“Doping is always a response to a void, a need – whether it’s for money, or success, or love, or something else. That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything. [...]

“Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it’s legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad. For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern Europe it’s legitimate because they need money for their families – which is hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump iron because he’s uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves his need – it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it solves his particular problem…”

The perspective described by Bassons is one that is usually absent from media discussions on doping. Some academics recognize the value of looking at the big picture in which doping occurs.

For example, Dr. Jay Coakley, Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs and author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies“, feels it is crucial to use what he calls “sociological imagination” to understand why athletes use steroids and performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) by recognizing how individual biographies interact with current social and cultural factors.

Christophe Basson is well-known for being outspoken on the topic of doping in pro cycling. He was one of the first cyclists to be ostracized by the peloton after speaking out publicly about the widespread use of various drug in the sport in the aftermath of the Festina scandal at the 1998 Tour de France.

Basson is recognized by his peers as one of the few cyclists who did not participate in the doping subculture unlike other doping whistleblowers such as Floyd Landis. He was one of the first athletes to be subject to the wrath of Lance Armstrong for uncovering the subculture of doping in cycling.

Bassons said Armstrong rode up alongside on the Alpe d’Huez stage to tell him “it was a mistake to speak out the way I do and he asked why I was doing it. I told him that I’m thinking of the next generation of riders. Then he said ‘Why don’t you leave, then?’”

Lance Armstrong expressed comments in an interview reacting to Bassons’ departure from the sports and his outspoken statments on doping.

“If it’s the rider that I think it is,” Armstrong said yesterday morning, in reference to the departure of Bassons, “the one who’s always speaking about problems in cycling and doping, then I told him during the stage to Sestrières that I respected what he was saying but that I thought there was a professional and a correct way to do it. What he’s said is not good for him or his team, his sponsor and cycling. I understand his position, but if that’s what he thinks, maybe he’s better to go home. I don’t think declarations in newspapers are in his best interests. If he wants to ride professionally, he can’t speak like that, because sponsors will walk away from the sport.”

However, Christophe Bassons’ latest comments regarding his current philosophy of doping may be more likely to outrage several people in the anti-doping movement who don’t see the issue in such broad, relativistic terms.

Photo Credit: Millard Baker / MESO-Rx

Everyone in the world knows that the goal of this exercise is simply to prove that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and make a moral statement that steroid use is bad.

Conspiracy? Wire fraud? Money laundering? Racketeering? Drug trafficking? Defrauding the U.S. government?

Seriously?

Suppose Lance Armstrong used PEDs to help him become a better cyclist. Were any of these crimes EVER intended to be used to convict a steroid user?

The steroid witch-hunt has reached the point of absurdity. The anti-doping movement has been the chief instigator of the witch-hunt. Their credibility depends upon it. Their funding depends upon it. The Lance Armstrong witch-hunt reflects their desperation.

Lance Armstrong has allegedly used performance-enhancing drugs throughout most his 20 year career if Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated are to be believed.

One of the most high-profile and accomplished athletes of the past two decades has allegedly been doping with impunity right under the noses of ant-doping testers who have tested him hundreds of times.

This points to a colossal failure of anti-doping protocols to make a difference in the use of PED in sports. Drug testing has been relatively ineffective contrary to ridiculous assertions that the movement is winning and/or on the verge of eliminating doping in sports.

The anti-doping movement has been the driving force behind the criminalization of the personal use of anabolic steroids in the United States and other countries around the world. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 was passed with an implicit goal of keeping steroids out of sports. This law has cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Yet, steroid laws have rarely been used to prosecute competitive athletes using steroids. How many professional athletes involved in steroid scandals during the course of the past decade were prosecuted under steroid laws?

The Anabolic Steroid Control Act has not made a significant difference in the war against doping in sports. It simply has not been an effective tool to catch steroid users in sports.

Testing doesn’t work well.

Steroid laws don’t work well.

So, the witch-hunters have become more creative by trivializing the criminal justice system. In their desperation, they have misused perjury laws and appear ready to misuse laws against defrauding the government.

The federal government has been heavily influenced by the anti-doping special interest and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on their behalf in order to catch (or at least humiliate and embarrass) athletes who dope.

The Sports Illustrated article does its best to justify how Lance Armstrong defrauded the government but it unwittingly makes a strong case for corruption and fraud in the anti-doping movement – a movement that is heavily subsidized by taxpayer funding. Allegations that anti-dopers manipulated test results and overlooked failed drug tests for favored athletes seem to be more appropriate for a case of defrauding the government.

Who has really defrauded the United States government and American taxpayers?

A seven-time Tour de France champion who has raised hundred of millions of dollars of private and corporate funding for cancer — and may have used steroids when riding for a $30 million government-sponsored pro cycling team?

OR…

Morality-based organizations who (1) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding to catch steroid users in sports — while allegedly manipulating and covering up some failed test results, (2) have lobbied governments around around the world to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to enact and enforce laws criminalizing steroid use and (3) have been cheerleaders for the trivialization, misuse and perversion of other laws (e.g. perjury, etc.) in the pursuit of governmental witch-hunts targeting celebrity athletes?

Who is really defrauding American taxpayers?

Photo credit: Millard Baker / MESO-Rx

Contador tested positive for infinitesimally small amounts of clenbuterol. WADA has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to clenbuterol; any detected amount, no matter how small, is sufficient to impose a ban. Contador claims the clenbuterol present in his urine was the result of the consumption of meat contaminated with clenbuterol. Many experts think this is a very plausible explanation for the small amounts of clenbuterol discovered.

The most practical solution to this problem is to change the clenbuterol anti-doping criteria from a zero-tolerance policy to a threshold policy.

Unfortunately, people like Gary Wadler, who recently served on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Committee, prefer to take the ridiculously impractical approach. Wadler thinks all the governments of the world should change before WADA changes its policy. He feels governments should simply do a better job of keeping clenbuterol out of the food supply.

Read more at Steroids.Info: Experts Think Contador Innocence Possible in Clenbuterol Doping Case

“You got to go about it another way and you’ve got to legalise doping. They [the testers] are so far behind in the testing organisations that there’s no way to change it now. Just accept that it’s here, that it’s not going away and that it’s just going to get more complicated and the fact that it’s not that complicated yet compared to what it will be. Ten years from now it’s going to be four times as hard as it now to test for things.

Landis expressed a pessimistic view of efforts to clean up the sport, saying, “They’re not even remotely close to catching anybody; it’s just a joke. You can use as much EPO as you want and unless you’re an idiot you’re not going to get caught.

“Just start over and let it be. I’m convinced now that there’s no stopping it and you’ve got to stop ruining lives over it. The bad guys will always have guns and the bad guys will always use drugs and that will force the good guys to do the same.

“Since you can’t stop it you have to deal with it in rational kind of way. You can’t stop it and you cant fix it. Monitor it and make sure people don’t hurt themselves, but you have to accept it.”

Floyd Landis is not the first athlete who was caught doping to criticize the ineffectiveness of existing anti-doping procedures. Austrian cyclist Bernhard Kohl suggested anti-doping policies were a failure citing his career long use of performance-enhancing drugs and blood doping as a professional cyclist. Even though he was caught once, he claims 99% of the time he escaped detection.

“I was tested 200 times during my career, and 100 times I had drugs in my body,” he said. “I was caught, but 99 other times, I wasn’t. Riders think they can get away with doping because most of the time they do. Even if there is a new test for blood doping, I’m not even sure it will scare riders into stopping. The problem is just that bad.”

Patrick Arnold, the organic chemist who introduced various undetectable designer steroids into professional sports including cycling, also commented on the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs in cycling in a recent article on his blog.

I also read about Lance Armstrong today. Apparently there is more evidence surfacing regarding his performance enhancing drug usage. Yeah, whoopee. Of course he doped. Everyone doped in the field of elite cycling. They still probably do, at least to whatever extent that they still can. This is reality. Prosecuting Lance Armstrong will not change that reality. Prosecuting all the dopers that he beat back in the day will not change that reality.

Meanwhile, Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), continues to ignore the reality of doping in cycling, incredulously claiming that  he is “sure cycling is cleaner than it has ever been” and that it is the “cleanest of sports”.

Here is an excerpt from Patrick Arnold’s blog:

I also read about Lance Armstrong today. Apparently there is more evidence surfacing regarding his performance enhancing drug usage. Yeah, whoopee. Of course he doped. Everyone doped in the field of elite cycling. They still probably do, at least to whatever extent that they still can. This is reality. Prosecuting Lance Armstrong will not change that reality. Prosecuting all the dopers that he beat back in the day will not change that reality.

Read more at Patrick Arnold’s Blog: I Don’t Really Think I Should Talk About This But…

Bastianelli claims she never knowingly ingested a banned substance. She admitted to her obsession with weight control stating “I wanted to lose weight, like any girl.” She consulted with her doctor to find weight loss products that were not on the WADA banned substance list. Her doctor prescribed the drug Benfluorex. Benfluorex is an anti-diabetic drug that improves insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; as such it is often prescribed for weight loss. Benfluorex is not on the WADA banned substance list but it is structurally similar to Fenfluramine (which is listed) (“Bastianelli tests positive for diet product,” July 28).

“I’m disgusted with my trusted chemist for preparing a mix of herbs for me aimed at weight loss.

“Like always I wanted to read the list of products used and amongst them was benfluorex, which doesn’t figure among the list of banned substances.

“However, laboratory analysis demonstrated that this product contains the ingredient responsible for my positive test.

“But how could I know that?”

Today, she provided a sample of the Benfluorex product to prosecutors for analysis to support her contention that she unknowingly consumed a banned substance.

On Tuesday she said she had given the product to the prosecutor so that it could be analyzed. She expressed regret at not being able to take part in the Olympics and said she hoped to take part in the next world championships to defend her title.

Italian officials are unsympathetic. She will no longer represent Italy in the Beijing Olympics.

Italian Cycling Federation President Renato Di Rocco spoke critically of Bastianelli’s positve fenfluramine test stating that she ”committed an incredible act of naivity.”

“She was positive for flenfluramine, that is in dieting products. She’s obsessed about her weight. She only eats salad.”

Italian Olympic Committe (CONI) president Gianni Petrucci was even more “unyielding.”

“Marta Bastianelli has betrayed Coni, the (Italian Cycling) federation and the world of cycling.”

It is truly unfortunate that the complexities of WADA/IOC testing result in such mistakes by athletes.

Bastianelli and/or her physician would have to be very familiar with the pharmacology of Benfluorex and Fenfluramine to appreciate the structural similarities and the risk for an adverse analytical finding. This just emphasizes the requirement that athletes must perform thorough research into any substances that they utilize.

Benfluorex (RN: 23602-78-0)

• 2-((alpha-Methyl-m-(trifluoromethyl)phenethyl)amino)ethanol benzoate (ester)
• Ethanol, 2-(alpha-methyl-m-trifluoromethylphenethylamino)-,benzoate
• N-(2-Benzoyloxyethyl)norfenfluramine

Fenfluramine (RN: 458-24-2)

• Benzeneethanamine, N-ethyl-alpha-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-(9CI)
• Phenethylamine, N-ethyl-alpha-methyl-m-(trifluoromethyl)-

Roche Pharmaceuticals spokesperson, Martina Rupp, strongly denied the addition of any special molecule to Mircera in an email response made within hours of Fahey statements.

“The information that a special molecule has been added to Mircera is wrong,” Rupp said in an e-mail.

Roche explained to CyclingNews.com that the extent of their cooperation with WADA involved providing samples of Mircera and assay reagents.

Roche has provided samples of Mircera and assay reagents to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to help ensure that WADA laboratories will be able to carry out reliable anti-doping testing.

Roche further clarified its relationship with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in an official statement sent to Bloomberg News.

Roche is aware that a leading competitor in the Tour de France is reported to have tested positive for Mircera, Roche’s new erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) approved a year ago in the European Union. Roche has worked in collaboration with the World Anti-Doping Agency since 2004 to assist in their aim of controlling the illegal use of ESAs and specifically Mircera. Roche has provided the information to WADA and to a WADA- accredited laboratory to detect its new ESA. We are pleased that this collaboration has been productive.”

A WADA spokesman subsequently contradicted the WADA president’s statements to ABC Radio suggesting that Fahey’s comments were misconstrued or misinterpreted.

No marker was inserted in the substance,” the WADA spokesman said. “Thanks to the fruitful cooperation of the manufacturer of this substance (Roche) and of WADA-accredited laboratories, which started in 2004, WADA received the molecule well in advance and was able to develop ways to detect it, including through the current EPO detection method.”

Yesterday, I was shocked that a drug company would even consider secretly adding molecules to consumer drug products; it was disturbing to think that a drug company was intentionally failing to disclose ingredients to consumers (and possibly even regulators).

I am relieved to hear that the pharmaceutical giant did not conspire with WADA, an organization known for their anti-steroid and anti-doping witch hunts, to covertly manipulate drug products.

I was surprised that few bloggers had any problem with such a plot. Apparently, legal, health, privacy, and regulatory concerns fall by the wayside when it comes to catching athletes who dope. I read on Trust But Verify that one blogger felt that this was actually the proper way to go after dopers.

This is the right way to catch drug cheats; not witch hunts.

Steroid Nation was disappointed that Fahey’s “good idea” was not implemented by Roche.

So apparently no stealth molecule in the CERA drug allowing detection.  A good idea not implemented.

But it was good to see Rant agree that planting secret molecules would be “problematic.”

Adding special markers to drugs may be problematic, in that it runs the risk of further unintended consequences. All drugs have side effects. Any drug maker worth their salt would want to minimize the possibilities of those side effects. Adding extra stuff into the drug, merely for the convenience of the anti-doping agencies could, conceivably, expose legitimate users of the medication to extra risks. Not a good business model, especially in our litigious age.

The WADA and Roche dance today was very interesting. John Fahey’s comments about the planted molecule are baffling in retrospect. Why would he pull something out of his ass that was so misleading and (allegedly) false? What if there really are secret trojan molecules in our drugs? What is Fahey accidentally let the cat out of the bag?! What is today’s events were an organized coverup?

No – it couldn’t be true! I am not in the habit of believing statements from WADA (especially when they talk about the foolproofness, accuracy and fairness of their tests); so why should I start believing Fahey today?

It seems that WADA is no longer interested in developing anti-doping tests that actually detect performance enhancing drugs (PEDs); this is understandable since serious flaws in their anti-doping tests are revealed again and again. Instead, WADA apparently believes the future of anti-doping efforts lies in anti-doping agencies cooperation with pharmaceutical companies to secretly add “traceable molecules” and “trojan molecules” (“Ricco caught by secret doping molecule: WADA chief,” July 23).

In the development of that particular substance, close cooperation occurred between WADA and the pharmaceutical company Roche Pharmaceuticals so that there was a molecule placed in the substance well in advance that was always going to be able to be detected once a test was taken,” Mr Fahey said.

Wow. I wonder what is more deplorable – athletes using performance enhancing drugs OR multi-national pharmaceutical companies secretly adding traceable molecules to consumer products and intentionally hiding this ingredient by failing to disclose it on the label?

Mr Fahey said such cooperation with drug companies was the way forward in fighting drug cheats.

“There’s more and more of this occurring,” he said.

“The more cooperation the scientists can have with the drug companies in the detection of performance-enhancing drugs the greater the likelihood is they will be detected when tests are undertaken.”

I can not imagine regulatory agencies such as the FDA looking favorably upon pharmaceutical products that have undisclosed, secret ingredients which are not essential to the action of the drug. After all, the traceable molecules have absolutely no benefit to the patient.

Certainly, this will upset quite a few people; the fact that Roche Pharmaceuticals is committing resources to non-therapeutic anti-doping efforts is, at the very least, bad public relations coming only a fews weeks after abandoning HIV/AIDS research.

The privacy, legal and regulatory obstacles to WADA’s latest approach to doping detection seems to make it a non-starter. FAIL!

Even if some pharmaceutical companies conspire with WADA in their anti-doping efforts, there are probably hundreds of pharmaceutical companies around the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, that would likely resist the extra expense of adding “traceable” anti-doping molecules to their products. The innumerous pharmaceutical companies have already given WADA problems with all the undetectable biogeneric and biosimilar EPO variants commercially available to athletes.

The testosterone doping test is flawed. The EPO test is flawed in more ways than one. Peptide hormones such as human growth hormone (HGH) and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) are currently undetectable. And this does not begin to address other current and emerging synthetic blood boosting techniques being used by cyclists.

It seems that anti-doping agencies are happy to assert that they are winning the war on doping while neglecting issues such as biogeneric/biosimilar erythropoietin (EPO) stimulating proteins (ESPs); blood oxygen carriers: perfluorocarbon emulsions (PFCEs) and hemoglobin based oxygen carriers (HBOCs); hydroxyethylstarch (HES/HAES); and before long, if not already, EPO-mimetic peptide (EMPs).

The newer blood boosting techniques like PFCEs and HBOCs do not increase hematocrit levels; so these drugs have performance enhancing effects without risk of exceeding the 50% hematocrit cutoff. Furthermore, the performance enhancing effects of PFCEs and HBOCs are instantaneous. The HES/HAES are actually plasma expanders and would dilute the hematocrit concentration.

Occasionally, the press reports on these substances e.g. when the U.S. Postal Team was caught with Activegin and subsequently admitted taking Activegin to the 1999 Tour de France prior to its ban and when Mauro Gianetti almost killed himself using PFCEs during the 1998 Tour of Romandy. (Ironically, Mauro Gianetti is the team manager who was “duped” by riders on the scandal-plagued Saunier Duval-Scott cycling team).

And while most of us just learned about a third generation version of EPO called Mircera, a “fourth-generation” version of EPO belonging to the class of drugs known as EMPs may receive FDA approval within the next 2-3 years; it is unknown whether athletes are currently experimenting with Hematide or Hemomer.

Blood oxygen carriers: perfluorocarbon emulsions (PFCEs) and hemoglobin based oxygen carriers (HBOCs)

Actovegin (Nycomed)
HemAssist (Baxter Healthcare)
Hemolink (Hemosol)
Hemopure (Biopure) *
Oxyglobin (Biopure) *
Oxycyte (Synthetic Blood International)
Oxygent (Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp)
PHER O2 (Sanguine Corp)
PHP (Curacyte)

Hemospan (Sangart) – added May 6, 2011
Polyheme (Northfield Laboratories) – added May 6, 2011

* Biopure assets were sold to OPK Biotech

Plasma expanders: hydroxyethylstarch (HES/HAES)

Dextran (B. Braun Medical)
Gentran (Baxter Healthcare)
Hespan (B. Braun Medical)
Voluven (Fresenius Kabi)

EPO-mimetic peptide (EMPs)

Hemomer (AplaGen Biopharmaceuticals)
Hematide (Affymax/Takeda Pharmaceutical)

***

Cyclists will continue to use performance enhancing drugs. They will continue to remain ahead of the anti-doping agencies. By only giving credence to official statements from WADA, AFLD, etc., one would believe this was all but impossible. But the evidence that doping continues is everywhere.

For example, here is an experpt from a post at RoadBikeReview.com regarding how doping is still possible given all the doping controls:

HGH, IGF-1 and Actovegin are pretty much the minimum that riders take. Ok…a few might just be on HGH because after all HGH converts in the liver to IGF-1. NONE of these drugs can be dectected…

[...]

Now for a one day classic they just come to controls with a 49% hematocrit. They can get there with blood doping or Dynepo use (human identical epo) After morning controls they have about an hour, and sometimes a little more, to blood dope. Units of their own blood are slammed into them with blood pumps. You can infuse a litre of packed cells in about an hour with no issue. This is at least 3 units of pure red cells. This will boost your hematocrit by at least 5% and sometimes 8-9%! The top riders then line up at the starting line with a 55-59% hematocrit!!!

After the race the extra blood is taken out, the plasma is spun off and the red cells are frozen as above. They end up with a 50% hematocrit. Alternatively they can just bleed the extra blood out of you until you are at 50%.

[...]

In grand tours you have to pass morning controls with no more than a 50% hematocrit, just like for any race, so they either take the extra blood out of you after the stage and save for re-infusion after morning controls, or they simply jack you with IV saline and volume expanders like Hespan right before morning controls so your hematocrit is diluted to 49-50%. You still have the same O2 carrying capacity that you had at say 56% …the blood is just diluted down. This extra fluid also comes in handy in the stage.

If you blood dope for any length of time you must supplement with very tiny doses of epo and only via the IV route. Blood doping shuts down your own red cell production so you will have next to zero retics (immature red cells) in you …and if control sees this they will know you are blood doping.

Is WADA really winning the war against doping in sports?

Athletes are using various “biosimilar” EPO agents for which WADA has not yet developed a detection method. WADA’s ballyhooed test for the previously undetectable Mircera (pegylated EPO) was an admission that the already flawed existing EPO test was unable to detect variants of EPO; the announcement of the new CERA (Mircera) test at the 2008 Tour de France was considered a major victory.

There are also dozens of “copycat” or “biosimilar” versions of EPO. These are variants of EPO that are produced by different methods or exist as slightly different biological forms of EPO e.g. darbepoetin alfa, epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, epoetin gamma, epoetin delta, epoetin epsilon, epoetin zeta, epoetin theta, epoetin kappa, epoetin omega. The existence of biosimilar versions of EPO is a major problem for drug testers (“Concerns over Olympic drug test,” July 21).

Because the medicine has been so successful financially, companies in India, China and Cuba have developed drugs that do a similar job in the body, but have a slightly different molecular fingerprint. These cheap versions of EPO, often called biosimilars, can be easily bought over the internet.

[...]

“There are now a number of compounds that bind to the EPO receptor, and there is no single test for them, you can order it here over the internet and it will be delivered to you here in the UK or in Germany; Chinese-made doping substances” [according to Professor Werner Franke].

Some scientists who track and monitor the development of copycat EPO drugs say there could be up to 80 different versions now being manufactured in different parts of the world.

A few biosimilar versions are available in the EU and Eastern Europe; however, a plethora of doping options are commercially available with biosimilar EPO pharmaceuticals produced around the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, several of which could be purchased inexpensively over the internet.

Abseamed (Medice Arzneimittel Pütter)
Aranesp (Amgen)
Binocrit (Sandoz)
Bioetin (Nanogenpharma) [Vietnam]
Ceriton (Rambaxy) [India]
Dynepo (Shire)
Epocim (CIMEQ) [Cuba]
Epoetin Alfa Hexal (Hexal Biotech Forschungs)
Epofer (Emcure) [India]
Epofit (INTAS Pharmaceuticals) [India]
Epogin (Chugai Pharmaceutical Company) [Japan]
Epokine (Macropharma Corporation) [Philippines]�
Eporon (Century Pharmaceuticals) [India]
Eporon (Dong-A Pharmaceutical Company) [Korea]
Eposino (Shandong Kexing) [China]
Eposino (Hindustan Bio Sciences) [India]
Epotin (Claris Lifesciences) [India]
Epotrex-NP (Novell Pharmaceutical) [Indonesia],
Epoyet (Bio Sudis) [Argentina],
Eritina (Chalver Laboratories) [Columbia]
Eritrogen (Bioprofarma) [Argentina]
Eritromax (Blausiegel ) [Brazil],
Erykine (INTAS Pharmaceuticals) [India]
Erypo (Janssen-Cilag)
Espo (Kirin Brewery Company, Pharmaceutical Division) [Japan]
Espogen (Hoffman Health) [Pakistan]
Gerepo (North China Pharmaceutical Group Corporation) [Malaysia]
Hemapo (Innogene Kalbiotech) [Singapore]
Hemax (Seignior Pharma) [Pakistan]
Hypercrit (Biogalenic) [Venezuela]
Mircera (Roche)
NeoRecormon (Roche)
PDpoetin (Pooyesh Darou Pharmaceuticals) [Iran]
Renoge (Biomedis) [Philippines]
Retacrit (Hospira/STADA) [Germany]
Shanpoietin (Shanta Biotechnics) [India]
Silapo (Bioceuticals Arzneimittel AG)
Vintor (Emcure) [India]
Wepox (Wockhardt) [India]
Zyrop (Zydus Biogenyc) [India]

I think the science director of WADA could be considered delusional in his claim that WADA is catching all users of recombinant EPO.

Dr Olivier Rabin is WADA’s science director. Is he happy that the test is catching all the drug cheats?

“I am reasonably confident, yes,” he told the BBC. “Now, it would be very presumptuous on my part to say that we are absolutely 100% sure we are going to get everyone. But I can assure you that if you were to take recombinant EPO and that would be in your urine – then, yes, we would detect it.“

Maybe the public will buy it, but the athletes already know better.

Hat tip to Trust But Verify.