HGH

dave_1

On slipstream's website they say they have had some success detecting it, does the UCI even try? HGH must be massivly used in sport if not
http://www.slipstreamsports.com/science-of-testing/

Kléber

No one tries because the test isn't in place yet. But the test does exist, it just has to be properly validated by WADA, the aim is to have in place for the olympics (and Tour).

Indeed some samples are being analysed now, to help refine the testing procedures. Whilst a positive test cannot result in punishment since the test isn't approved, if the lab thinks a rider is suspect, apparently this intelligence is being passed onto governing bodies, anti-doping agencies etc so the individual can be watched and tested more closely.

cougie

THere was a test ready for the Sydney Olympics - but they didnt want it put in place ?

Maybe it would have caught out too many people ?

LangerDan

There is a big difference in having a test that can detect HGH and having a test that sufficiently robust to be useable as definitive proof of doping.

The Slipstream (and Damsgaard) approach is akin to a pub landlord who installs an alcohol breath testing machine to stop his customers driving over the limit. The results can be used to take action but could not be the basis for a conviction.

OffTheBackAdam

It's also a question of are you detecting natural levels of a product?
The big problem with the recent doping products, is that they are naturally occuring , designed in a way that the human body doesn't produce antibodies to them.
No point in a renal patient injecting RhEPO if it isn't going to work.
We all produce EPO, HGH (That's why it's called Human Growth Hormone) and other similar hormones continually.