EPO (Recombinant Human Erythropoietin) Use As A PED in Horses: Fact or Fiction

[Chief Stipe]

There has been much discussion on Racing Forums about allegations of the use of EPO (rHuEPO).  This has been fuelled by speculative reporting from news outlets such as the Paulick Report, Thoroughbred Bloodhorse and Peter Profit.  Although I'm loathe to call Peter Profit a news outlet he has gone so far as to post images of packaged EPO bought off the internet and then inferred this is the secret to many of the performances by top harness stables.

I've done quite a bit of research over the last week or so which I'm in the process of writing up in full.  However is the use of EPO in horse racing Fact or Fiction?  My conclusion it is Fiction.

What is EPO:  EPO is a naturally occurring hormone produced by the kidney's.  It is necessary for life in all Vertebrates.  It's production is regulated by the amount of oxygen in the circulating blood e.g. if there is low oxygen then EPO is released and conversely when high oxygen is detected EPO production reduces.  It is a self regulating system.  The EPO hormone delivers a signal to the bone marrow to create more red blood cells (erythrocytes) and thus enable more oxygen to circulate.

EPO as a PED (Peformance Enhancing Drug):  The theory is that by injecting EPO into a horse you are stimulating the production of red blood cells, increasing the blood's capacity to carry oxygen and therefore increasing the horses performance.

Manufactured rHuEPO :  rHuEPO is a Biopharmaceutical, that is one derived from biological origins.  rHuEPO is manufactured by cloning the HUMAN gene for EPO - essentially cells are harvested from humans and then multiplied using biological replication processes (mRNA vaccines are developed the same way with the spike protein manufacture using E. coli!).  Recombinant erythropoietin drugs are known as erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs).  There are two types of ESAs on the U.S. market: epoetin alfa (Procrit,® Epogen®), and darbepoietin alfa (Aranesp®).

The Allegations: Fact or Fiction

1. EPO (rHuEPO is undetectable:  Definitely Fiction.  The Hong Kong Jockey Club lab (where most of NZ horse swabs go) has been testing for rHuEPO for at least 10 years.  There have been positives returned in Harness in Australia.  I believe the HKJC use high-resolution mass spectrometry as its test method and looks for two specific peptide fragments VNFYAWK (T6) and VYSNFLR (T17).  There are numerous other methods including PCR tests.  The fact is if a racing jurisdiction suspects rHuEPO is being used then it is a straight forward process to detect it.  The first test for EPO at the Olympic Games occurred in Sydney in 2000.
2. Micro-dosing of EPO avoids detection:  Fiction.  Micro-dosing is where supposedly undetectable amounts are given over a long period of time to stimulate the desired effect of an increase in RBC.  This approach fails because very minute levels can be detected.  To paraphrase the eccentric Nobel Prize Winning Biochemist inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, "you can now find 1 molecule of a substance if you are motivated to but it doesn't mean the person has a disease" i.e. very very small amounts of a substance can be found.  We have seen evidence of this in horse drug positives in recent years for substances that have a zero tolerance.  The amounts are so small that there is no way that there could be a therapeutic let alone a performance enhancing effect.  However that isn't the point with detecting rHuEPO. as any amount, no matter how small is an indication of administration.  
   
   The other weakness with the "Micro-dosing" allegation is that small doses are unlikely to have the desired theoretical effect given the horse's body will self regulate the production of RBC and this is more likely to occur over time.  So theoretically if you wanted to get a spike in oxygen carrying capacity then a large dose would more likely achieve it.  Either way the administration would be detectable.
3. EPO Doping Worked on Humans so Works on Horses:  Likely Fiction.  I say likely because there is little to no evidence that rHuEPO administration on horses increases their RBC sufficiently (if at all) to improve performance.  Much was made of an article in The Paulick Report about Dr Mary Scollay (World Authority on Equine Health - Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer at RACING MEDICATION AND TESTING CONSORTIUM) and her comment about anecdotal evidence of widespread EPO use and micro-dosing (more about this in the comprehensive article).  This comment was made coincidentally at the time she was seeking research funding.  She was duly given NZD$225,000.  Well that research has been completed and the findings were that yes EPO can be detected at micro-doses and NO there was no increase at all in the blood factors that influence performance.  Oddly the research didn't use the current readily available tests but look to identify new markers.  Lo and behold the recommendation was that more research was required and no doubt there will be another funding round coming up soon.  Doesn't that remind you of Covid Scientists? 
   
   But what about Lance Armstrong?  Well he did use EPO and did improve his performance and did avoid detection.  But the truth is a bit more complex than that.  It is believed that he used EPO but also blood doping where blood that had artificially increased Red Blood Cell counts (artificially through EPO or from training at altitude) was stored (perhaps spun to remove the plasma) and later reinjected back into his body via infusion.  He also avoided testing by using a number of scrupulous means. 
   
   None of these techniques is likely with horses in NZ or Australia for that matter.  The Peter Profit hypothesis is (it isn't the micro-dosing hypothesis):
   
   rHuEPO is used at a high concentration out of competition to increase the RBC count of a horse.  Then blood is taken from the horse and spun extracting the RBC's and these are transfused into the bloodstream prior to competition.  The flaws in this hypothesis are - 
   
   - the assumption that rHuEPO will significantly increase the RBC;
   - costs of the rHuEPO.  Although units of rHuEPO can be purchased at relatively low prices - $30 to $60 per 10,000 IU the volume required would be quite expensive and difficult to hide from authorities.  The Paulick Report in 2015 published a letter from a Vet where the recommendation for in competition administration of EPO for was for 10 vials in the first seven days and then top ups twice a week.  Aside from the fact that the EPO is detectable is that a cost that any NZ owner would be willing to pay?;  
   - it would involve a compliant Vet regularly testing the blood for blood count levels.  Two reason one you would want to take the blood when the count was up and two there is a fine line when the blood count is too high and the horse becomes seriously ill.  Where ware all the compliant Vets and Labs?;
   - high volumes of blood would have to be taken.  In human sports doping allegedly 4 units (2 litres) of blood is taken a month before competition.  Too close to competition and the body is still catching up producing blood.  So the equivalent in a horse would be 21 litres!  Where do you store large volumes of blood before you spin it?  Then where do you store the spun blood product?;
   - the spun RBC's would have to be transfused closed to competition to be effective (remember the horses body self regulates).  Again careful vet monitoring would be required to get it right as too much could cause harm and reduce performance;
   - spinning is not 100% at separating the RBC's from all the constituents of the blood i.e. you wouldn't remove all traces of EPO.
   
   Which to sum up the PeterProfit hypothesis - FICTION!
    
4. Horses don't adversely react to rHuEPO:  Mostly Fiction  A small minority don't however in the micro-dosing trial mentioned above all those administered rHuEPO at reactions of variable severity.  The reason being that rHuEPO is a foreign body sourced from a human gene.  The horse will develop antibodies and antigens upon injection.  The same thing happened to some of you when you got the Pzifer jab.

That's the short version.  In summary to answer the Question:  Is EPO widely used as a PED in horse training?  Answer:  NO unless you want to get caught!  Unfortunately the counterfactual doesn't entertain or sell clicks plus the truth and explaining it can be mind blowingly boring!

PS:  I don't profess to be a Vet or an expert on this subject.  However I did study Level 3 Biochemistry at Lincoln College and found it profoundly fascinating.  I still remember the equation for how long it would take to burn the fat stored from a single glass of rum!  Interestingly the manufacture of EPO uses similar processes as those that are used to create mRNA vaccines and the PCR and Rapid Antigen Tests are also not new.  So although not an expert I do have a tuned radar for BS and know where to look to prove something isn't right.

 

[Archie Butterfly]

Not a news outlet? You should see my subscriber list. I earn 3 times what your so called 'real' news outlet writers earn, and that's because I write the truth, not some piffle that my drug cheat protecting paymasters throw shekels at me to write. I also work with the other outlets you name, so clearly you know crap from clay. Oh, and I write and post under my own name too, not an alias. Archie is my name, Archie Butterfly. Peter Profit was a champion pacer in Brisbane in the 1970's, won 54 races at Albion Park. But being such an expert on all things trots you would already know that wouldn't you?

Your so called facts are nonsense.

There is no PCR test for EPO. Their is a dried blood spot (DBS) test, but its not the same thing. You can read about it here, in a proper scientific journal.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.3059

Micro-dosing does work, and is recognised as working by anti-doping authorities in every sport around the world. You can read about that here in scientific journals too.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.2674

I could go on to deconstruct your other fictions too, but its boring and I have more important things to do like exposing the drug cheats that you are clearly trying to protect from behind your anonymous wall, and anyway I think readers get the point.

Let's race on a level playing field!

Cheers

Archie

 

 

[Nowornever]

[Chief Stipe]

31 minutes ago, Archie Butterfly said:

Not a news outlet? You should see my subscriber list. I earn 3 times what your so called 'real' news outlet writers earn, and that's because I write the truth, not some piffle that my drug cheat protecting paymasters throw shekels at me to write. I also work with the other outlets you name, so clearly you know crap from clay. Oh, and I write and post under my own name too, not an alias. Archie is my name, Archie Butterfly. Peter Profit was a champion pacer in Brisbane in the 1970's, won 54 races at Albion Park. But being such an expert on all things trots you would already know that wouldn't you?

Your so called facts are nonsense.

There is no PCR test for EPO. Their is a dried blood spot (DBS) test, but its not the same thing. You can read about it here, in a proper scientific journal.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.3059

Micro-dosing does work, and is recognised as working by anti-doping authorities in every sport around the world. You can read about that here in scientific journals too.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.2674

I could go on to deconstruct your other fictions too, but its boring and I have more important things to do like exposing the drug cheats that you are clearly trying to protect from behind your anonymous wall, and anyway I think readers get the point.

Let's race on a level playing field!

Cheers

Archie

 

 

Bring it on Archie.  If you are indeed Archie.  You write unsubstantiated crap that you appear to barely understand. 

I didn't say there was a PCR test for EPO however the research that you said in the Black Horse Newsletter some trainers were fearing tried to develop one to no avail.  When they didn't need to as there were already tests available using other more accurate technology.

[Chief Stipe]

37 minutes ago, Archie Butterfly said:

could go on to deconstruct your other fictions too, but its boring and I have more important things to do like exposing the drug cheats that you are clearly trying to protect from behind your anonymous wall, and anyway I think readers get the point.

Everyone who posts regularly here knows who I am.  BTW I didn't have to change my name to hide any previous misdemeanours such as you have had to.

But let's not resort to ad hominem attacks which I gather is your favourite modus operandi.

For the record I currently do not own any horses, I don't have an association with any stable and I'm certainly not paid or beholding to any current license holder.

Unlike yourself of course who relies on a NZ Harness Owner to fed crap if not write your articles.

[Chief Stipe]

44 minutes ago, Archie Butterfly said:

Micro-dosing does work, and is recognised as working by anti-doping authorities in every sport around the world. You can read about that here in scientific journals too.

But it didn't work in the research study that you spruiked up in the Black Horse Newsletter.  You are so onto it you didn't know that the results of that research commissioned by Dr Mary Scollay had been submitted for publication in October 2021.  

You are nothing more than a fraud.

[the galah]

Well an article published in the last couple of days in the USA quoted a dr george maylin,head of the  new york horse racing drug testing lab,commonly respected as one of the most advanced in the U.S". 

Seems he wouldn't agree with you chief. 

heres just a couple of his quotes.

When asked why the performance enhancers described in the indictments were not caught by testing maylin said" he can test for some of the drugs,not all.He was not familiar with some of the compounds described in the indictments, therefore can't test for those...I don't believe anybody knows what the heck these things are,if anything"

as to EPO "His lab,along with  most facilities in the U.S. can only test for 3 varieties of EPO,while scientific literature cites 82 kinds of EPO worldwide...Are they being used.i don't know, but they've been synthesized ,they're available. So if your testing for EPO's  and your only doing 3 and theres 79 others out there,who are you kidding".

seems to me he answered some of the questions you are mulling over chief.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, the galah said:

Well an article published in the last couple of days in the USA quoted a dr george maylin,head of the  new york horse racing drug testing lab,commonly respected as one of the most advanced in the U.S". 

Seems he wouldn't agree with you chief. 

heres just a couple of his quotes.

When asked why the performance enhancers described in the indictments were not caught by testing maylin said" he can test for some of the drugs,not all.He was not familiar with some of the compounds described in the indictments, therefore can't test for those...I don't believe anybody knows what the heck these things are,if anything"

as to EPO "His lab,along with  most facilities in the U.S. can only test for 3 varieties of EPO,while scientific literature cites 82 kinds of EPO worldwide...Are they being used.i don't know, but they've been synthesized ,they're available. So if your testing for EPO's  and your only doing 3 and theres 79 others out there,who are you kidding".

seems to me he answered some of the questions you are mulling over chief.

 

Not at all.  Just because HE can't test for them doesn't mean that they can't be tested for or that others can.

I'm assuming that the quote is out of context as you haven't posted a link.  His comments  regarding EPO are not accurate.  There aren't 80 types of EPO (eyrthropoetin).

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Archie Butterfly said:

Micro-dosing does work, and is recognised as working by anti-doping authorities in every sport around the world. You can read about that here in scientific journals too.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.2674

Another classic case of where dear old Archie the lepidoptera clearly shows he doesn't understand science and certainly has no clue about the differences between human and equine physiology.

This one article refers to micro-dosing in male HUMAN athletes with HUMAN growth hormone and HUMAN derived EPO.

To suggest that the concept can be transferred to equine athletes is just plain scientific ignorance.

FFS Archie if this is the best you can do I'd advise you to take down your paywall before you are sued for fraud!

[curious]

10 hours ago, Archie Butterfly said:

Micro-dosing does work, and is recognised as working by anti-doping authorities in every sport around the world. You can read about that here in scientific journals too.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.2674

Did you actually bother to read this article Archie or any of the citing critique? You must think we are stupid and will just believe that rubbish.

The authors' conclusion from that study was that it doesn't work!

5 CONCLUSION

Two weeks of regular administration of EPO microdoses had visible effects on reticulocytes, but they were not sufficient to significantly increase HGB concentration. However, despite this lack of effect on HGB, half the subjects showed an increase in VO2max after the end of the treatment, possibly because they were more susceptible to a placebo effect. This intriguing result needs further clarification.

Edited February 7, 2022 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

13 hours ago, Archie Butterfly said:

There is no PCR test for EPO. Their is a dried blood spot (DBS) test, but its not the same thing. You can read about it here, in a proper scientific journal.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.3059

@Archie Butterfly and @the galah all my sources of information are from reputable (real) scientific journals.  For example the research paper that you pre-empted the results of was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine i.e. the USA Government.  BTW are you critical of that research now that it doesn't support your conspiracy?

As for evidence of the availability of tests for rHuEPO I could flood you with papers and links to papers from any number of reputable Journals and publishing houses.  I've attached a few for you to read.  If I have time I may do a literature review.  As for a DBS (dried blood spot) test I don't know what cave you live in but drug testing has moved on since the 1960's.  Have you heard of ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography), Mass Spectrometry or Proteomic Testing?  All these methods have been used successfully to test for rHuEPO in horses.

Techniques have been developed and are being used that identify rHuEPO after 14+ days of administration and at very low concentrations e.g. 9pg/ml of rHuEPO (9 x 10-12 or 0.0000000000009).  Note that it is believed for rHuEPO to elicit an improvement in performance that it needs to be administered no later than 72 hours before competition.  The reason being is that the horses system adapts over time and adjusts its own production of EPO to get its blood back in balance.  

Many of the tests focus on a couple of marker peptides that are common to all the types of EPO (about 5 or 6 types).  If you think about the logic of that it is because cell receptors that initiate the creation of more blood cells only respond to a limited range of RNA signals.  You could liken it to a key opening a door.

So Butterfly before you rant on about something you clearly know nothing about I suggest you get some good scientific advice or at the minimum do what good journalists do - research!  Plus while you are at it - try and get some solid evidence.  You remind me of the failed punter who has degenerated into the conspiracy mire to explain why he is losing.  I suggest you try @Thomass's Blueprint to improve your punting outcomes. 

The attached documents are not a definitive list of what testing is available for rHuEPO but just a sample.  There are dozens of research papers on the topic and the consensus is that rHuEPO is detectable in horse plasma and or urine using fast and cost effective tests.  

ASMS12_M121_CDauly-sm.pdf Fast confirmatory analysis of rHuEPOs in plasma for horse racing doping control.pdf Detection of Recombinant Epoetin and Darbepoetin Alpha after Subcutaneous Administration in the Horse.pdf

[Forbury]

12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Not at all.  Just because HE can't test for them doesn't mean that they can't be tested for or that others can.

I'm assuming that the quote is out of context as you haven't posted a link.  His comments  regarding EPO are not accurate.  There aren't 80 types of EPO (eyrthropoetin).

How much would these tests cost.nz trots don't even test every winner.they do not test alot of horses at all.im all for clean racing.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Forbury
Spelling

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, Forbury said:

How much would these tests cost.nz trots don't even test every winner.they do not test alot of horses at all.im all for clean racing.

I believe it is part of the standard test assay of the HKJC Lab where the majority of our samples go to.  But the point is contrary to the BS some people are posting online tests for EPO are readily available.  Now if the RIB has suspicions that EPO is being used either by one or a number of stables then you would think that they would selectively sample and test for it.  They wouldn't have to go to the HKJC for the first scanning test as there are labs in NZ that have the equipment and skills to do the job.  I know that for a fact as I've been fortunate to have been involved in a project that enabled me to see these techniques in action.  In that project the testers found molecules of substances that they did not even know existed.

As for the cost - well you minimise that by being selective with what samples gets tested.  

[hunterthepunter]

21 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I believe it is part of the standard test assay of the HKJC Lab where the majority of our samples go to.  

really . I think your got that a bit wrong chief .bugger all samples are sent there most are done in nz . only send big race day tests over there eg cup day jewel ect

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said:

really . I think your got that a bit wrong chief .bugger all samples are sent there most are done in nz . only send big race day tests over there eg cup day jewel ect

Thanks @hunterthepunter.  I said I wasn't sure but with all due respect the point I was making is that the technology is readily available in NZ to do the required tests for EPO and if the RIB were suspicious then it wouldn't take much effort to select any horse that had a change of form and send the sample to HKJC and or the NZ Lab.

If they aren't doing that then they should spend less time acting like Cops doing phone taps and hiding in hedges and focus on their real job.

[Chief Stipe]

13 hours ago, the galah said:

as to EPO "His lab,along with  most facilities in the U.S. can only test for 3 varieties of EPO,while scientific literature cites 82 kinds of EPO worldwide...Are they being used.i don't know, but they've been synthesized ,they're available. So if your testing for EPO's  and your only doing 3 and theres 79 others out there,who are you kidding".

Waiting for your link @the galah to the "scientific literature citing 82 kinds of EPO".

I also correct my statement above - there are 6 types of Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA)'s:

1. Erythropoietin (Epo)

2. Epoetin alfa (Procrit, Epogen)

3. Epoetin beta (NeoRecormon)

4. Epoetin zeta (Silapo, Retacrit)

5. Darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp)

6. Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (Mircera)

Now where you and Dr Maylin may be confused is that of the above types there are a number of different formulations produced by numerous companies.  Like most Pharmaceuticals generics are produced.  However ALL the formulations can be grouped into one of the 6 types.

Yes there may well be 80+ formulations on the market.  The reasons for the different formulations can be likened to the different brands and formulations we see with paracetamol for example where the active ingredient is formulated in different ways to improve delivery and absorption.  For example some of the formulations have had molecules added to the base to extend the half life of the drug.

BUT at the end of the day ALL the types of manufactured EPO have amino acid commonality (raw EPO is a glyco-protein comprised of 165 amino acids) because they are manufactured from human erythropoietin.  It is that commonality that is targeted in testing.  Why do they have this commonality?  At the end of the day the cheapest source of the raw material is human EPO (often sourced from the livers of fetuses) which is first duplicated/multiplied into large volumes using a biological process in large fermentation vats (the mRNA vaccines are produced the same way).  The EPO is then subjected to chemical processes to arrive at the final formulation.

The other reason for the commonality is that the stimulus of the cells that initiate the erythropoiesis (Red Blood Cell generation) process is very specific.  It is essentially a hormone that has specific RNA/peptide/amino acid strands.  The testers look for these strands.  Two such stands being peptides VNFYAWK (T6) and VYSNFLR (T17).

 

[the galah]

The article was published in a New York newspaper,the times union.I don't know how to post links,but the headline was

  "New York lab losing battle against doping in horse racing" .

Its a rather long article but at the top it has quotes contained in the story which you can click on which takes you directly to that part of the article. "who are you kidding" is one of those,so that would speed up your search for the quotes from the head of New Yorks testing lab. I think you fall into the  "who are you kidding" group chief.

He also says it costs US$180(270 nz$) per blood test and US$250(nz$375) per hair test.He complains about not enough funding anyway.And his research was continued to be funded with new parametres.

Also you should note so much is political over there when it comes to who gets funding for research,appointments made to positions and the like.

I read an article last year about one  former outspoken hardline anti doping vet, who worked for one of the high profile State racing authorities..When they had a change of leadership at the top of that states racing leadership,done through political contacts,it was expected he would lose his $400,000 job and some of his projects would no longer be funded,as he had been rocking the boat too much..

Well though and behold this anti doping vet was reappointed to the surprise of many,but with it came a change of rhetoric and actions around doping. Apparently he no longer believed that doping was as much of a problem as he had previously thought...and his research continued with new parameters.

Edited February 7, 2022 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

@the galah I've read the article you refer to.  It has numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  Most of which I've already covered above.

Two points:

1. Every drug is detectable using today's technology;
2. The reference to micro-dosing at 4,000 UI being undetectable is incorrect.  The Kentucky funded study commissioned by Scollay used 10,000 UI but elicited NO increase in the blood parameters that would result in an improvement in performance.

The statements made about EPO are incorrect.  If EPO is to be effective then it needs to have a longevity longer than minutes or hours.  Hence all the research by Pharmaceutical companies on extending the half life.  However the constituent parts of EPO don't disappear with minutes as shown in some of the research I posted.  

Yes blood cells have a life of 120 days but the body self regulates - if it doesn't have enough it produces more, if it has too many it stops producing them.  The trigger is the amount of oxygen that is detected circulating in the blood.  So although there might be a boost in the number of blood cells when EPO is administered the body quickly self-regulates back to normal.  10,000 UI in the Kentucky study wasn't enough to increase the number of red blood cells.

[Chief Stipe]

42 minutes ago, the galah said:

Its a rather long article but at the top it has quotes contained in the story which you can click on which takes you directly to that part of the article. "who are you kidding" is one of those,so that would speed up your search for the quotes from the head of New Yorks testing lab. I think you fall into the  "who are you kidding" group chief.

 No I fall into the group that logically looks at the science using the formal education that I have acquired and recent practical experience with modern testing techniques.

 

[Chief Stipe]

43 minutes ago, the galah said:

He also says it costs US$180(270 nz$) per blood test and US$250(nz$375) per hair test.He complains about not enough funding anyway.And his research was continued to be funded with new parametres.

Another ageing science academic trying to source funding for his research.  As for the cost of testing doesn't his lab do the testing and the cost is a charge to the industry?

[Chief Stipe]

Don't you find it odd that all through this NY doping saga that the testers have access to samples of what was used and yet there has been nothing published?  Instead we get the line "there are undetectable drugs" which is absolute bullshit which means one of two things - they tested the stuff and couldn't find anything because nothing was there or they are incompetent.  I politely suggest it is the former.

Anything that was in the snakeoil that Fishman was peddling was not new under the sun.  It costs $1billion to develop a new Biopharmaceutical.  Do you seriously think that has happened?

As I've said repeatedly the charges were for mislabelling and adulteration - nothing to do with a new fancy high tech drug.  You'll probably find that if Fishman had put the ingredients on his snakeoil that it was made up of vitamins, minerals and amino acids.  Navarro has already admitted using mislabelled Clenbuterol.

 

[Chief Stipe]

As for the "Who are you kidding?" section of the article at https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/horse-racing-doping-new-york-16771265.php.

The following comments by Maylin is absolute bullshit.  Why he would make such comments publicly astounds me as there would be numerous scientists that would say he is wrong.  

 

But the New York Equine Drug Testing Lab and most similar facilities across the U.S. can only test for three varieties of EPO, while scientific literature cites 82 kinds of EPO worldwide, he said.

“Are they being used? I don’t know,” Maylin said in a recent interview. “But they’ve been synthesized; they’re available. So if you’re testing for EPOs and you’re only doing three and there are another 70-plus out there, who are you kidding?”

Mary Scollay, executive director and chief operating officer of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), said she's heard allusions to a "rainbow" of EPO varieties, but she hasn't identified all of them and doesn't know where one would get them.

Maylin said that his lab is working to develop more EPO tests, but the research is difficult, time-consuming and expensive.

It can take months or years to identify a tiny trace of a substance showing up in a horse’s hair, urine or blood. More time is required to develop a reliable way to test for that compound. Research needs to be conducted to determine the effect of the substance on the horse and in what concentrations, if any, it should be permitted.

[Chief Stipe]

The following comment by Maylin is also odd.  I've looked through the indictments and all the so called PED's are recognised drugs that should be tested for.  Any "unknown" ones can be picked up via modern testing techniques.  

 

Asked why the performance-enhancing drugs described in the federal indictments were not caught by his tests, Maylin said he can test for some of those drugs, but not all. He is not familiar with some of the compounds described the indictments, and therefore cannot test for them. He has requested samples of those drugs from the Justice Department.

"I don't believe anybody doing drug testing knows what the heck these things are, if they're anything," he said.

 

[the galah]

30 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Another ageing science academic trying to source funding for his research.  As for the cost of testing doesn't his lab do the testing and the cost is a charge to the industry?

Yes would be the answer to both.The cost of each test mentioned would be what comes out of his budget for testing.

1 hour ago, the galah said:

 

He also says it costs US$180(270 nz$) per blood test and US$250(nz$375) per hair test.He complains about not enough funding anyway.And his research was continued to be funded with new parametres.

 

opps,the "and his research was continued to be funded with new parameters" actually doesn't apply to the new york man. They are trying to be pro active in uncovering doping. I had thought i had typed that bit onto the bottom paragraph of my original post,and when it didn't appear i wondered where it went to,so that explains that.

[Chief Stipe]

I've attached the relevant indictment papers from the Navarro et al case.  From what I've read all the mislabelled and adulterated PED's are known existing drugs.  The rHuEPO is a known brand name EPO which has been repackaged.  The only "compound" that I can see that would be "unknown" is the product sold here https://sgf1000.com/vecta-sgf-1000-activation called SGF-1000.  If true to its specifications then it is a sheep placenta extract.  Ironically I sold sheep placenta extract about 15 years ago to the Chinese!  It would have any EPO effects - the theory the Chinese had was it rejuvenates injured or damaged tissues i.e. anti-ageing.  I doubt it would have any therapeutic effect on a horse.  Fishman and co bought it and repackaged it just like all the other named drugs and that is what they were convicted on.

 

navarro_et_al._indictment_-_usao_sig.pdf robinson_et_al._indictment_-_usao_sig.pdf grasso_et_al._indictment_-_usao_sig.pdf