On the eve of the Tour de France and with the Beijing Olympics just around the corner, the time couldn鈥檛 be worse to discover that the test for detecting illegal supplements of the blood-boosting hormone erythropoietin (EPO) is unreliable. Because it is too late for doping authorities to alter testing regimes for either event, the worry is that cheats will go undetected.
Carsten Lundby and his colleagues at the in Denmark gave a course of EPO treatment to eight healthy individuals, and then sent blood samples from each of them to two independent laboratories accredited by the (WADA) in Montreal, Canada. The labs reported widely differing results. For example, during the first, intense 鈥渂oosting鈥� phase of EPO treatment, 鈥渓ab A鈥� concluded that all samples were positive for EPO, whereas 鈥渓ab B鈥� concluded they were all negative (Journal of Applied Physiology, ).
鈥淭his is worrying news,鈥� says Lundby, who considered not publishing the results for fear of encouraging athletes to cheat, but pressed ahead to stimulate debate on how to tackle the problem.
Advertisement
However, he points out another, possibly worse problem: new drugs that are already used boost blood in the same way as EPO but would be missed even by a working test. Lundby鈥檚 answer is to detect doping by monitoring athletes鈥� blood all year round for suspicious fluctuations in blood cell counts.
Olivier Rabin of WADA says there are plans to implement such monitoring schemes 鈥� dubbed 鈥� in future, but adds that the existing EPO test will be used in Beijing.
Researchers from 鈥淟ab B鈥�, meanwhile, have contested Lundby鈥檚 use of their results, and condemned the fact that he didn鈥檛 explain to them the purpose of the research, or give them a chance to check the manuscript. In a strongly-worded letter to the editor of the journal, Wilhelm Sch盲nzer, head of the WADA-accredited 鈥淟ab B鈥� in Cologne, compains that 鈥渢he results are factually wrong鈥�.
Sch盲nzer says that the tests done were only a 鈥渇irst look鈥�, and that further analyses would routinely have been done if the samples had come from an athlete. Moreover, he says that for the early 鈥渂oosting phase鈥�, Lab B鈥檚 conclusions were exactly the same as Lab A鈥檚 鈥減ositive鈥� findings, but were given the more cautious grading of 鈥渟uspicious鈥�.
Sch盲nzer says that Lundby mistakenly interpreted 鈥渟uspicious鈥� as 鈥渘egative鈥�, leading to a completely unfounded conclusion that the two labs had reached completely different conclusions.
Christiane Anyotte, the director of the Olympic analysis lab in Montreal, also weighed in with criticism, describing the paper as a 鈥減seudo-scientific work鈥�.
