Something that doesn't quite make sense is the total absence of any EPO in a urine sample. A small amount should exist, because it's a naturally occurring substance, so it's not right that a urine sample given for a sports drug test would come up with absolutely no EPO at all.

Even though it should never be possible to give an EPO-free urine test, it's been occuring. And not just in isolated incidents, but as much as 10% of urine tests (accoring to the director of a Swiss doping lab).

So what's going on?

There is a powder that contains protease, an enzyme which has the effect of destroying EPO in a urine sample. The theory is that an athlete goes for a urine test, puts his hands into his pocket (which happen to have some of that powder inside), he then urinates over his powdered fingers which destroys any EPO in the urine. Yippee, you passed the drug test! Now go ride up that mountain.

This is a big deal, for two big reasons.

First, the testing labs have a bad track record of identifying EPO use through tests. Pro cyclists are busted periodically for it, but it's usually because they were already suspected and the police managed to find other proof (such as used, empty vials of EPO at home, as was the case with David Millar). Point is: there's no good way to test for EPO, only things that make investigators suspicious. This powder thing and the existence of a completely EPO-free urine sample might be enough to prove masking attempts, and that's probably punishable somehow.

The other thing is that Jan Ullrich has been shown to have EPO-free urine samples during the past few years. He's already fighting the associations with Operation Puerto, and this sure won't help. Who knows, it ain't over 'til it's over, but I'm pretty happy concluding that Ullrich was on something.

More info at cyclingnews