The rEPO tests suck

[chrisroph]

Follow the link for a discussion of why the rEPO tests are highly questionable.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/drmujika_eporeport

[Fixed]

Bro that was a fun read so they are bogus. Does that get anyone off the hook? Cheers :beer:

[pdonk]

Bro that was a fun read so they are bogus. Does that get anyone off the hook? Cheers :beer:

Nope, Canadian Mountain Biker Chris Sheppard tried this type of argument at his doping hearings and was still suspended for 2 years.

[jdoiv]

Nope, Canadian Mountain Biker Chris Sheppard tried this type of argument at his doping hearings and was still suspended for 2 years.

Was GUILtY... this is from www.cyclingnews.com

"Sheppard admits doping violation
Chris Sheppard, the Canadian national mountain bike representative given a two-year suspension after he was found to have evidence of recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) in his system, has admitted that after 17 years of racing clean, he "gave in during hard times".

Sheppard stated via his lawyers that, "Point blank I wish to acknowledge I cheated; I'm not trying to raise sympathy, nor have people feel sorry for me. Cycling is a tough sport and after years of racing clean and pointing the finger, I gave in during hard times. I wanted what was taken away from me - years of hard work culminating in a solid season that ended with an accident and my spiral into depression."

Sheppard had enjoyed a strong finish to the NORBA series, where several top-five finishes helped him finish his campaign strongly - that has now been tainted. "I am devastated by the knowledge that I have let down my family, friends, sponsors, fellow racers, and national team supporters. Until last spring, I lived and raced cleanly and with the conviction that Canadian athletes work hard and play fair. I alone am responsible for my terrible mistake."

Sheppard was subjected to an out-of-competition urine test at his home in Kamloops, BC, on May 29, 2005; the presence of rEPO in his A-sample was communicated to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport on June 15, and confirmed in his B-sample on July 4. The matter was referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada as provided for in the Canadian Anti-Doping Program rules, and the final decision of the arbitrator was handed down early September. In accordance with CCES and WADA rules, he was given the minimum two-year suspension for a first-time doping offence.

Sheppard cites his serious injuries following a training accident in July 2004 as the cause of his 'downward spiral' and subsequent drop in performance, which forced him to seek the edge offered by drugs. Sheppard says he is now "reflecting on a career that is tainted. Canada has always bred its athletes to believe that if they work hard and believe in themselves, they can lead a drug-free career. During my career, I lived by this statement while fighting for every mile and every position. This belief in oneself was the foundation for all of us to push our limits. Now I push through one of the hardest parts of a lost career - the inability to spread my passion for cycling to others."

Sheppard and his legal team will not be considering an appeal against the decision."

[pdonk]

He only came out and confessed after his hearing, and his suspension was announced. At his hearing the science was debated and the validity of the test was questioned by his legal council and science advisors.

[JohnS]

This is why cyclists have such a poor public image. So many cry innocence for so long before they admit to cheating. Then, when there actually is an innocent party, no one believes him because we've heard the crying before.

[jdoiv]

This is why cyclists have such a poor public image. So many cry innocence for so long before they admit to cheating. Then, when there actually is an innocent party, no one believes him because we've heard the crying before.

go to a prison some time and ask how many of them are innocent....
Not to say that our justice system isn't flawed, but denial is the best defense...

[chrisroph]

Fixed--Its just an argument. You need to convince the arbitrators/court that you are right.

The tests are very delicate and rely on skilled technicians. They use questionable techniques and are based on many invalid assumptions. They have not been subject to intense peer review.

This is not the type of science that should be used to destroy careers and reputations.

[Johny]

Fixed--Its just an argument. You need to convince the arbitrators/court that you are right.

The tests are very delicate and rely on skilled technicians. They use questionable techniques and are based on many invalid assumptions. They have not been subject to intense peer review.

This is not the type of science that should be used to destroy careers and reputations.

Chris,

There is no question that the current testing system has problems. I agree if the test is not robust, it shouldn't be used. However, if you want to have definite answers for every biology question, you might never get them. "Life" is always more complicated than it seems to be.

Regarding the science part, these three publications are peer reviewed by very good scientific journals, including the very best "Nature". Why only three? Money (this is no cancer research).

Ultimately, the question is why anti-doping?

[djg]

Chris,

Regarding the science part, these three publications are peer reviewed by very good scientific journals, including the very best "Nature". Why only three? Money (this is no cancer research).

Ultimately, the question is why anti-doping?

Nature is indeed a premier journal, but they publish different sorts of things--not just articles--according to different standards. And, of course, they might well find something of technical or theoretical interest long before all sorts of clinically important issues had been resolved.

Your remark about money is of course important. The largest single source of funding for research in the biomedical sciences anywhere is the NIH, here in the U.S. Research toward the development and refinement of a test for distinguishing the naturally occuring substance from the biological product, in a patient, is likely a cold topic for a grant proposal. Of course industry is the obvious alternative, and, e.g., Amgen would for various reasons like to be able to distinguish their product from competitor (and counterfeit) products, but there, too, the incentive to develop tests to make the sorts of clinical distinctions WADA wants may be relatively small.

[Johny]

Nature is indeed a premier journal, but they publish different sorts of things--not just articles--according to different standards. And, of course, they might well find something of technical or theoretical interest long before all sorts of clinically important issues had been resolved.



Of course you and I know how the peer review system is run: two good scientists can say completely different things...and oh yeah those hot sexy Nature publications. :)