STEROIDCONFIRM™ enables sports trainers, employers and parents to test individuals who they suspect may be abusing steroids. Simply take a urine specimen at home, in the workplace or at school, and mail to our laboratory using the pre-paid shipping pak. You have the option to perform a confidential test (no personal information is required) or a test with a Chain of Custody…

Using Liquid Chromatograph Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), the most sophisticated and sensitive technology available for the steroid testing community, STEROIDCONFIRM™ can accurately quantify substances well below the cut-off levels. Each specimen is tested directly with this instrument – there is no screening process.

Confirm Biosciences claims the SteroidConfirm steroid testing kit is comparable to the steroid panels used by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). This may be misleading.

STEROIDCONFIRM™ is comparable to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) panels, detecting a full list of prescription androgenic anabolic steroids, prohormones, designer anabolic steroids, essential masking agents, anti-estrogen agents and diuretics.

But the SteroidConfirm description only claims to identify 11 anabolic steroids, 5 metabolites, and 1 beta-2 agonist. This doesn’t come close to approaching the number of anabolic steroids included in the WADA doping tests. SteroidConfirm advertises the detection of the following 17 substances (mostly steroids and their metabolites).

» Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG)
 » Boldenone (Equipoise)
 » Hydroxyboldenone (Metabolite)
 » Clostebol (Steranobol)
 » Clenbuterol
 » Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)
 » Testosterone
 » Epitestosterone
 » Oxymesterone (Oranabol)
 » Oxandrolone (Anavar)
 » Methyloxandrolone (Metabolite)
 » Stanozolol (Winstrol)
 » Hydroxystanozolol (Metabolite)
 » Flouxymesterone (Halotestin)
 » 6B-Hydroxyflouxymesterone (Metabolite)
 » Androsterone
 » 19-Norandrosterone (Metabolite)

Several popular anabolic steroids are apparently not included in the testing. These include Anadrol (oxymetholone), Dianabol (methandrostenolone), Trenbolone, Masteron (drostanolone propionate), Primobolan (methenolone), and Proviron (mesterolone).

Deca Durabolin (nandrolone decanoate) is not included either; however, I think a positive result for the metabolite 19-norandrosterone will effectively detect the use of any nandrolone based steroids (Deca, Laurabolin, Dynabolan, Anadur, etc).

It is possible that some of the steroids I mentioned will be detected by discovery of some of the 5 metabolites that SteroidConfirm does test for. But it would seem that the Confirm Biosciences marketing department would be certain to mention this if it were true.

Otherwise, I think suggesting that the steroid testing kit is comparable to WADA panels is a bit of a stretch. The steroid testing kit is not nearly as comprehensive at the company would like you and your $145 believe.

(Hat tip to Steroid Nation for link to CNBC story.)

Source: Wikipedia

The scientific and anti-doping community continue to struggle with the development a test for exogenous growth hormone in athletes. They haven’t even been able to produce scientific evidence that growth hormone enhances athletic performance in spite of anecdotal evidence [from athletes and strength coaches] that this is the case.

But science continues to do a good job at finding weakness in the doping controls currently in place. Tip of the hat to Trust But Verify for alerting us of a new study which, among other things, tells us exactly how much exogenous testosterone some athletes can use and still pass the drug test.

The study reveals serious weaknesses in the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test used by WADA and other anti-doping organizations (“Doping Test in Sports Confounded by Common Genetic Trait,” March 21).

The current first-line defense for detecting testosterone abuse in sports is to measure the ratio of two chemicals in a spot urine test: testosterone glucuronide (TG) and epitestosterone glucuronide (EG). TG is a by-product of testosterone in the body; it increases as the amount of testosterone increases. EG is unrelated to testosterone metabolism, and serves as a reference point in testing.

In doping tests, any ratio above four, according to the International Olympic Committee, should be considered suspicious and lead to further testing.

It appears that certain genotypes are more likely to have false negatives (athletes use testosterone but don’t get caught)and other genotypes are more likely to have false positives (innocent athletes test positive for steroid use).

The production of TG from testosterone, however, is primarily controlled by an enzyme (UGT2B17), which is produced by a specific gene. Common variations to this gene may give rise to wildly different testing results, even when the same dose of testosterone has been taken.

For their study, the researchers screened 145 men for the insertion (ins) or deletion (del) of this gene. Among the participants, 15 percent had no copies of the gene (del/del), 52 percent had one copy (ins/del), and 33 percent carried two copies (ins/ins).

From this group, the researchers selected 55 men (17 del/del, 24 ins/del, and 14 ins/ins) to receive a single 360 mg dose of testosterone. The men were then routinely tested over a 15-day period for the telltale signs of doping.

If you’re a genetically gifted athlete (i.e. you lack the gene that produces the enzyme UGT2B17), you can take an whopping injection of at least 360 milligrams of testosterone without getting caught by the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test (T:E ratio). This testosterone loophole in drug testing has been known by athletes for decades (anecdotally). It is nice to have solid scientific evidence to confirm it.

A full 40 percent of the del/del subjects never reached the detection threshold in a standard doping test. “Nearly half of the individuals in our study who carried this genetic variation would go undetected in a regular doping test after a single 360 mg dose of testosterone,” said Dr. Schulze.

If you were born without the genetics to beat a drug test, then you have a fair chance of failing the drug test even if you are innocent.

Of equal interest, 14 percent of the ins/ins subjects were naturally over the detection threshold even without receiving a testosterone injection. Based on an earlier study, the researchers estimate that this would give a false-positive rate of 9 percent in a random population of young men. “False positive results are not only of concern for the legal rights of the sportsman,” said Dr. Schulze, “they also yield extra workload for the doping laboratories.”

Maybe athletes will start taking advantage of relatively inexpensive personal genome services to learn things like the likelihood of side effects from anabolic steroids and the likelihood of being able to get away with using banned substances?

Most importantly, this study provides solid evidence that innocent athletes can be falsely accused when relying on the T:E ratio test.

A few other things learned:

• A level playing field doesn’t exist even at the genotypic level even when it comes to the ability escape doping detection

• Could there be a rogue chemist who discovered a pharmaceutical drug that can block the UGT2B17 enzyme?

• Certain “ethnic populations” are more/less likely to get caught when using banned substances like testosterone (e.g. East Asians and Swedish Caucasians).

I look forward to reading the full text of the study when it is released.

The paper “Doping Test Results Dependent on Genotype of UGT2B17, the Major Enzyme for Testosterone Glucuronidation” will appear in the June issue of [Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism] JCEM, a publication of The Endocrine Society.

Other states allow it. The U.S. Constitution allows it. But the Washington Supreme Court said today that random drug testing of student athletes is not allowed under the state constitution.

If random testing student athletes for steroids and other drugs is consistent with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then why does the Washington state constitution prohibit random testing? Quite simply, residents of Washington have more privacy protections than those granted by the U.S. Constitution (“They Ain’t Gonna Pee-Pee in No Cup,” March 14).

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld random testing not only of athletes but of students participating in other extracurricular activities as well, and its logic (such as it is) suggests that random testing of all students also would be consistent with the Fourth Amendment. But Washington’s constitution has a privacy guarantee that goes beyond the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, saying, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” The state Supreme Court has read this clause as providing more protection than the Fourth Amendment…

According to Reason, the State of Washington is not the only state whose residents are granted greater privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution (which I suspect would likely also prohibit random steroid testing in student athletes).

Washington is not the only state where residents enjoy more privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment (as currently read) guarantees. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, has taken a dimmer view of student drug testing than the U.S. Supreme Court. The Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the state constitution’s privacy clause, which says the “right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed,” as prohibiting prosecution of people for possessing small amounts of marijuana at home. 

The steroid testing trend in public high schools sweeping the nation appears to be permanently stalled in at least a few states.

The video features lengthy segments featuring high school teenage athletes who used steroids and suffered. The video implies that anabolic steroids caused stroke and paralysis in one case; it implies that steroids caused suicide in the other case (Taylor Hooton). This type of “scare tactic” approach is common in state produced steroid education and anti-drug productions.

Legislators and state educators need to realize that what is negative to adults is not necessarily negative to teenagers. High school athletes contemplating the use of steroids are much more motivated by the positive reinforcement resulting from steroids; their behavior isn’t as heavily influenced by fear of uncertain punishment, especially the low probability, overstated, exaggerated, or downright inaccurate side effects promoted in typical steroid education videos.

There was an insightful comment by a high school student who watched the UIL steroid education video. He watched the emotional scare tactics involving steroids and stroke/paralysis, and steroids and suicide, but this apparently had little influence on him; his biggest concern was the risk of tendon tears.

Me and a couple of friends got a little worried about it after we watched it… One thing that really scared me is your muscles get too strong for your tendons and then your muscles rip out your tendons.

The scare tactics didn’t work; he was more influenced by the (more realistic) possible effect on performance. What is negative to adults and what is negative to high school athletes are not necessarily the same thing.

In society’s obsession with steroids, I think the real concerns are often ignored. The student goes on to say:

That [steroids] can take you out of football for life, and football is my life.

A discussion of the overemphasis of athletics in high schools (especially in Texas) and winning by everyone involved is critical in the steroid debate.

Steroid Education Video by UIL Texas: The Making of a Champion

The short history of steroid testing in public schools has yielded little, if anything. In the handful of local school districts that already test for steroids, no positive test has been reported. The same is true for limited state programs in Florida and New Jersey.

“It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack,” said Lloyd Johnston, a noted researcher at the University of Michigan. “My guess is that the payoff relative to the cost won’t be high.”

Some critics also question the state’s policy decision to go after steroids when the use of other illegal drugs, including marijuana, heroin and prescription drugs, is far more common among teenagers. The state’s steroid tests will cost up to $140 each, compared with $15 for most other drug tests.

Ms. Fox asked Texas State legislators about the statistically low probability (Lloyd Johnston’s “needle in a haystack” analogy) of catching steroid users. Legislators say catching steroid users wasn’t the primary objective anyway. The real goal of the steroid testing program is to serve as a deterrent for high school athletes considering the use of anabolic steroids.

Ms. Fox asks steroid prevention researcher, Linn Goldberg, M.D., about the deterrent effect of steroid testing in high schools:

Linn Goldberg, a national drug-testing expert and the head of the division of health promotion and sports medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, said “drug testing, as yet, is not a deterrent to use. There’s no evidence that it is.”

He called the Texas steroids program “a knee-jerk reflex so they can say they’re doing something.”

Dr. Goldberg’s study and another done in 2003 at the University of Michigan showed that drug testing did not have a significant effect on whether students continued to use drugs.

Although I don’t think Linn Goldberg is an uninterested, neutral observer in this debate, I do agree with his assessment of Texas’ steroid testing program.

Florida, New Jersey and, most recently, Texas have all passed legislation mandating drug-testing programs for anabolic steroids in students competing in extracurricular sports at public high schools.

After looking at the details of the UIL Anabolic Steroid Testing Program, I can see several reasons why Texas program is likely to be ineffective. State officials in Texas believe their massive steroid testing program should be a model for other states!

In general, the media have been the cheerleaders praising the program. A reporter from the Houston Chronicle seemed satisfied with news that Florida’s steroid testing program uncovered 1 positive steroid result out of 430 steroid tests citing “favorable feedback.” This was in spite of the following statement from the Florida High School Athletic Association:

The odds are not really in your favor that you are going to get somebody.

The Chronicle reporter then interjected some of that Texas pride suggesting that the Texas steroid testing program would be bigger and better than Florida’s.

Florida’s testing program will target only 1 percent of student athletes who participate in football, baseball, girls’ softball and weightlifting, or about 604 students. The Texas testing program will involve about 3 percent of all high school student athletes. Florida is spending $100,000 for its testing program, while Texas will spend nearly $3 million a year. Texas will test as many as 25,000 student athletes per year.

Students tested: Texas (25,000) vs. Florida (604)

Percentage tested: Texas (3%) vs. Florida (1%)

Taxpayer funds spent: Texas ($3 million/year) vs. Florida ($100,000)

Yes – Texas definitely beats Florida – as the biggest failure in efforts to reduce steroid use by high school athletes.