While French anti-doping officials are stumbling over themselves testing riders in advance of the Tour de France, word comes from researchers in Denmark that the gold-standard urine test for EPO may not be so effective afterall.

The test has been used since 2000, but it’s efficacy has been in question from the start — even by the folks who developed it!

According to the Danish study, the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, eight young men received multiple doses of EPO, along with multiple urine tests, and the results from the WADA approved labs were not good for the anti-doping people.

The New York Times reported the results thusly:  “The men’s urine samples were then sent to two labs accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and EPO tests were requested. The first lab found some samples positive and a few others suspicious. (A suspicious result does not bring sanctions for doping.) The lab also declared a sample positive, although the man had stopped taking the drug and it should have been gone from his urine. His previous urine sample, obtained when he was taking EPO, was negative in this lab’s test. The second lab did not deem any urine sample positive for EPO and found only a few to be suspicious. The two labs did not agree on which samples were suspicious.”

This is jaw-droppingly shocking. Not only are negative tests in question,  but positive ones are too, as shown by the example above of the positive in which the EPO should have cleared the man’s system.

I’m obviously not a scientist and I don’t pretend to play one on TV or on this blog, but the uncertainty and the inaccuracy of the various doping tests, as well as the disparity between labs, deeply trouble me. Given what I’ve read about the Floyd Landis case (which involved testosterone as opposed to EPO), plus what I’ve read about the problems with the EPO test, I don’t know whether it’s fair to sanction athletes (and ruin their reputations) on the basis of tests that even the experts question.

And then there’s the whole guilty-until-proven-innocent aspect of positive doping controls, which runs counter to our U.S. jurisprudence (unless you’re Nancy Grace), but that’s a whole different issue.

–30–