<<< Someone correct me if they know differently, but there WAS a problem
with
the testing protocol - they didn't do a blood test. The IAAF procedure is
to do a blood test first, which can detect EPO usage up to 4-6 weeks prior,
followed by a follow-up urine test. >>>
This is all correct, except for the blood test part. The blood test is
simply testing how high your hematocrit is, but does not look for synthetic
EPO. I am not sure that the high hematocrit resulting from EPO use would
last more than a week. Everybody I have asked says they get a shot 3 times
per week. A high hematocrit percentage (don't know what the IAAF's "high"
threshold is) prompts the testers to administer a urine test. You are
correct that the urine test is actually looking for trace amounts of
synthetic erythropoeitin.
How these people can go to the expense and trouble to do something as
straight-forward as this test, then only complete part of it, always amazes
me.
You are also correct that a positive urine test has enough scientific
certainty to stand on its own as evidence of drug use (but that isn't what
the IAAF has decided ... too bad).
/Brian McEwen
P.S. As much as I am anti-drug-use ... they should NOT have made the
"positive" public, when they didn't really go through the established test
for EPO. They should have tested her again, with both tests (urine and
blood) about 2 hours after they first found out that the Paris testers
fudded this whole thing up.
