[Ready4Freddy]

I understood your comment about DNA, Richard, and perhaps the ability to detect the exact testosterone / epitestosterone ratio is "...almost as accurate [as DNA testing]", as you put it in your post #116.

Trouble is, they (UCI, et al) don't know exactly what the ratio means - they don't use a discrete test for non-naturally occuring testosterone, so they impute its presence from the ratio. That ratio is obviously subject to interpretation (as their reported changing of the allowed ratio would indicate).

My point about the DNA is that was my area of expertise. A lot of people want to denigrate these tests as being unreliable. They are grasping at straws.

[muawiyah]

The IOC appears to have "denigrated" this particular test already ~ couple of years ago in fact.

Like the man said, no one knows what the ratio means.

[leilani]

Trouble is, they (UCI, et al) don't know exactly what the ratio means - they don't use a discrete test for non-naturally occuring testosterone, so they impute its presence from the ratio. That ratio is obviously subject to interpretation (as their reported changing of the allowed ratio would indicate).

HEY! What are you doing over here? We need to borry all that fancy high-fallutin' skool larnin' of your'n over here today.