Do You Endorse Blood Testing ?

Really, just quit. You sound pretty thick. One of the reasons I didn't answer your 'question'(which I really already addressed) is that YOU make no sense.

 

A test for EPO was introduced at the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney (Australia). The test, validated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), was based on the blood and urine matrix. A blood screening was performed first, and a urine test was then used to confirm possible use of EPO.
In June 2003, WADA’s Executive Committee accepted the results of an independent report stating that urine tests alone can be used to detect the presence of recombinant EPO. This report, requested by WADA’s stakeholders and commissioned by the Agency to evaluate the validity of urinary and blood tests for detecting the presence of recombinant EPO, concluded that urinary testing is the only scientifically validated method for direct detection of recombinant EPO. This report also 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. Some international sports federations still use both urine and blood matrix for the detection of EPO. Recently, the urine test was adapted to blood to perform detection of some new erythropoiesis stimulating agents

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-Medicine/Science-topics/Q-A-EPO/

Again you have no ****ing clue about what you are talking about.

 

There was a poster here, haven't seen him in a while, but he actually ran a drug testing lab. He was the only neutral, yet informed party who I have seen post authoritively on the topic.

There are plenty of armchair experts, or even people with a passing knowledge of the topic. Lots of Google-fu. But it was a revelation reading someone who actually knew everything and had no agenda.

He made every ***** look really stupid. He showed how Floyd's demands would prove nothing, and also left open the real possibility that Floyd himself was abusing PEDs.

 

That case a few years back was obviously suspect. You know, they kept the urine samples for years after they legally were allowed to right? Then they developed new methodology to test these illegal sample... anyways you get my drift? WADA under Dick Pound... ole Dickie boy had a hard on for Armstrong. WADA back then, heck even now, they aren't the straightest in a drawer full of rulers.

 

Make no sense? I know you are stupid but the question is really easy. Your stupid ass claimed there are EPO so effective that 14 to 7 days is all that is needed for the drug to be effective.

Name that drug you fake ass wannabe medical student or shut the **** up. Claiming you're a medical student. What a ****ing loser.

 

Yet another display of your thickheaded-ness.

What is this statement supposed to prove? And what have I said to contradict that urinalysis is the method to detect EPO? Please quote where I contradicted that.

 

Random blood test is OK. Because even though they test regularly at the start, they will miraculously, 'unrandomly' stop the blood test many weeks before the fight.

You get the same banana for additional millions of dollars. Isn't that great?

 

Right here you stupid ****

Originally Posted by eko718
There are forms of EPO undetectable by urine testing.

 

Cera was detectable back in 2008 with Ricco. Hematide will be too when it's thru trials.


What's hilarious is that Amgen sponsors the Tour of California whilst being one of the largest EPO makers. atsch

 

atschYou are a dummy. I'm sorry, but you are. I never said;

'there are EPO so effective that 14 to 7 days is all that is needed for the drug to be effective.'

That statement identifies a complete misunderstanding of what EPO is. What I did say is that 14 days is enough for an athlete to obtain the full benefit of using EPO.

EPO is not a 'drug' in case you didn't know. So how can I 'name that drug' when we are talking about a synthetic version of a hormone produced in the body?

 

LMAO.... Wow.

Sooooo, your impression of that comment was that urinalysis CANNOT DETECT EPO?? That's not what I said.

Most normal people can comprehend that what I said is exactly what I meant. There are FORMS of EPO which are difficult to detect or even cannot currently be detected by urinalysis.

Or let me guess... you think EPO is one universal 'drug' don't you?

 

Wow - It's like a medical convetion in here only with more swearing.

Reading this thread is endumbinating.

No overarching body to run standardised tests internationally without a storage for future testing for screens and peds that are currently undetectable due to masking really doesn't put us in a position any more sophisticated or informed than the current testing.

Arguing over the types of dope and their effects is just ******ed.

 

Saying 14 day is all that is needed for the drug to be beneficial is the same thing as saying 14 day is all that is needed for the drug to be effective. Again are you ****ing stupid?

Let me quote you again and break down what your ******ed ass wrote. Since you can not grasp what you wrote.

Originally Posted by eko718
Yet another ASSUMPTION which is completely wrong. A professional athlete can benefit from using EPO ONE WEEK before competition and 14 days is actually IDEAL for maximum benefits. Ironic that they were seeking a 7 to 14 day cutoff period

Your ******ed ass went so far as to say taking EPO 7 days before competition is effective. Your dumb ass even went further and said 14 day was the ideal length of time for EPO.

So back up your claim. (We already know you're talking out of your ass)

And you know what I'm asking for. What is the name of the drugs that is used to boost Erythropoietin (EPO).

Fake ass wannabe self proclaim medical student.

 

The nature of boxing is to do bodily harm to your opponent to win. There are substance out there that the urine does not pick, therefore blood testing and urine testing should be mandatory before every bout.

 

Who will pay for that Sunchild?

The promoter?