Comments Thread For: Miguel Cotto: "Pacquiao's Refusal Raises Questions"

[p4p-champ]

Pac already agreed to unlimited random urine test. Urine test is better in detecting EPO than blood test.

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Kim122509.htm#

MaxBoxing (Dec 25, 2009)

Accoring to Victor Conte,"Traditional testing in boxing, it's basically worthless other than the detection of some types of stimulant, before and after a fight."

"In my opinion, blood testing for the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight is more important for detecting possible blood doping or use of EPO than it is for human growth hormone."

"Creams, transdurmals, clear the fastest. Orals, would be next. Water-based drugs- including testosterone- would be next, then the oil-based. So some of these can clear in a matter of hours and days," explained Conte."So if you know when you're going to be tested a week out, you go off the use of oral testosterone, for example, you're going to test negative. So that is really an issue."

[Xeraser]

I don't think it has to be a HIGH increase. Any increase that's unnatural should be and is against regulations. If you are already a world class fighter, a huge boost may not be necessary. The majority of the time, it comes down to who is in better/shape or condition.

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/other-...onte-weighs-in

Again show me any published research study that indicates how HGH increase athletic performance, a medical literature of some sort.

[Ray*]

Well there's your little knowledge again. Again, Dr. Catlin doesnt have to work directly in things that involve in boxing to make a difference in this sport. If you used your brain and know his work then you would know the difference.

You reaching mate, Its Quite simple, I provide you with three different names who are known names connected with Boxing,sport,Medical and drug testing in sports in general and what do you do?? Tell me to google some name!!!

Okay mate..Like i said before i would take those 3 peoples opinion over yours and over your google mate..

[Xeraser]

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Kim122509.htm#

MaxBoxing (Dec 25, 2009)

Accoring to Victor Conte,"Traditional testing in boxing, it's basically worthless other than the detection of some types of stimulant, before and after a fight."

"In my opinion, blood testing for the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight is more important for detecting possible blood doping or use of EPO than it is for human growth hormone."

"Creams, transdurmals, clear the fastest. Orals, would be next. Water-based drugs- including testosterone- would be next, then the oil-based. So some of these can clear in a matter of hours and days," explained Conte."So if you know when you're going to be tested a week out, you go off the use of oral testosterone, for example, you're going to test negative. So that is really an issue."

The conversation we had with Dr. Catlin was very informative. We now present to you some of the results of our conversation with Dr. Catlin, coupled with our own research into EPO and drug testing in general, to hopefully answer many of the common questions you may have about EPO and drug testing. Far too many anti-drug crusaders (including ourselves), have never really truly understood how the process works.

Question:
1) EPO is a naturally occurring substance in the body. Could an athlete who lives at altitude or has great genetics and thus might have more EPO in their body naturally than a normal person, test positive for EPO?

No. Currently, to be convicted of an EPO offense athletes must test positive for EPO with the urine EPO test. The urine EPO test is not an indirect test that detects unusually high EPO levels. Rather, it is a direct test that detects the actual presence of recombinant EPO (EPO from a source outside the body). Thus, it would be foolish for an athlete to argue that the test was just showing a naturally high level of natural EPO. As Dr. Catlin said to us, with the urine EPO test the testers "see a footprint of the (recombinant EPO) molecule". The World Anti-Doping Report of March 11, 2003, evaluating the urine EPO test concluded, "the urine EPO test is the only existing test to directly evaluate and prove the EPO abuse of athletes"

Question:
2) I've heard a lot about using both a blood and urine test to detect EPO use. Doesn't an athlete have to test positive for EPO on both the blood and urine test to be considered a doper?

No.

Blood testing has received a lot of attention because it is a new concept in the drug testing world. There is a blood test for EPO use, but it is only an indirect test that can be used as a screening measure to save money by determining whether the urine EPO test needs to be conducted. All the blood test does is tell the testers that the athlete has an unusual blood profile that warrants further investigation. The abnormal profile could be caused by the use of EPO, some other blood boosting drug, or just be explained by the athlete being a genetic freak or living at altitude. The testers then perform the urine EPO test to determine whether artificial EPO is the cause of the abnormality.

The blood test does not have to be done in order for the athlete to test positive for EPO.

Question:
3) If the blood test doesn't have to be performed, then why does it exist? Not only do you say it is unnecessary, but it seems quite invasive and expensive to test athletes' blood when a simple urine test could be done.

Believe it or not, the blood EPO test is much cheaper than the urine EPO test. The blood test costs somewhere in the ballpark of $60, whereas the urine test costs approximately $400 per test. The reason for this is that conducting the urine EPO test takes up a lot of the time of the technicians in the lab (sometimes up to two or three days) . Thus, the blood urine test can be used in situations to save money.

If would be very expensive to conduct a urine EPO tests on all athletes at $400 a pop. Thus the blood EPO test can be used to determine which athletes are most likely to be on EPO, and then the urine EPO test can be administered on this smaller sub sample.

For example purposes only, assume there are 100 athletes and only 1 has used EPO. It would cost $40,000 ($400 *100=$40,000) to test all of them for EPO using the urine EPO test. Instead if the blood test can be used on all the athletes to determine which 10 athletes are most likely to be EPO users, then the expensive urine test can be administered on the 10 suspect athletes and a lot of money can be saved. Combining the blood and the urine test only costs $10,000 ($60*100= $6,000 for the blood test on all the athletes and then 10 * $400= $4000 for the urine test on the 10 suspect athletes).Thus in this hypothetical example, using both the blood and urine test together would save approximately $30,000 as the blood and urine test combination costs only $10,000 versus the $40,000 it would cost to do the urine test on all the athletes.

Question:
4) Are you positively sure about the blood EPO test being unnecessary? Didn't Olga Yegerova get her positive EPO test in 2001 thrown out because a blood test wasn't done?

Yes we're sure the blood test isn't necessary and yes she did get the test thrown out because a blood test wasn't done. But let us explain. When the EPO testing was done in Sydney the protocol was to do the blood testing to first screen the samples and then use the urine test to actually test for EPO. It took a while for the scientific community and the sports federations to finally agree that the urine test in itself was the only test necessary for a positive EPO test. In 2001, Yegerova's urine tested positive and the French accepted this as conclusive proof of a positive test, but the IAAF still insisted that a blood test was needed (her blood had not been taken so a blood test could not be done) as well even though in reality the blood test is only used as a screening device and not necessary for a positive test. Ironically, when Yegerova's blood was screened at the World Championships a few weeks later, her blood sample came back as su****ious, but the urine test did not show EPO usage (remember the urine EPO test can often only detect EPO usage in the previous 48 hours).

Question:
5) What about an athlete testing falsely positive? Isn't that a possibility.

It's highly, highly unlikely if proper procedures are carried out. As Dr. Catlin said the urine test is "a very solid test." Only 6 labs in the world as of this past March carried out the EPO test. Dr. Catlin said, "I don't know how other labs do it (the exact procedures they use in carrying out the test), but we don't call a test positive unless we're absolutely sure". In addition, the March 2003 WADA report evaluating the urine EPO test stated "in its normal use, this test, apparently, has never been found to give false positive results". The test when implemented correctly has a safety margin built in to prevent false positives. Plus remember, in addition to the test being very sound, athletes have 2 samples tested (an "A" and a "B" sample) that both must comeback positive before an athlete is determined to have committed a doping offense. At this stage, only Mr. Lagat's "a" sample has come back positive. He will be entitled to have his own representatives present to ensure proper protocols are followed when his "b" sample is tested in the time intensive urine EPO testing process.

Remember the urine EPO test when properly administered is a test for direct proof of recombinant EPO. Often in the press, we read about athletes having drug tests over turned for not being conclusive, but often times this is when indirect evidence (say a high T/E ratio) is used to determine a drug positive.

6) How effective is the urine EPO test? Won't the drug cheats always be figuring out ways to beat the test?

The bad news is that the urine EPO test currently doesn't detect EPO usage very far back in time. Dr. Catlin noted that how effective the test is in detecting past EPO use is highly variable and depends on the dose of EPO the person is taking, their metabolism and other factors. It is common for the urine test to only detect EPO use in the last 48 hours but for some individuals the test can detect EPO use up to 6 or 7 days in the past. Around 100 athletes at the Salt Lake Olympics who had abnormal values from the blood EPO test (indicating that they were possibly doping), passed the urine EPO test. Presumably some or many of these 100 athletes were dopers, but passed the urine EPO test only because currently the urine EPO test can only detect very recent EPO use. As Dr. Catlin said in the March 20, 2002, Washington Post about these 100 su****ious people, "My guess is that we were looking at people who had used, but their urine [sample] turned up negative because EPO goes away very fast."

[Xeraser]

You reaching mate, Its Quite simple, I provide you with three different names who are known names connected with Boxing,sport,Medical and drug testing in sports in general and what do you do?? Tell me to google some name!!!

Okay mate..Like i said before i would take those 3 peoples opinion over yours and over your google mate..

SInce you are too keen with Dr. Catlin. Heres some of his work.



In the 1990s, Catlin began to offer the carbon isotope ratio test, a urine test that determines whether anabolic steroids are made naturally by the body or come from a prohibited performance-enhancing drug. [20][21]
In 2002 at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he reported darbepoetin alfa, a form of the blood booster EPO (erythropoietin), for the first time in sports.[22]
Also in 2002, he identified norbolethone, the first reported designer anabolic steroid used by an athlete.[23][24]
In 2003, as part of the investigation of BALCO, he identified and developed a test for tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) or “The Clear,” the second reported designer anabolic steroid. In Nov. 2009, 'Newsweek' named Trevor Graham's decision to send a syringe containing the substance to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) (which then passed it on to Catlin for analysis) as one of the decade's Top-10 History-Altering Decisions.[25]
In 2004, Catlin identified madol, the third reported designer anabolic steroid, also known as DMT, and since 2004 he and his team have identified several more designer steroids.[26]
In 2009, he and his team at Anti-Doping Research developed an equine test for the potent blood-boosting drug CERA, short for the brand name Mircera; also known as Continuous erythropoietin receptor activator

[Left2body]

[QUOTE=Xeraser;7118236]

Conte also states that EPO would be more likely and beneficial for boxers. Since you bring up Conte he also says that non-random testing is a joke and easily by-passed.

He notes that: "He also says that for these substances to be utilized at their maximum efficiency, they must be properly cycled and be out of your system by the time competition begins."

I'm like Cotto and I think most boxing fans in that I thought nothing of this whole thing until Pac refused the testing. Then hearing his alternating reasons as to why he is refusing has made me su****ious.[/QUOTE]

Pac agreed to unlimited random urine test. Urine test is better test in detecting EPO than blood test.

According to who. Conte who was involved and helped many athletes beat detection, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Shane Mosley. Conte also was at Balco and he says blood testing is much better

'In my opinion, blood testing for the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight is more important for detecting possible blood doping or use of EPO than it is for human growth hormone. Measuring hematocrit levels (percentage of red blood cells to total whole blood volume) is very important. For example, even without a positive urine test for EPO, cyclists are temporarily suspended for two weeks if their hematocrit is greater than 50%. An elevated hematocrit can provide a significant advantage to a fighter by enhancing oxygen uptake and utilization. This would benefit a fighter in training and especially during the later rounds of a fight."

-Conte

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Kim122509.htm

[p4p-champ]

SInce you are too keen with Dr. Catlin. Heres some of his work.



In the 1990s, Catlin began to offer the carbon isotope ratio test, a urine test that determines whether anabolic steroids are made naturally by the body or come from a prohibited performance-enhancing drug. [20][21]
In 2002 at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he reported darbepoetin alfa, a form of the blood booster EPO (erythropoietin), for the first time in sports.[22]
Also in 2002, he identified norbolethone, the first reported designer anabolic steroid used by an athlete.[23][24]
In 2003, as part of the investigation of BALCO, he identified and developed a test for tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) or “The Clear,” the second reported designer anabolic steroid. In Nov. 2009, 'Newsweek' named Trevor Graham's decision to send a syringe containing the substance to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) (which then passed it on to Catlin for analysis) as one of the decade's Top-10 History-Altering Decisions.[25]
In 2004, Catlin identified madol, the third reported designer anabolic steroid, also known as DMT, and since 2004 he and his team have identified several more designer steroids.[26]
In 2009, he and his team at Anti-Doping Research developed an equine test for the potent blood-boosting drug CERA, short for the brand name Mircera; also known as Continuous erythropoietin receptor activator

He obviously knows about doping but so does the godfather that sold the stuff to some of the worlds greatest atheltes. IF Conte says blood is better to test with, then you believe him. The numerous athletes that went years without being decteted is testament enough to this mans knowledge. Both sides may have valid reasons so AGAIN, what is the problem with random testing of BLOOD AND URINE?

All ground should be covered, if your going to half-ass the tests then there is no point in taking them at all.

[sNiTcH]

to what test? the one that isn't the one Mayweather asked for which he might as well say NO I don't to take any tests because by switching the conditions he voids it. him saying "I'll test under other conditions" is the equivalent of saying "NO, I will not test" because Mayweather wants this done his way or NO WAY, understand?

the same way how Pacquiao stepped out of the known rules of Boxing and demanded Cotto defend his 147 belt at 145 or he wont fight is the same way how Floyd can step out of the known rules of Boxing and demand a stricter test where a cheater can't cheat or he wont fight. simple as that..

can explain as well why floyd is so afraid on taking the test 5minutes after the fight?

Is there any difference?

by the way, the NO of manny is taking a test the day before the fight you might need some research

[counterpunch]

and what are they gonna do? now that Malignaggi trainer is demanding the same test?

[Xeraser]

He obviously knows about doping but so does the godfather that sold the stuff to some of the worlds greatest atheltes. IF Conte says blood is better to test with, then you believe him. The numerous athletes that went years without being decteted is testament enough to this mans knowledge. Both sides may have valid reasons so AGAIN, what is the problem with random testing of BLOOD AND URINE?

All ground should be covered, if your going to half-ass the tests then there is not point in taking them at all.

Victor Conte is not a chemist or scientist.