Researchers at the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium (KUL) have cast doubt on the EPO-detecting urine test currently in use by the UCI. The researchers say that the test in potentially unreliable because it traces too many types of protein, leading to the risk of a false positive. After a race it is possible for athlete to excrete some of the proteins detected by the test, causing a positive result without the use of EPO.
World-Anti-Doping Agency researchers in Germany are working on an improved version of the test.
The KUL researchers looked into the test at the request of Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke who tested positive for EPO at a race in Knokke last year. Beke denied having used EPO and an investigation by the KUL researchers found he was producing the proteins detected by the test. His suspension is expected to be dropped next week.
What’s crazy is that WADA isn’t arguing the findings. I wonder how long they’ve known about this??
Probably as long as they’ve known that the nandralone test was also flawed. They were getting a lot of false positives from unstable urine, where the some of the protein in the urine broke down into nandralone. A bunch of innocent athletes lost some of their best years in the sport. That is the way WADA works. They are more interested in catching the cheaters, even if some innocent athletes suffer. I don’t agree with it, but I see why they do it…
There are no breakdown proteins from tissue/muscle wasting that produce exactly the molecule nandr**o**lone. There may be spurious breakdown products with certain properties that resemble parts of this compound and maybe recognized by the test under very rare circumstances. This is called “cross-reactivity”.
However, I am always willing to learn: So if you would give me the exact reference, please?!
I have to admit that it looks like some of the tests need to be confirmed by a second, different analysis method. This could be improved only with the input and help of athletes.
However, with most of the athletes having a mindset similar to yours I am not surprised that this is not happening.
“We have identified several urinary proteins with which the monoclonal EPO antibody used in the current test has non-specific binding. The iso-electric points of these cross-reactive proteins overlap with HuEPO and rHuEPO however, they separate distinctly by the 2DE method. Alpha-2-HS-glycoprotein (HSGP) was identified by peptide mass fingerprinting as one of the urinary cross-reacting proteins.”
Seems like the ELISA test is not conclusive. However, there seem to be tests out there that remedy that problem. I do not know what test(s) WADA is using right now for EPO. However, a cross reactivity in an immuno-assay can normally be detected by performing the appropriate control experiments.
Re nandrolone:
Here the situation is different and I was slightly off:
There is the possibility of endogenous nandrolone that may metabolize in small amounts from oestrogen or testosterone (Note: this is not from “wasting” but as a natural occurance). However, current tests are able to differentiate between the artificial compound (even when metabolized) and endogenous breakdown products.
Urine nandrolone metabolites: false positive doping test? R M N Kohler and M I Lambert
2002;36;325-329 *Br. J. Sports Med. *doi:10.1136/bjsm.36.5.325
Rutger may be able to be cleared.
In Tyler’s case, he is in deep sh.t…
as jhc said, there is a test he could do with bone marrow cells…expensive but he sure can afford it…he keeps repeating he’ll do anything he can to prove his innocence but doesn’t want to do this specific test that would show he is a genetic chimera or whatever…
this and the fact that one of his teammates tested positive for the same thing sure doesn’t do anything to help his case…
My bad on the spelling of nandrolone. Thanks. I am an engineer, with pretty minimal background in biology, so my brief “explanation” was just my (mis)reading of some articles. But, as you’ve seen from your research, the nandrolone test that they used (I guess they use a new one now; I had not seen that) was flawed. And apparently they used it will knowing that it was flawed.