The New York Times reports that a new study to be published in next month's Journal of Applied Physiology from Denmark's highly regarded Copenhagen Muscle Research Center shows that the current urine test used to detect the banned blood booster erythropoietin (EPO) is not as effective as previously thought, throwing into question the entire process to monitor and control the use of performance enhancing substances in sport. 

In the study, conducted in 2007 at the Danish research center, eight subjects were studied for blood cell count and athletic performance with urine samples collected before, during and after taking EPO over an 8 week period. Samples were then sent to two different WADA-approved labs. Lab B of did not find a single positive sample, while Lab A, the second lab did find some positives, but was inconsistent. According to the NYT, Lab A found positive results at the high dose phase but in the low dose, or maintenence phase, only 6 of 16 samples tested were positive (38%). Lab A also declared one sample positive which should have been negative, according to study. researchers. But WADA scientific director Olivier Rabin poo-pooed the study, telling Gina Kolota of The New York Times that "I have never seen such a drastic situation as the one reported," said Rabin. 

Although Rabin chose to ignore the facts of the study, the actual facts of the research showed that

the subjects athletic performance improved, a lot! At maximum effort measure performance improved by 9 to 16 percent, but at a lower level of exertion, athletic performance improved by 50 percent according to chief researcher Dr. Lundby. "Athletes taking EPO can go 50 percent longer at that somewhat lower level of effort, which can make a major difference in an endurance event like the Tour de France or a marathon," Dr. Lundby told the NY Times Kolota.

With the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center epo study, coupled with a recent study on testosterone testing by Dr. Jenny Jakobsson Schulze, a molecular geneticist at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm. Her study, recently published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, showed the standard urine test to screen for doping with testosterone showed that the testosterone test worked for most of the men, but 17 of the test subjects tested negative. Although the subjects had had taken testosterone, their urine samples testesd negative for excess testosterone.

Gina Kolota of The New York Times reportes that "(the result) was a striking demonstration of a genetic discovery. Those 17 men can build muscles with testosterone, they respond normally to the hormone, 

but they are missing both copies of a gene used to convert the testosterone into a form that dissolves in urine. The result is that they may be able to take testosterone with impunity." 

Like a deer in the headlights, Dr. Don Catlin, the chief executive of Anti-Doping Research, a nonprofit group in Los Angeles and America's top anti-doping expert said of the testoterone study result “It’s disturbing; Basically, you have a license to cheat.” Of the epo study, Catlin seemed dumbfounded, saying “The paper certainly is an eye-opener, It’s quite remarkable.”

Dr. Lundby told the NY Times that “The list of these substances is growing; from an anti-doping view, it’s bad. The list of substances you must test for will grow and grow. So what do you do? You take it. It doesn’t sound good for anyone who wants a drug-free sport,” added Lundby. With many people saying that cycling is the cleanest it has been it has been in years, and that this is bringing new sponsors into the sport, the two studies on testoterone and epo may debunk these naive opinions. In fact, if these studies are correct, doping may be as pervasive as ever in cycling. The dopers can still outsmart the system because there is more money in play and the stakes are higher for them than for the monitors and powers that be in cycling.