Mohammad Asifs "B" sample positive for steroids

[vaibhav mehta]

Now the LA Times wrote an article about Nandrolone in general, and here is a quote from Dr. Caitlin.



100,000 ng per mL. Hmm.

And the person in question only had 6.2.

Now you're excuse IIRC was that you get a different reading each time. However, I doubt that one reading will be 6.2 and the other 100,000

I assume copies of your books used are available online? Assuming so, I will look for them, or else find them at the library to confirm the numbers you have provided and the information given.

So whats the point?
I also never said that one reading can be 6.2 and other can be 100,000.


My general argument was that Normal Human body hardly produce 0.4 ng per ml Endogenous Nandrolone.so If we consider this argument than 6.2 is definitely high.

 

[Insomniac]

So whats the point?
I also never said that one reading can be 6.2 and other can be 100,000.


My general argument was that Normal Human body hardly produce 0.4 ng per ml Endogenous Nandrolone.so If we consider this argument than 6.2 is definitely high.

And if we consider 100,000 to be the norm for cheating, then 6.2 looks incredibly low.

Which brings me back to the point of doctors all sometimes having different diagnosis (for example, if somebody has a very rare disease, it might be diagnosed as something else till an experienced enough doctor sees the patient and finds that this patient has a rare but tretable disease)

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Read the other article as well.

It's saying 100,000 for anybody whose purposely trying to cheat.

Now I'm not a mathmetician, but only 6.2 out of 100,000?

no it doesn't mean that whoever try to cheat will achieve the level of 100,000.
No way.

 

[Insomniac]

no it doesn't mean that whoever try to cheat will achieve the level of 100,000.
No way.

What are you on about?

It is saying if one is PURPOSELY trying to cheat, they will / should have 100,000 ng per mL.

Are you doing your conversions right vaibhav, just making sure we're not arguing because of a conversion between units issue

 

[vaibhav mehta]

I am surely understand the units ng per ml and I have written it after every value.You are just writting 100,000 so make sure what unit you are using?
I know only one unit which generally we use to determine all steroids.


Now let me make you clear for last time.
A limit of 2 ng per ml of urine is the maximum concentration thought possible to occur in normal human body by 'natural means'.
and so the level of 6.2 is positive by all means...

Enough disaster of the thread already,for more talk sign up on the forum I mentioned earlier.

 

[Insomniac]

I am surely understand the units ng per ml and I have written it after every value.You are just writting 100,000 so make sure what unit you are using?
I know only one unit which generally we use to determine all steroids.


Now let me make you clear for last time.
A limit of 2 ng per ml of urine is the maximum concentration thought possible to occur in normal human body by 'natural means'.
and so the level of 6.2 is positive by all means...

Enough disaster of the thread already,for more talk sign up on the forum I mentioned earlier.

Just to end this on a final note -

I am also using 100,000 ng per mL

Of course it'll be positive by the current limit set, but you say that the maximum error can only be 0.8 - 1.0

However, theres is a problem with that statement:

How are you suppoused to get just 6.2 ng per mL when if you're trying to cheat it should be around 100,000 ng per mL

Anyway, lets end that here. I will start a new thread once I find the books that you have cited to verify everything, and learn some new things for myself

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Quote me where I have said that maximum error can only be 0.8 - 1.0..
I have said that this is only permissible error for clinical practice.

that what I have said

Quantification of nandrolone metabolites was performed by GC–MS from Urine.And actually it has error value of 0.8 -1.0 ng per ml.

It means that error value of 0.8-1.2 ng per ml is generally permissible for testosterone analogues test even from same sample.
I never said that it is not possible to have bigger error as it truly manual method.

There are thousand of factors which can give these errors like test tube contaminated with Bacteria,unstable urine,ect ect...
Steroids are not as simple as it looks like on internet.

How are you suppoused to get just 6.2 ng per mL when if you're trying to cheat it should be around 100,000 ng per mL

It is possible and there is not any law indicating that whoever cheats must have the level of 100,000 ng per ml.

 

[Insomniac]

Quote me where I have said that maximum error can only be 0.8 - 1.0..
I have said that this is only permissible error for clinical practice.

that what I have said


It means that error value of 0.8-1.2 ng per ml is generally permissible for testosterone analogues test even from same sample.
I never said that it is not possible to have bigger error as it truly manual method.

There are thousand of factors which can give these errors like test tube contaminated with Bacteria,unstable urine,ect ect...
Steroids are not as simple as it looks like on internet.


It is possible and there is not any law indicating that whoever cheats must have the level of 100,000 ng per ml.

Whatever, lets end this drugs debate, so Dean doesn't infract us The fact that many like Asif have had similar numbers have gotten away with it might mean that another will.

I think we can both agree that nandrolone testing is a gray area, and is definitely not near as accurate as it should be

 

[vaibhav mehta]

I think we can both agree that nandrolone testing is a gray area, and is definitely not near as accurate as it should be

Not only Nandrolone but all the derivatives of male(Testosterone)and Female(Estrogen) sex hormones are tricky.Nandrolone makes itself more complicated because of its complex endogenous release.I have worked part time in Moscow where the price for analysis of anabolic steroids was around 6,000 Rubble( around 250 dollars).

 

[Animator!]

I agree with the Medical Student/Doctor ahead of the biased fanboy.

 

[Insomniac]

I agree with the Medical Student/Doctor ahead of the biased fanboy.

Yet his information was conflicting with nearly every study performed by universities in the US and UK....

 

[vaibhav mehta]

I thought We are done with this topic?

Again I am betting whole my life on this sentences ''It is not necessary that whoever try to cheat will achieve the level of 100,000.''

A limit of 2 ng per ml of urine is the maximum concentration thought possible to occur in normal human body by 'natural means'.
and so the level of 6.2 is positive by all means...

Though by no mean I want to repeat that debate again.If you think I am misguiding or providing false information then well let it be Who cares?
This is not a medical forum at last where you need to give your medical registration number and your false information can put in such troubles.

Just for last time ''Steroids are not as simple as it looks like on internet.''

 

[Animator!]

Yet his information was conflicting with nearly every study performed by universities in the US and UK....

He's a medical student ffs. He's CLEARLY going know more than people on here by an absolute mile. There have been countless cases on steroid use form Universities that have been hailed at the time, but then later discredited. Steroid use moves on, and becomes more and more complicated and harder to detect, it's a constantly changing subject, and so the majority of evidence you'll find from the internet will already be out of date. It's simply the nature of medicine. Everything is always changing. My Dad was a doctor; 2 years after he finished his Medical Degree (Sometime in the late 60s) half of the stuff he'd learn during his degree was already obselete.

 

[Insomniac]

I thought We are done with this topic?

Again I am betting whole my life on this sentences ''It is not necessary that whoever try to cheat will achieve the level of 100,000.''

A limit of 2 ng per ml of urine is the maximum concentration thought possible to occur in normal human body by 'natural means'.
and so the level of 6.2 is positive by all means...

Though by no mean I want to repeat that debate again.If you think I am misguiding or providing false information then well let it be Who cares?
This is not a medical forum at last where you need to give your medical registration number and your false information can put in such troubles.

Just for last time ''Steroids are not as simple as it looks like on internet.''

First of all, I never said that whoever cheats will get 100,000. I was just using that as a statement from the study.

However, assuming that is slightly true, one would think that you'd be even remotely close to 100,000...

Anyway, whatever. Let's see what the IPL tribunal says, since I'm sure they will call in the real medical experts who have studied steroids and drugs all their life, and not a doctor whose studying something completely different.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Anyway, whatever. Let's see what the IPL tribunal says, since I'm sure they will call in the real medical experts who have studied steroids and drugs all their life, and not a doctor whose studying something completely different.

lol...So you think that Doctors do not study Steroids?
That was Hilarious.
A Sports Doctors is not one who knows Steroid better than general physician.
Sports Physicians/Sports Doctors specialize in musculoskeletal conditions, such as back problems, knee injuries and fractures.

A Physiotherapist who works with cricket teams never learn Steroids in their lives.

In Asif's case a Sharp Lab technician can help more than any sports doctor or general physician.