New Drug Test


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

New Drug Test

Postby tafnut » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:49 am

from home-page link:

Zheng Ouyang, R. Graham Cooks, and colleagues developed a new steroid-testing method that combines two state-of-the-art testing techniques called desorption electrospray ionization (DESI) and tandem mass spectrometry. In laboratory studies, the researchers used it to analyze fresh urine samples for the presence of tiny amounts of seven different anabolic steroids. The new method accurately identified the steroids in only a few seconds using only a single drop of urine, they say.

To which the pessimist in me says - so we know NONE of those steroids will be used by cheats, what about the many others?

and then in another article here:

http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/10/ ... 5body.html

Scientists talk about all the other new drugs coming down the pike that can create 'super-athletes'! This 'War against PEDs' is unwinnable in the long run, because it is science's job to find ways to make us better. It's becoming clearer and clearer that our focus should be on drug 'abuse', not drug use. As has been noted elsewhere, creatine crates changes in the human body, yet it is still mysteriously legal. We need a national symposium of scientists, athletes, and government officials to sort this out. (He said, knowing full well what a mucking-up of the situation such a conference would create)
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:27 pm

this is not rocket science

all you have to do is look at the steroid list & look for ones with unsaturated ( double or triple ) bonds, away from anaboilc receptor end

you'll get whopping undetecatable steroids ( not victor's piss-ant drug ), as long as you don't saturate it to become a molecule with an isolated carbon-nitrogen bond in it - that's a cyanide appendange, which means you must die
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby b_johnson_fan » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:32 pm

Why do you think you need a double or triple bond?

What do you imagine you'd make?

What's wrong with a cyano group on a drug molecule?
Last edited by b_johnson_fan on Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
b_johnson_fan
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:40 am

Re: New Drug Test

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:40 pm

tafnut wrote:This 'War against PEDs' is unwinnable in the long run, because it is science's job to find ways to make us better.


Since when have scientists been creating drugs to make people better in an athletic sense? I don't think they are actively trying to make drugs for athletes.

tafnut wrote:As has been noted elsewhere, creatine creates changes in the human body, yet it is still mysteriously legal.


But what kind of changes are we talking about here. I have yet to see any evidence for creatine having a hormonal effect. Is it really more than food? We all know what people like Conte tell the body builder:

Six Star Hardcore Strength Creatine is a clinically proven anabolic creatine formula that’s scientifically engineered to deliver explosive gains in muscle size and strength. At the foundation of the Professional Strength Creatine formula is an anabolically charged blend of five forms of creatine including HPLC tested creatine monohydrate, creatine AKG, and tricreatine HCA to name a few. Each cutting-edge form of creatine in this advanced blend is specifically designed for bodybuilders looking to achieve maximum gains in muscle size and strength. Regular creatine products are a waste of time and money for bodybuilders because they do not get into the muscles as effectively. This is what makes Professional Strength Creatine superior.


But what does it actually mean?

tafnut wrote:We need a national symposium of scientists, athletes, and government officials to sort this out. (He said, knowing full well what a mucking-up of the situation such a conference would create)


What exactly do you think would be the problem with such a conference? I suspect we have seen quite a few of these already (although I have not looked to confiorm this) and their impact is minimal from a news sense.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: New Drug Test

Postby tafnut » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:47 pm

Daisy wrote:
tafnut wrote:This 'War against PEDs' is unwinnable in the long run, because it is science's job to find ways to make us better.

Since when have scientists been creating drugs to make people better in an athletic sense? I don't think they are actively trying to make drugs for athletes.

The original anabolic steroid was not made for athletes to cheat with either. Scientists make drugs like HGH to treat nature's misfirings, and then athletes discover it's 'wonderful' athletic applications. Doctors are CONSTANTLY coming up with new wonder drugs to make us 'better'!!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: New Drug Test

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:58 pm

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:
tafnut wrote:This 'War against PEDs' is unwinnable in the long run, because it is science's job to find ways to make us better.

Since when have scientists been creating drugs to make people better in an athletic sense? I don't think they are actively trying to make drugs for athletes.

The original anabolic steroid was not made for athletes to cheat with either. Scientists make drugs like HGH to treat nature's misfirings, and then athletes discover it's 'wonderful' athletic applications. Doctors are CONSTANTLY coming up with new wonder drugs to make us 'better'!!


HGH is not really a drug it is a natural substance isolated from our bodies. Actually, i think you'll find, as eldrick mentioned, it is not rocket science to create new versions tried and tested drugs and it's the rogue chemists, not the doctors making the stuff for athletes.

Most drugs being produced for medicine are not beneficial to athletes, that the're constantly be produced is a exaggeration. Besides do the athletes need to have a constant supply of new drugs? We can barely detect the use of the natural ones that are out there now. HGH can't be detected, EPO can barely be detected and testosterone if used carefully can be used effectively too. Why do the athletes need new drugs?

In my opinion the problem is not the undetectable drugs it's, the fact that the detection methods are crap at detecting the known drugs. Any improvement in the sensitivity of testing will have a dramatic effect on the effectivness of WADA at catching the cheats. Now very small samples can be kept for future testing too. So when the new anabolic versions are discovered retrospective testing becomes a reality.
Last edited by Daisy on Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:02 pm

b_johnson_fan wrote:Why do you think you need a double bond (don't think you'll find a triple)?


~30+ on list - check yourself if all have only a double-bond on "butt-end"


What do you imagine you'd make?


undetectable stanozolol


What's wrong with a cyano group on a drug molecule?


thank you for taking it first in human trials - quincy md, awaits with his saw...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

............................................................

Postby Mats Nilsson » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:11 pm

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mats Nilsson
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:20 am

Re: New Drug Test

Postby tafnut » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:19 pm

Daisy wrote: it's the rogue chemists, not the doctors making the stuff for athletes.

I'm not so sure that's the case most of the time (or even much of the time). I think athletes find ways to procure regular ol' everyday HGH and steroids. There's plenty of non-rogue people manufacturing this stuff to find its way into the wrong hands. We're not talking about some renegade crystal meth lab deep in the woods here.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby b_johnson_fan » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:24 pm

There are many drugs with cyano groups.

You can reach many synthesis targets without relying on addition at a double bond.
b_johnson_fan
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:40 am

Re: New Drug Test

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:28 pm

tafnut wrote:There's plenty of non-rogue people manufacturing this stuff to find its way into the wrong hands. We're not talking about some renegade crystal meth lab deep in the woods here.

I was not talking about the common variety drugs/hormones, rather the new designer undetectable drugs. I don't think these are constantly coming from scientists working to make new drugs for patients.

Maybe I am misinterpreting you definition of "constantly coming up with new wonder drugs to make us 'better'". Are you just referring to the known drugs (i.e. production) or new types of drugs (i.e. development)?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: New Drug Test

Postby tafnut » Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:54 am

Daisy wrote:Maybe I am misinterpreting you definition of "constantly coming up with new wonder drugs to make us 'better'". Are you just referring to the known drugs (i.e. production) or new types of drugs (i.e. development)?

I'm talking about 'normal' R&D to come up with new drugs to help regular people, not athletes, just as anabolic steroids and HGH were not developed just to help athletes.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby gh » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:23 am

I'm guessing that much steroid development was done precisely with athletes in mind. Even if that might not have been the stated mission.
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Daisy » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:26 am

gh wrote:I'm guessing that much steroid development was done precisely with athletes in mind. Even if that might not have been the stated mission.


So you're with tafnut on this. Personally I'd be very surprised if that was the case but I have no privileged inside info from biotech so my guess is as good as yours and tafnuts.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:57 am

Daisy wrote:
gh wrote:I'm guessing that much steroid development was done precisely with athletes in mind. Even if that might not have been the stated mission.


So you're with tafnut on this. Personally I'd be very surprised if that was the case but I have no privileged inside info from biotech so my guess is as good as yours and tafnuts.


NO, that is NOT my position!! I say that PEDs were developed for legitimate medical reasons and then pirated to the Dark Side!!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:39 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:
gh wrote:I'm guessing that much steroid development was done precisely with athletes in mind. Even if that might not have been the stated mission.


So you're with tafnut on this. Personally I'd be very surprised if that was the case but I have no privileged inside info from biotech so my guess is as good as yours and tafnuts.


NO, that is NOT my position!! I say that PEDs were developed for legitimate medical reasons and then pirated to the Dark Side!!


Why would they be developing new steroids when they have plenty of illegal ones to give to patients? Possibly for patent reasons but they would not be producing them fast enough for WADA not to keep up.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:25 am

Daisy wrote:Why would they be developing new steroids when they have plenty of illegal ones to give to patients? Possibly for patent reasons but they would not be producing them fast enough for WADA not to keep up.

YOU're the scientist, not me! All I know is that every time I look, there's a new miracle drug being trotted out that does amazing things for people who have an abnormally low production of X, and then it turns out that if a normal person takes this drug, their super-saturated X-level helps them become a superman. Come to think of it, that's why they call Mr. Carter the X-Man, cuz he has sooo much naturally-occuring X-factor in him, he IS Superman!!! 8)
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:49 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:Why would they be developing new steroids when they have plenty of illegal ones to give to patients? Possibly for patent reasons but they would not be producing them fast enough for WADA not to keep up.

YOU're the scientist, not me!

We may be equally ignorant in this case. I don't know much about corporate science.

tafnut wrote:All I know is that every time I look, there's a new miracle drug being trotted out that does amazing things for people who have an abnormally low production of X

My point is, wouldn't they be on the banned list pretty fast if these side effects were known?

What is the story with THG? Was that is a drug trial? If not where did it come from? (I don't know the answer)

OK just went to wikipedia. Here is the info I got from there.

So where did THG come from?
THG was developed by Patrick Arnold, of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO), an American nutritional supplement company.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/200 ... press.html

So who is Patrick Arnold?
Patrick received a BS degree in chemistry from the [[University of New Haven]] in 1990. In the early 90's he worked in the chemical industry at companies such as Uniroyal Chemical and ISP Technologies as well as attended graduate school.

So he has a science degree, possibly even a graduate degree. And even worked as a scientist.

Then what?
Patrick left the industry to join the nutritional supplement industry in 1996 when he traveled to Illinois from Connecticut to start LPJ Research with Ramlakhan Boodram of Champaign. In 2003, Boodram and Arnold changed the name of the company to Proviant Technologies. Proviant markets sports nutrition supplements under the brand name Ergopharm.

So there you have it. No drug companies were involved. No clinical trials, no medical application. We must be aware that the "Nutrient Supplement" industry is not mainstream science, or medicine, and aptly fits into my previous comment about rogue science.
Last edited by Daisy on Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:57 am

Daisy wrote:My point is, wouldn't they be on the banned list pretty fast if these side effects were known?
What is the story with THG? Was that is a drug trial? If not where did it come from? (I don't know the answer)

Who keeps track of all the new drugs coming out, WADA? THG was advertised as a 'designer steroid', meaning it was developed expressly to fool drug testing by having a different chemical 'formula' than the ones already out. But my impression (and it's only an impression) is that there's plenty of 'every-day' drugs out there, like HGH, that'll do the trick just dandy.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:00 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:My point is, wouldn't they be on the banned list pretty fast if these side effects were known?
What is the story with THG? Was that is a drug trial? If not where did it come from? (I don't know the answer)

Who keeps track of all the new drugs coming out, WADA? THG was advertised as a 'designer steroid', meaning it was developed expressly to fool drug testing by having a different chemical 'formula' than the ones already out. But my impression (and it's only an impression) is that there's plenty of 'every-day' drugs out there, like HGH, that'll do the trick just dandy.


FDA. Anything in a medical trial will be seen by FDA and obviously WADA too. THG was illegal from the start and not designed by professional scientists for medical reasons. Hence it never went to FDA. Rogue science should not be lumped in with research towards medicinal drugs.

Was there ever a time that HGH was not banned? Was it ever under WADA's radar?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:17 am

I believe THG found its way to the fore from some relation to Gestrinon (it was stated to resemble it as well as Trenbolon) as far as I can recall. Arnold stated he was able to design it by reducing the Gestrinon and introducing four hyrdogen atoms.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:24 am

Daisy wrote:Was there ever a time that HGH was not banned? Was it ever under WADA's radar?

And yet athletes have been successfully cheating with it for some time, and it was NOT introduced as a way to beat drug-testing. Can WADA testing account for ALL the cool LEGAL stuff out there that can give you an 'unfair advantage', much less the illegal . . . illegal drugs ?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:38 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:Was there ever a time that HGH was not banned? Was it ever under WADA's radar?

And yet athletes have been successfully cheating with it for some time,

Only because it is indistiguishable from the real thing. But the exogenous stuff is known to be out there and banned nonetheless. Not so with the so-called undetectable steroids from rogue chemists.

tafnut wrote:and it was NOT introduced as a way to beat drug-testing.

So here is one example that fits your definition but it is only useful to athletes because WADA cannot develop an effective test for it. No steroid-like substance developed by medical research fits into that criteria and probably most things developed by drug companies do not fit into that category.

tafnut wrote:Can WADA testing account for ALL the cool LEGAL stuff out there that can give you an 'unfair advantage', much less the illegal . . . illegal drugs ?

I think you are overestimating the number of legal drugs out there that can give athletes a significant advantage.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:09 am

Daisy wrote:I think you are overestimating the number of legal drugs out there that can give athletes a significant advantage.

which brings us back to my original point - I think there ARE lots of legal drugs that could benefit athletes (EPO, f'rinstance). Anything that medicine has come up with to 'boost' natural processes that are pathologically low (or too high) in a body, could be abused by an athlete for an unfair advantage, if that boost relates to the neuro-musculo-skeletal or cardio-vascular systems. (I'm in WAAAAY over my head here now!!!)
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:13 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:I think you are overestimating the number of legal drugs out there that can give athletes a significant advantage.

which brings us back to my original point - I think there ARE lots of legal drugs that could benefit athletes (EPO, f'rinstance). Anything that medicine has come up with to 'boost' natural processes that are pathologically low (or too high) in a body, could be abused by an athlete for an unfair advantage, if that boost relates to the neuro-musculo-skeletal or cardio-vascular systems. (I'm in WAAAAY over my head here now!!!)

I agree but my point is that anything that comes throught the system will be on WADA's radar screen.

The problem is the ones NOT on their radar screen.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:39 am

Daisy wrote:I agree but my point is that anything that comes throught the system will be on WADA's radar screen.
The problem is the ones NOT on their radar screen.

OK, but . . . [hang in there, I think I'm closing in on SOMETHING here!] aren't there other things, like HGH, that are used legitimately by medicine, but cannot be accounted for by the current drug testing technology?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:56 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:I agree but my point is that anything that comes throught the system will be on WADA's radar screen.
The problem is the ones NOT on their radar screen.

OK, but . . . [hang in there, I think I'm closing in on SOMETHING here!] aren't there other things, like HGH, that are used legitimately by medicine, but cannot be accounted for by the current drug testing technology?


Well you already mentioned EPO. I'd have to do some research to find others but as I said above I think you are overestimating the number of useful things that are out there.

Viagra? It wouldn't surprise me, it seems to be a one drug fits all type of thing. Is it dectable? I don't know. Is it on the banned list? I don't know. Should it be on the banned list? I don't know.

See how ignorant I am :lol:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:22 am

tafnut wrote:
Daisy wrote:I agree but my point is that anything that comes throught the system will be on WADA's radar screen.
The problem is the ones NOT on their radar screen.

OK, but . . . [hang in there, I think I'm closing in on SOMETHING here!] aren't there other things, like HGH, that are used legitimately by medicine, but cannot be accounted for by the current drug testing technology?


taffy

iirc the problem with HGH was not it's detectability ( it's very easy to detect ), but that the normal range was so huge, that it's was virtually impossible to really assign a cut-off line as being definite doping ( similar thing with testo, where they didn't get anywhere with absolute testo level, but fortunately that had a closely-linked associate, epitesto which went up in tandem with normal human production of testo, so they figured on 4:1 as being limit of natural production ( body normally produces linked amount of these in something like a 1:1 ratio - external testo won't put up epi-testo, so ratio starts shooting up )

someone will have to look up HGH range, but it was something like 100 - 900 units/cc & a doper coud have it near the 900 & you still coudn't accuse them of doping, as he/she coud just turn around & say that's still in the normal range & normal body production

anyhows, all the HGH nowdays is synthetically derived & they look for the synthetic part ( same as with EPO test )

the main reason they can test for these nowdays is because they are now all synthetically derived
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:41 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_hormone

Most of the physiologically important secretion occurs as several large pulses or peaks of GH release each day. The plasma concentration of GH during these peaks may range from 5 to 35 ng/mL or more. Peaks typically last from 10 to 30 minutes before returning to basal levels. The largest and most predictable of these GH peaks occurs about an hour after onset of sleep.[4] Otherwise there is wide variation between days and individuals. Between the peaks, basal GH levels are low, usually less than 3 ng/mL for most of the day and night


( the underlined bit is the basis of the ole wives tale saying that if children don't get enough sleep at night, they won't grow up to big & strong )

in the past, an athlete coud just claim that the dope test was done when they had a surge of HGH production
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:52 am

eldrick wrote:The largest and most predictable of these GH peaks occurs about an hour after onset of sleep


Does this mean that if I do my weight work just before bed, I'll benefit more? :twisted:
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests