F Schleck tests positive for diuretic

Pross

dortmunder wrote:

What a joke! A back dated ban and he hardly misses too much racing. It was a masking agent so the liklihood is he is up to other supplements as well. Good chance to show they are intent on cleaning up cycling and they bottle it at the first opportunity

Surely backdating the ban to the time he tested positive and got suspended is fair? It's not like some cases where the rider carried on riding until their appeal was heard and then had the ban backdated. The ban is too short and will no doubt be appealed but he will have been out of competition for 12 months. The alternative is allowing a rider to continue riding until their ban is decided (which then causes problems with any results between the failed test and the ban being put in place) or effectively having a ban being increased by the time of the suspension that any athlete would take to CAS and, I would have thought, win. Of course, the benefit of doing the latter is that it would be in the athletes interest not to drag the process out longer than necessary as always seems to happen at present.

dougzz

ThomThom wrote:

That might be true. I might be in a minority there. What I never understand is why exactly they are considered clean in all the dirty years while beating a whole lot of dirty riders while being on dodgy teams.
Because Sastre is hailed clean by his fans?

I think it's one of those balance of evidence judgements we all make. Everyone can be linked to someone moody, but it's the number of these links and the apparent strength of links. I think also in Sastre and Evans favour is their consistency, around which others rose and fell. I think something to consider with the everyone is doping thing, is that if you take say USPS, they were doping to support Lance, the way they rode was not designed to fill the top 9 spots at the end of the race, it was for 8 people to flog themselves in support of one, so someone like Landis wasn't really competing with Evans or Sastre. Ultimately we'll never really know. However much Landis and Hamilton have finally told the truth, I've no doubt they've embellished bits and understated other bits to look less worse themselves whilst painting Armstrong as an even more undesirable character.

dougzz

Only bans of a whole number of years make sense in cycling. A 6 month ban that begins in October or November is as much use as a chocolate teapot, whilst a 6 month ban that begins in April wipes out an effective year. Only whole years make sense from a consistency and fairness point of view, whatever you feel the length of bans should be.

frenchfighter

“Of course I am disappointed by the verdict that has just been announced,” said the 32-year-old in a statement. I think that the decision to suspend me during one year is too severe considering the fact that the Council [ALAD] acknowledged that I unintentionally consumed a contaminated product. Unfortunately the provisions of the UCI are such that an involuntary contamination is sufficient in order to pronounce a punishment.

“However I am relieved that the judges acknowledged that the present is not a case of doping and that I had no intention to enhance my performance. This is very important for me, my family, for my team and all those who support me.

“We will now analyse the decision in detail and decide on potential further steps,” he added. “However I bear a positive aspect of the decision in mind: the judges acknowledged that I am not a cheater.

“I wish to thank all my friends and fans who kept their faith in me during this tough period.”

-

Worth noting that point. It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Most miniscule amounts will be due to contamination, be totally accidental and server zero purpose from a performance perspective yet the sport still takes a year off these riders livelihoods. I really don't like this.

shinyhelmut

Either that or most minuscule amounts are down to the rider misjudging the rate at which the drug will be metabolised.

powerbookboy

Jez mon wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Why would he use it as a masking agent (and in the middle of the Tour) when drug itself is banned and easily detected. It's like robbing a bank to provide an alibi for robbing a different bank.

So, you either go for:

1. unintentional ingestion
2. Bruyneel skullduggery

I have no idea how or why. And I wouldn't bet on him being clean. But the idea of using an easily detected banned drug as a masking agent is stupid - you're not masking your cheating at all, you're drawing attention to it.
It's like trying to creep up on someone and covering up the sound of your footsteps by playing a trumpet.

I thought the idea was that overall, the masking agent reduced the glow time?

I think the logic goes that if the performance enhancing drug is detectable for 5 days, but you can flush it with 2 days using a diuretic (especially if that direutic also has a detectable window of less than the 5 days) that makes good logical sense. All about reducing the window that you can be found positive.

powerbookboy

frenchfighter wrote:

Snip...
Worth noting that point. It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Most miniscule amounts will be due to contamination, be totally accidental and server zero purpose from a performance perspective yet the sport still takes a year off these riders livelihoods. I really don't like this.

Contamination from what? Clembutarol can be found in meat in some rare circumstances, and various anabolic compounds have been found in food supplements in the past, but Xipamide is pretty damn weird stuff to be found in anything I can think of that you could legitimately ingest. What was he doing, eating someone who was suffering kidney failure?

As with Bertie, the most likely explanation is a re-infusion of his own blood extracted during a doping cycle, which contained levels of Xipamide his labs weren't sophisticated enough to detect. Or maybe Bruyneel spiked him.

Strict liability is exactly that. If you somehow get weird shit in your body, you're out, regardless of whatever logical or illogical explanation you might come up with.

If they have any sense they would keep x out of the packet of y supplements which they could then hand over for testing to prove contamination. If I remember correctly some UK track athletes proved dodgy supplements were the source of their positives - they still got banned, albeit reduced.

Macaloon

powerbookboy wrote:

What was he doing, eating someone who was suffering kidney failure?

You have evidence for this sufferfest?

dennisn

powerbookboy wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Why would he use it as a masking agent (and in the middle of the Tour) when drug itself is banned and easily detected. It's like robbing a bank to provide an alibi for robbing a different bank.

So, you either go for:

1. unintentional ingestion
2. Bruyneel skullduggery

I have no idea how or why. And I wouldn't bet on him being clean. But the idea of using an easily detected banned drug as a masking agent is stupid - you're not masking your cheating at all, you're drawing attention to it.
It's like trying to creep up on someone and covering up the sound of your footsteps by playing a trumpet.

I thought the idea was that overall, the masking agent reduced the glow time?

I think the logic goes that if the performance enhancing drug is detectable for 5 days, but you can flush it with 2 days using a diuretic (especially if that direutic also has a detectable window of less than the 5 days) that makes good logical sense. All about reducing the window that you can be found positive.

Earlier I thought someone said that a diuretic was banned because it was a masking agent? That would mean able to hide something. Your theory is that it's about getting rid of something????? I take a diuretic and can assure you that it will help you get rid of something(water - at the very least).
Anyway, just a question about masking vs getting rid of. :?

dennisn

powerbookboy wrote:

Strict liability is exactly that. If you somehow get weird shoot in your body, you're out, regardless of whatever logical or illogical explanation you might come up with.

Strict liability, yes. But what about all those poor souls that LA forced to do drugs? Are you still responsible if you're "forced" to do it? :? :?

sherer

dennisn wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

Strict liability is exactly that. If you somehow get weird shoot in your body, you're out, regardless of whatever logical or illogical explanation you might come up with.

Strict liability, yes. But what about all those poor souls that LA forced to do drugs? Are you still responsible if you're "forced" to do it? :? :?

yes you are and even though you have been coerced into it you are still putting it into your body.

Could be wrong but doesn't the diuretic help you flush out your system

Why would Bruyneel spike one of his own riders ?

ddraver

Macaloon wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

What was he doing, eating someone who was suffering kidney failure?

Technically that's allowable under the WADA code so

Free Innocent Frank!!!

powerbookboy

dennisn wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

Strict liability is exactly that. If you somehow get weird shoot in your body, you're out, regardless of whatever logical or illogical explanation you might come up with.

Strict liability, yes. But what about all those poor souls that LA forced to do drugs? Are you still responsible if you're "forced" to do it? :? :?

No one is "forced" to do it. You make a decision based on economics in all likelihood. Not nice to be put in that position, but you have a choice. The reduced length ban is a recognition of this.

But if you do the sums it still makes sense to cheat, as your earning potential is greater if you dope. Punitive retrospective financial penalties are the only way you can reduce the prevalence in the long term.

powerbookboy

dennisn wrote:

Earlier I thought someone said that a diuretic was banned because it was a masking agent? That would mean able to hide something. Your theory is that it's about getting rid of something????? I take a diuretic and can assure you that it will help you get rid of something(water - at the very least).
Anyway, just a question about masking vs getting rid of. :?

You'll forgive me if I get my facts wrong, but my knowledge of analytical chemistry is somewhat hazy. And below is a gross simplification of a lot of the chemistry, so apologies if I'm unintentionally misleading.

Essentially as I see it "masking agents" could work in a number of ways.

1). Removes the banned substance from the blood/urine more rapidly than would occur in the body normally, hence the sample contains nothing to test for.

2). Causes the banned substance to be metabolised into "innocent" compounds.

3). The presence interferes with the actual test so that the banned compounds cannot be proven.

Off the top of my head, you could roughly categorise "masking agents" as

1). Diuretics increase the rate that kidneys work, and increase the volume of urine. Hence "flushing" any of the drug that hasn't been removed from the blood stream more rapidly, decreasing the window that you can test positive.

2). The infamous "magic fingernail" to avoid EPO positive. EPO, HGH and the Insulin like growth factors are not simple chemical compounds like most steroids, but complex proteins*. The 'biological' washing powder you use contains other proteins called proteases. It's job is to chew up and eat other proteins, hence removing those difficult stains. But if you piddle on a fingernail containing a protease, that gets into the sample, and chews up the evidence of the EPO you've been using. However you should then be able to test for the presence of the protease...

3). Much of the testing for simple compounds is done using Gas Chromatography. Basically burn your sample and look at the wavelengths of light that come off. Each compound will produce it's own unique signature of peaks and troughs on the pretty graph that comes out the other end. However interpreting these things is pretty difficult, so if you can find a compound that in combination with your drug of choice produces a spectrum that disguises the bad drug's presence, you have a winner.

The more complex proteins might be detected in different ways. You could have a genetically modified antibody, bound to a substrate of some sort (glass beads are typical). Pass the sample over this and the protein "sticks" to the antibody**. That gets you pure compound to analyse. Wash it off with a releasing agent, then do your ultra-clever and sensitive test without the background interference of all the other junk in the sample. But if I'm really clever, I could make a compound that blocks the antibody. If the protein is the key, the antibody is the lock in this analogy. So squirt glue into the lock so the key can't fit.

Of the 3 masking techniques, by far the simplest is number 1. Don't have anything in the sample that can test positive. Hence the whereabouts system, random controls, unannounced visits, etc.

*Proteins are typically made up of chains of amino acids. The amino acids are simple units glued together in repeating patterns to form chains. A protein's biological function is a result of the 3-dimensional shape that these chains form when they fold up. Think of them as a complex key that fits a lock in your body to turn something on. The tests for EPO are dependant on the fact that the synthethized EPOs have a similar, but not identical string of amino acids, which means if you find something that looks like EPO, but doesn't exactly match the structure you expect to see in a human, you have a positive. I'll bet any money someone somewhere is making stuff that is an exact match for human EPO.

I guess the other possible way of testing for synthetic EPO would be to look at the ratio of "heavy" elements such as Carbon. I don't really understand Carbon dating, but it's to do with the fact organic life has higher concentrations of Carbon14 than the surrounding environmment, hence you can see a compound of typically organic origin as it will be "heavier" because of the Carbon14. I have no idea if there's equipment of sufficient sensitivity to detect these differences in the very small sample mass you would get from a blood or urine test.

** Even better, make a custom antibody for the exact EPO variant that you suspect is in circulation (assuming it's structure is unique enough for you to be able to make a unique antibody binding site). The drug manufacturers probably do this so they can identify their compounds and enforce patents.

frenchfighter

Did you copy this from google? If it is off your own mind then it is pretty impressive stuff. Always good to learn.

powerbookboy

frenchfighter wrote:

Did you copy this from google? If it is off your own mind then it is pretty impressive stuff. Always good to learn.

Result of an unused degree in molecular biology and biochemistry way back in the day...

My hands-on knowledge is 20 years old, but detection of simple compounds (good old analbolic steroids) probably hasn't changed that much in that time. A lot of the stuff surrounding detection of the proteins could be way out of date; but I think it's still reasonably sound.

Mad_Malx

powerbookboy wrote:

Lots of stuff

I would say this is all fairly accurate.

The carbon dectection you mention (Mass Spectrometry?) requires enormously expensive kit (both to buy and run), and probably needs a lot more material than present in a sample.
Edit: On reflection I think the carbon-14 method you are thinking about is something different. I don't think the ratio of 14C to 12C is any different in synthetic vs 'natural' proteins.

Most proteins (including EPO I think) are linked with sugars (glycosylation), synthetic proteins typically have no or different amounts of sugar. There are analytical techniques that can discriminate between natural and synthetic proteins (like EPO). This still means testing needs to be done while the EPO is in the system (ie out of competition before & after taking blood for subsequent reinfusion). Detection of reinfusion is much more complicated and relates to the numbers of young and old red cells, I think INRNG did a good explanation.

powerbookboy

Mad_Malx wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

Lots of stuff

I would say this is all fairly accurate.

The carbon dectection you mention (Mass Spectrometry?) requires enormously expensive kit (both to buy and run), and probably needs a lot more material than present in a sample.

That was my gut reaction, but I know the mass required keeps dropping since back in my day. Wasn't sure where we were with this.

Mad_Malx wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

Most proteins (including EPO I think) are linked with sugars (glycosylation), synthetic proteins typically have no or different amounts of sugar. There are analytical techniques that can discriminate between natural and synthetic proteins (like EPO). This still means testing needs to be done while the EPO is in the system (ie out of competition before & after taking blood for subsequent reinfusion). Detection of reinfusion is much more complicated and relates to the numbers of young and old red cells, I think INRNG did a good explanation.

Wot he said.

Hence the "plasticiser" test that was rumoured around Bertie's sample. Difficult to prove the blood chemistry, look for other foreign compounds you might find as a result of the way the blood was stored.

I thought if we brought carbohydrates and lipids into the mix it might make it even more confusing! That was proper cutting edge stuff way back when, so I don't feel that well qualified to talk about all the "post-ribozyme" processing that gets done to make the protein do its thing.

powerbookboy

Mad_Malx wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

Lots of stuff

Most proteins (including EPO I think) are linked with sugars (glycosylation), synthetic proteins typically have no or different amounts of sugar. There are analytical techniques that can discriminate between natural and synthetic proteins (like EPO).

Sorry, I missed something important here. So they're not testing for differences in the amino acid structure of the protein, it's the Glycosylation state they're looking at?

Is most EPO purely synthetic? In which case I wonder if anyone is producing it by slapping the human gene into a mammalian factory somewhere. That way round you expect a similar/identical pattern of "decoration" on the basic protein structure, hence test defeating?

Mad_Malx

The amino acid sequence of most synthetic EPO is identical to human, it is the glycosylation that differs.

Most recent scientific review I have seen is here (but not sure if joe public can view it):
Jelkmann and Lundby (2011) Blood doping and its detection Blood 118, 2395
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.o ... /2395.full

Extract:
Endogenous Epo and the epoetins have an invariant sequence of 165 amino acids, but they differ in glycosylation. Compared with the epoetins, endogenous Epo isoforms are more acidic30–32 and smaller in size.33 Epo can be separated by isoelectric focusing (IEF) or electrophoresis of urine samples. After IEF, a double-blotting procedure is performed. The mutein darbepoetin-alfa migrates more in the acidic range than Epo on IEF.30,31 The WADA has established criteria to achieve harmonization in the performance of the test for epoetin and darbepoetin in urine.34 Actually, when urine samples from rhEpo-treated subjects were submitted to 2 WADA-accredited laboratories, the results were not fully consistent,35 which, as claimed by the laboratories, was apparently the result of methodologic differences. A recent detection problem has arisen with the addition of proteases by athletes to their urinary samples, which destroys the erythropoietic proteins.36,37 The adulteration of urine with proteases is a prohibited method,1 and techniques have been developed for the detection of their misuse.38

bipedal

frenchfighter wrote:

Worth noting that point. It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Most miniscule amounts will be due to contamination, be totally accidental and server zero purpose from a performance perspective yet the sport still takes a year off these riders livelihoods. I really don't like this.

If you keep saying it, maybe one day it might become true... until then they're dopers telling just-so stories

powerbookboy

Mad_Malx wrote:

The amino acid sequence of most synthetic EPO is identical to human, it is the glycosylation that differs.

Most recent scientific review I have seen is here (but not sure if joe public can view it):
Jelkmann and Lundby (2011) Blood doping and its detection Blood 118, 2395
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.o ... /2395.full

Thank you. I hadn't realised the actual amino acid sequence was identical. Wasn't even aware people were stuffing sugars onto the proteins in a controlled manner. Things have moved on.

Update: Having just read it, it looks like the detectability is based on the host cells they use to manufacturer the EPO. Basically your hamster cell decorates the protein "backbone" in a different way to a human cell. They also mentioned "The only therapeutic rhEpo engineered in human cells (epoetin δ) is off market since the beginning of 2009"

Which rather implies it's perfectly possible to produce completely "human" looking EPO that would pass any tests, unless the manufacturer choose to "paint" a target on it in some way.

Shutting up now...

Pross

I think there are some in Road General who need educating http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12904432

LeicesterLad

Wow. John1967. :shock:

Are you having a laugh.Football gave Rio Ferdinand a 9 month ban for missing a test yet cycling fails to set an example.
This decision is pathetic.

Pross

LeicesterLad wrote:

Wow. John1967. :shock:

Are you having a laugh.Football gave Rio Ferdinand a 9 month ban for missing a test yet cycling fails to set an example.
This decision is pathetic.

It was the next comment he made about football having its doping house in order that really gave me a WTF moment. Also they all seem to have missed the point that the ban isn't a cycling issue as it is the national ADA that set it the same as it would be if a footballer failed a test.

rob churchill

Just to add my ha'pennorth:

Epo has a very short half-life, a matter of hours. The 'glow time' is so short that the chances of directly detecting the Epo itself are very slim. So detection of blood-doping is more often a matter of looking for the physiological effects of artificially stimulated blood production or re-infusion.

Newly formed, immature red blood cells (reticulocytes) are visibly different from mature red blood cells (erythrocytes). When an athlete takes a dose of Epo, it stimulates over-production of new blood cells and the proportion of reticulocytes to erythrocytes or Hb increases. Once these cells mature the body has a surfeit of blood cells (which is what the athlete wants from the dope) but because of this surfeit the body shuts down production of new blood until the surplus cells eventually reach the end of their lives, get broken down in the usual way, and the haematocrit returns to normal. During this latter period, with no new blood being produced, the proportion of reticulocytes is abnormally low. The same thing happens if the surplus blood cells come from autologous transfusion (reinfusion of the athlete's stored blood).

Epo use can therefore be detected by a reticulocyte ratio that is either abnormally high or abnormally low.

This leads to the slightly bizarre situation that Epo can be used as a masking agent for Epo. If an athlete knows he is likely to be tested, and that he'll show a low reticulocyte count, a tiny microdose of Epo can be taken to produce a few new reticulocytes and bring the ratio back into a more normal range. Likewise Epo can be used to hide autologous transfusions.

This obviously requires someone with real medical expertise to be supervising the doping regime. It also shows why blood passports are needed and why they need careful interpretation rather than producing a simple positive/negative result (and why the USADA reasoned decision made some cryptic references to LA having blood values consistent with doping).

Jez mon

I thought EPO was detectable for about 24 hrs when injected intravenously and a week when injected straight into the muscle. The latter being the reason for the American sportive rider testing positive last summer, a week after he'd taken it.

But my favourite theory is that JB spiked Frank's food, just because.

rob churchill

Jez mon wrote:

I thought EPO was detectable for about 24 hrs when injected intravenously and a week when injected straight into the muscle. The latter being the reason for the American sportive rider testing positive last summer, a week after he'd taken it.

But my favourite theory is that JB spiked Frank's food, just because.

Detection window is dose-dependent. Hence the popularity of 'microdosing' (taking frequent small doses instead of less frequent, larger ones - especially last thing at night, in the hope that the Epo will be undetectable by morning). I don't know the details, I doubt the labs are very forthcoming with that info.*


* ...unless Pat McQuaid asks them to give you the guided tour.

dennisn

Jez mon wrote:

But my favourite theory is that JB spiked Frank's food, just because.

And it's a good theory. However I would change the "just because" to read "for reasons unknown at this time".
I can't really decide if spiking someones food or water is the dumbest thing you can do or simply a really good way to get rid of someone. I'm sure that there is most likely some drama behind the scenes between riders, teammates, opposing teams, and managers that might set someone(not particularly JB) on the path of sabotage against someone else. Hatred, jealousy, envy, or just plain not getting along with each other are all possibilities. I seem to remember, a few TDF's ago,
that someone assaulted another rider with a wheel. That's a pretty serious case of p*ssed off and tells me that things do simmer a bit behind the scenes and occasionally boil over. So a little bit of sneaky doping wouldn't surprise me.

Mad_Malx

rob churchill wrote:

Detection window is dose-dependent. Hence the popularity of 'microdosing' (taking frequent small doses instead of less frequent, larger ones - especially last thing at night, in the hope that the Epo will be undetectable by morning). I don't know the details, I doubt the labs are very forthcoming with that info.*

Try this
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.o ... /2395.full

Another difficulty relates to the fact that once [Hb] has been raised in athletes by the administration of recombinant ESAs, only microdoses or less frequent injections of the drugs are needed to maintain [Hb] at the high level. In this situation, the window of detection of rhEpo in urine is only 12-18 hours, compared with about 3 days on regular dosing (50 U/kg body weight 3 times a week).

Edit: longer window in blood