D
David Martin
Guest
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:54:31 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nothing to do with the rights & wrongs of the test directly - but isn't LA
> >on record as saying all those specimens are in storage to be tested at any
> >time in the future to prove he didn't take drugs? Or words to that effect -
> >and is this coming home to bite him on the bum now? Let's face it - there
> >are people who will belive LA never took drugs come what may and there are
> >people who will believe he has, come what may.
>
> That's not really relevant. This was apparently a trial done to
> confirm the accuracy of the EPO test. It was not done as some sort of
> campaign against or for Lance Armstrong. There were other athletes
> specimens involved. The results of the retesting were correlatd to
> information that removed the confidentiality of the specimens and the
> results.
>
> Generally that is prohibited in the U.S. and there is a real issue
> when the profile of the tested individual makes it apparent who was
> tested, even when the primary personal identification has been
> stripped - as in the TT incident last year(or was it the year
> before). L'Equippe has gone considerably beyond that point, evidently
> getting access to material I would presume in most cases to be
> confidential and correlating it back to the specimen and identifying
> the results to the individual. That may be fine if it is part of the
> drug testing process of an event and the athlete has signed the
> necesary release. It isn't, at least not in the U.S., as a result of a
> test or trial, absent a release.
It may be illegal as well under European law. I am most surprised that
l'Equipe managed to get teh documents and that they could publish them
without facing a criminal prosecution.
Working as I do with clinical information, I am well aware of the
confidentiality issues.
...d
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:54:31 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nothing to do with the rights & wrongs of the test directly - but isn't LA
> >on record as saying all those specimens are in storage to be tested at any
> >time in the future to prove he didn't take drugs? Or words to that effect -
> >and is this coming home to bite him on the bum now? Let's face it - there
> >are people who will belive LA never took drugs come what may and there are
> >people who will believe he has, come what may.
>
> That's not really relevant. This was apparently a trial done to
> confirm the accuracy of the EPO test. It was not done as some sort of
> campaign against or for Lance Armstrong. There were other athletes
> specimens involved. The results of the retesting were correlatd to
> information that removed the confidentiality of the specimens and the
> results.
>
> Generally that is prohibited in the U.S. and there is a real issue
> when the profile of the tested individual makes it apparent who was
> tested, even when the primary personal identification has been
> stripped - as in the TT incident last year(or was it the year
> before). L'Equippe has gone considerably beyond that point, evidently
> getting access to material I would presume in most cases to be
> confidential and correlating it back to the specimen and identifying
> the results to the individual. That may be fine if it is part of the
> drug testing process of an event and the athlete has signed the
> necesary release. It isn't, at least not in the U.S., as a result of a
> test or trial, absent a release.
It may be illegal as well under European law. I am most surprised that
l'Equipe managed to get teh documents and that they could publish them
without facing a criminal prosecution.
Working as I do with clinical information, I am well aware of the
confidentiality issues.
...d