Printable View
Going through the forum I came across a statement that HGH and EPO can be detected in urine. Also came across a statement that the Olympic Style random blood testing has never caught a HGH user. These are bold statements that I feel deserve to be discussed. Could you all please enlighten me on the subject but no Gayweather and Pacneedle bullshit either, just facts.
Read through the threads you lazy twat, its all there:rolleyes:
I did and most of the threads are full of the same old repetitive shit. I'm sure I'm not the only who doesn't want to read pages and pages of why Pacquiao should or not take the test for the millionth time.
There seems to be a few posters who are actually educated on the subject of PED's and it would be great if they could discuss whether or not this statement is actually valid.
Thanks bro your a legend. Anyone know if the details of the mediation will be allowed to be made public since the fight is now off?
Wait for the court case and all the various legal filings by the lawyers, we'll probably get to hear most of what went on eventually one way or another. Other than Floyd's side offering to compromise to 14 days and Manny's people saying no I don't think a lot went on really.Quote:
Originally Posted by jahmez
Drug Tests Used in Sports - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org
Thursday, July 24, 2008
A Herndon-based company says it has developed a revolutionary urine test for human growth hormone that can detect HGH as much as two weeks after its use and could be implemented by sports anti-doping agencies in six months.Local Company Says It Has Developed Urine Test for HGH - washingtonpost.com
Scientists say breakthrough urine test for HGH developed - USATODAY.com
USADA will help fund further study of urine test for HGH - USATODAY.com
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.EPO Detection - World Anti-Doping Agency
A test for HGH was introduced at the 2004 Olympics in Athens and has since been used at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. No positive tests were recordedBBC SPORT | Olympics | IOC promises tougher drugs policy
Olympic Tests Have Never Detected HGH in an Athlete: USADA Backs Urine | Bleacher Report
Ceres Nanosciences Launches First Release of Nanotrap ESP Particles
Cheers fellas plenty to read through
THANKSQuote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
Thanks again.
:cool::)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
thanks...it made me wonder why they insist on random blood testing when manny has agreed to as many random urine test they were asking...
I'm sorry but any reasonable person can read the articles provided on this thread an see the difference between them. I trust the word of Travis Tygart (chief exec of the USADA) more than that of obviously bias journalist Kevin Riley (your first article) and some article on new, experimental testing by some company called Ceres Nanosciences (your second).Quote:
Originally Posted by miron_langTHANKSQuote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
Thanks again.
:cool::)
Travis Tygart: "I think that it's fair to say that there are several, very potent, performance enhancing drugs that only blood can detect, and there is an entirely different method of detecting broader categories of drug use through parameter testing that is done with the blood."
Thanks :)
Travis Tygart on Ceres Nanosciences: "We are cautiously optimistic," said Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, the independent organization responsible for testing Olympic-bound American athletes. "They have developed an outstanding technology. And we're looking forward to helping them develop it further so it can have a practical use in anti-doping efforts."USADA will help fund further study of urine test for HGH - USATODAY.comQuote:
Originally Posted by TheBranManI'm sorry but any reasonable person can read the articles provided on this thread an see the difference between them. I trust the word of Travis Tygart (chief exec of the USADA) more than that of obviously bias journalist Kevin Riley (your first article) and some article on new, experimental testing by some company called Ceres Nanosciences (your second).Quote:
Originally Posted by miron_langTHANKSQuote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waleed
Thanks again.
:cool::)
Travis Tygart: "I think that it's fair to say that there are several, very potent, performance enhancing drugs that only blood can detect, and there is an entirely different method of detecting broader categories of drug use through parameter testing that is done with the blood."
Thanks :)
Caroline K. Hatton, PhD, former Associate Director of the Olympic Analytical Laboratory of the University of California at Los Angeles, in a Aug. 2007 Pediatric Clinics of North America article titled "Beyond Sports-Doping Headlines: The Science of Laboratory Tests for Performance-Enhancing Drugs," offered the following:
"Testing urine is better than testing blood for most prohibited substances (small molecules, molecular weight less than ~800 atomic mass units). Urine collection is noninvasive and yields a large volume of sample, with higher drug concentrations than in blood and with far fewer cells and proteins to complicate extraction..."Drug Tests Used in Sports - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org
I trust the experts/scientists than someone of questionable ties.
Did you even read the quote you just posted Waleed? Urine probably is best for most prohibited substances, however a lot of the newer, more potent drugs (at this point in time), are only detectable in blood. It's good to hear that Tygart is "optimistic" about the developments of Ceres Nanosciences, but the fact is, they haven't come into fruition yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaleedTravis Tygart on Ceres Nanosciences: "We are cautiously optimistic," said Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, the independent organization responsible for testing Olympic-bound American athletes. "They have developed an outstanding technology. And we're looking forward to helping them develop it further so it can have a practical use in anti-doping efforts."USADA will help fund further study of urine test for HGH - USATODAY.comQuote:
Originally Posted by TheBranManI'm sorry but any reasonable person can read the articles provided on this thread an see the difference between them. I trust the word of Travis Tygart (chief exec of the USADA) more than that of obviously bias journalist Kevin Riley (your first article) and some article on new, experimental testing by some company called Ceres Nanosciences (your second).Quote:
Originally Posted by miron_lang
Travis Tygart: "I think that it's fair to say that there are several, very potent, performance enhancing drugs that only blood can detect, and there is an entirely different method of detecting broader categories of drug use through parameter testing that is done with the blood."
Thanks :)
Caroline K. Hatton, PhD, former Associate Director of the Olympic Analytical Laboratory of the University of California at Los Angeles, in a Aug. 2007 Pediatric Clinics of North America article titled "Beyond Sports-Doping Headlines: The Science of Laboratory Tests for Performance-Enhancing Drugs," offered the following:
"Testing urine is better than testing blood for most prohibited substances (small molecules, molecular weight less than ~800 atomic mass units). Urine collection is noninvasive and yields a large volume of sample, with higher drug concentrations than in blood and with far fewer cells and proteins to complicate extraction..."Drug Tests Used in Sports - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org
I trust the experts/scientists than someone of questionable ties.
I think the Pac fans are missing my point. I'm not just mindlessly bashing Pac for his alleged steroid use or so-called "fear of needles". I don't care if they test the athlete's hair, urine, blood or sperm. I, as the fan who's paying to see the fair fight, just want to know that they are utilizing the best possible testing testing techniques at the time. The fact is, right now they aren't. Whether Ceres Nanosciences is onto something or not, it's not being utilized by the commission in their current procedures. The fact that the current testing procedures are easy to beat has been proven many times. Mosley, probably being the most well-known example.
C'mon people, use your heads. Lets protect the clean athletes in the sport we love. It's great to be loyal to a particular fighter but not at the cost of the sport.