organic, plant-based vegan multivitamin capsule that was found to be contaminated with LGD4033 by the Sports Medicine Research & Testing Laboratory in Salt Lake City. Matthew Fedoruk, the science director of USADA, sent a letter to the New York State Athletic Commission in which he said the amount of LGD4033 in Diaz’s system was roughly 10,000 times less than one therapeutic dose. UFC officials provided Fedoruk’s statement to Yahoo Sports.

SMRTL confirmed that two bottles of the multivitamin Diaz had been taking was contaminated with LGD4033, also known as Ligandrol.
How did the testing lab get ahold of the sample Diaz was using so quickly? And why was Diaz taking the supplement if he didn't know whether it might be contaminated? Sure sounds as though UFC is going out of its way to make it easy for fighters to avoid the consequences of testing positive.

Diaz’s is the fifth case this year of a UFC fighter testing positive for a SARM as a result of a contaminated supplement. Neil Magny was pulled from a card in May and provisionally suspended for the same reason, but he was cleared of an anti-doping violation by USADA.
Four fighters previously tested positive from a supplement, yet UFC says nothing when they continue to take supplements and continue to test positive. It's sort of like telling them, go ahead and eat all the Mexican meat you want, and if you test positive for CB, we'll get you off.

 
Reactions: yaco
This is a reverse case but still extraordinary, i.e. I thought I was participating in a doping ring but it was actually illegal recreational drugs...

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch Olympic athlete Madiea Ghafoor has been sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in jail after 2 million pounds ($2.58 million) worth of ecstasy tablets and crystal meth were found in the boot of her car in Germany, DPA news agency has reported.

Ghafoor, 27, was stopped at a border check in Elten in June where 50kg of ecstasy, 2kg of crystal meth and 11,950 euros in cash were seized by police, the report said.

The athlete, who ran for the Netherlands in the 4x400m relay at the 2016 Olympic Games, pleaded not guilty to the charges at Kleve District Court and said she thought she was carrying doping materials, the German news agency said.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS