In ergogenic aids and doping one must consider the tests and the testing procedures themselves. Science is based on probabilities, not absolutes. There is always a degree of error in the tests and testing procedures. Consider the following. Because there is always a degree of error, this means that there will always be false positives and false negatives. However, the IOC and its subsidiaries have released little or no data on its testing procedures dealing with athletes. Most of the published data on testing, particularly with anabolic steroids, have been carried out with small numbers of untrained non athletes. Thus, the exact degree of error is unknown. For the sake of argument, assume that the chance of a false positive is 0.0015%. This seems quite small; however, if 10,000 athletes were to be tested in a year, one might expect as many as 15 falsepositive tests. In reality this means that, potentially; 15 athletes will be wrongly accused of violating the rules governing their sport. Furthermore, as of 1996 the degree of agreement among six IOC laboratories was not acceptable . Thus, the degree of error is not consistent between laboratories and the chance of a false positive may be greater in some laboratories. This clearly may exacerbate the problem.Certain drugs such as cocaine are not found naturally occurring in humans. Thus, detection of these substances is relatively easy. Many hormones, when used as ergogenic aids, are quite difficult to detect (e.g. growth hormone). Also, certain androgens have been recently shown to occur naturally (i.e., nandrolone); thus, cutoff limits for drug testing must be established.
Several problems arise from the testing of androgens. First consider testosterone (T). Because T is produced in relatively large amounts naturally, simply finding an amount that is somewhat over the average limits cannot be considered positive. Currently the test for the use of exogenous testosterone is the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio. In normal untrained adult humans the ratio of production is approximately 1:1. This ratio may be disturbed slightly by alcohol ingestion (especially in women), aging , physical activity, sexual activity, etc. The established ratio for testing positive is 6:1. The use of this ratio in drug testing is greatly complicated because there is evidence that at least 1 in 2000 (0.0005%) men are deficient in the enzyme(s) necessary for the production of epitestosterone this would suggest that their T:E ratio will be higher than 6:1. The likelihood of finding athletes with high T:E ratios is illustrated by the Swedish anti-doping program. As reported in 1996, 28 out of 8946 samples (0.3%) produced T:E ratios higher than 6; however, only one of these 28 samples was conclusively considered to be the result of exogenous testosterone use . This study not only points out the difficulty of determining whether exogenous testosterone was used, but also suggests that the actual incidence of naturally occurring high T:E ratios may be as high as 0.3% in athletes. Detection of exogenous testosterone use can be further complicated if the athlete simultaneously uses exogenous epitestosterone . Because it is difficult to determine the difference between natural and synthetic T using the T:E ratio, alternate or additional methods are being considered such as using a testosterone luteinizing hormone ratio. Another alternative is the use of carbon isotope ratios. Differences in the ratio of carbon isotopes are used to construct T synthetically and the ratio found in naturally occurring T. However, the isotope ratio method of determining these differences is not any more accurate than using the T:E ratio at present. Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratio (C12:C13) may be affected by diet .
Recently, the sporting world has been shocked by the number of positive doping tests for nandrolone. Included in these positive tests are several superstars of track and field including Linford Christie and Merlene Ottey. Nandrolone is typically injected in an oil base and is the primary anabolic agent, which has been avoided by athletes subject to drug tests because it is easily detected even months after injection . It has only been within the last 2-3 years that nandrolone has been shown conclusively to be a naturally occurring steroid and the IOC has adopted a doping positive cutoff of 2 ng/mL. It is interesting that many of the positive tests produced concentrations of only 812 ng/mL. This suggests several possibilities. First, the tests are becoming more sensitive (i.e., the IOC position) and the athletes were taking a banned substance. Second, the test doesn’t work and is showing false positives (i.e., the position of some athletes, coaches, and scientists). Third, the athletes were taking (legally purchased) over-the-counter food supplements that contained a substance which produces nandrolone or its metabolites unknown to them (i.e., the position of some athletes, coaches, and scientists). The stature and number of athletes being tested positive have raised questions about the validity of the tests, questions that have reached national government levels. To date (August 1999), the IOC has released little information on the testing program, which would allow independent verification of its testing procedures . Certainly, with the potential problems seen with drug testing (i.e., false positives), it is not difficult to legally challenge the veracity of such tests.
Tags:anabolic steroids, androgens, athletes, drug testing, ergogenic aids, exogenous, false negatives, false positive, growth hormone, nandrolone, Sports Controversies, testosterone UncategorizedDoes your body has excess of fat accumulating? Try
phentermine which makes sure that you do proper
weight loss.