Serious question.. are there some roids only detectable through blood?

HGH (Human growth hormone) is not detectable through any kind of currently used Urine sampling as far as im aware.
However HGH is said to be ineffective if you listen to alot of people unless used in conjunction with a steroid, and steroids are detectable through urine sampling.

Other than HGH I havnt heard of any other PEDs that arent detectable through urine tests.

 

You are 100 percent correct. Urine is all you need for detection. This is total bull****.

HGH isn't detectable via blood either by the way.

 

In other words, PBF is trying to make excuses or what?! :smoke

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194153
^ Read this before claiming **** about a science you don't come close to comprehending.

HGH CAN be detected in both urine & blood; the methods for doing this are different.

 

from what i understand hgh can't d detected at all, blood or urine, so i cant answer your q but hopefully someone can, it sure would help us understand this blood test thing and make about 3000 threads pointless

 

Urine is be used to test for EPO.

 

BEEN answered repeatedly:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194153

Apparently, I'm the only ESB poster with experience in the field.

 

It is not a question of detection but a question of what test to use and what is being tested for. Newer test that can detect HGH in urine aren't approved by WADA or USADA. They use old test while the dopers are using new technique. Before the governing bodies can use new test it has to pass international laws as well as be agreed upon by all parties making up the organization. Cost also plays a huge roll in this.

 

Why the hell do they want to use USADA then if their tests don't even test for HGH anyway.

 

They do test for it. Hence the need for the blood. Newer test exist but the USADA is behind the time in there testing. Since they have started testing they have yet to bust one person using HGH. What many here have stated is that the blood work is not necessary. The urine is more then adequate.

 

No both you and the poster are wrong. Outside of what the poster said, why dont you find some other evidence to support your claim. Olympic blood testing does NOT detect ANY peptides.

 

Peptides, huh? That's your argument? If amino acid combos & proteins are not detected, then WTF are they looking for?
Saying peptides are not detected in testing is like saying that the test does not use biochemistry as science.
:bartpatsch

 

Eh? That's just a bunch of anecdotes from ESB posters. You also admit you don't have experience in the field of performance enhancers; just narcotics. You may be more qualified than every single poster on ESB, but you're not by any means an authority on the subject.

 

Can a transmission specialist speak competently with an engine specialist in a garage? Absolutely; they speak the same "language".
I never said I was an "authority" on the subject. HOWEVER, the science underlying the detection of narcotics & their masks is the same. Back in that narco detection lab (Quest Diagnostics, NIDA Dept.), I'd just have to walk 50 feet to get to the PED guys...same with the DNA coders, pathogen researchers, etc. We all read the same research papers (in our spare time as a hobby!) & shared our knowledge with each other. And these guys definitely know more about the current testing science than the average MDs who would send their sample requisitions to our labs...
Cross-department collaboration was commonplace. That doesn't stop random internet John Doe from contesting anything though, right?

The pros & cons of one testing method over the next is valid point of argument, but not the blanket assumption that "blood analysis is better than urinalysis".

Again, my points here are that these common laymen are incorrectly assuming that one body/fluid sample test method is "superior"/"inferior" to another. This isn't the case. This is the main reason I posted on the topic in the first place.

NSAC > FJM Sr.