Quote Originally Posted by AdamGB View Post
They're not just looking for an EPO though.

if you're tested post fight then you can have trained with PEDs, had your body respond in a more anabolic (therefore beneficial) way to the stimulus placed on it in training camp yet show up clean because you've cycled off them before the fight.

PEDs etc are not just a case of popping them before the fight and having them charge you up like a super shot of latte or something.

Trace amounts of stuff show up in urine, but not inter cellular stuff and the amounts you get in urine... it's pretty easy to argue that they're naturally there and just slightly above average... it's also far to easy to mask things in urine and the testing being random is a bit of a no brainer...

Like 100s of people keep saying - it's all to easy to cycle or mask things if you know exactly what and when the tests will be.
That doesn't really address the question. I was pointing out that the expert in the article specifically identified EPO and why it was important for blood testing and that it be random. As an expert he knows what the effects are, what to look for, and how masking is done. So it's either the author how is intentionally changing context of the statements given by the expert or the expert is lying. Why?

I'm not try to argue that one method is better than the other and random testing has it's applications. I don't get the expert testimony having a bad conclusion with such an excellent supporting statements. Drug Tests Used in Sports - Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org