| > I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting
phenomenon
| > are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
| > (tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
| > all)
| > of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people
chose
| > their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous
when
| > they signed up.
|
| Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
| idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
| bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
| spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
| surprised.
|
| Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you
need
| to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
| This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
| wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?
????
This guy's entire life is on trial here. His past, present & future. Trade
places with him for a moment. If you were innocent, and if there was this
test that could show that, a test that would prove that your body will
produce false positives, and you were certain of the validity of this
test... you WOULDN'T risk EVERYTHING to do it?
C'mon Tom, let's get real. If this test is everything you say it is, and can
prove that what ended his professional cycling career was a bogus test,
you'd do it. You'd sell your house. You'd sell your cars. In fact, you'd
probably go a lot further than that. You'd risk everything in something you
believe so strongly (your innocence).
Wouldn't you?
But there's a problem, isn't there? You're saying he has to pursue "the
person who wrote that article." Article. All of a sudden this is just one
person who can clear the world of this evil, and nobody else. Now that *is*
a problem, isn't it? Because one person isn't enough, is it? You need peer
review and secondary testing to prove something, and you're implying that
this is all about just one person who wrote an article? One person who you
imply is likely to hold Floyd for ransom rather than see this as his ticket
to validation and future financial gain? This is beginning to sound rather
shaky. That's not how research scientists generally work.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:
[email protected]...
| > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
| > news:
[email protected]...
| > | "Mike Jacoubowsky" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | news:
[email protected]...
| > | >
| > | > You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of
this
| > have
| > | > something to do with Landis being framed?
| > |
| > | Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the
latest
| > | information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most
| > of
| > | the time.
| >
| > An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
| > Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it
| > would
| > be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
| > those who would show false positives.
|
| Let us review - the INITIAL measurement of Floyd's sample showed 4.5:1 t/e
| ratios. The SECOND of the same sample showed 11:1. This was proof positive
| of contamination and by UCI's own rules should have disqualified that
| sample. - Nevertheless they carried on as if this was a good test.
|
| We also know that under NORMAL conditions you can have a t/e ratio of
above
| 4:1 and that's why the drug testers had always used 6:1 as a switch point
| before that.
|
| Now we find out that the test itself can read incorrectly because of
| physiological differences from patient to patient.
|
| More importantly the t/e ratio did NOT show increased testosterone but
| reduced epitestosterone which could very well be yet another physiological
| difference not presently accounted for.
|
| > I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting
phenomenon
| > are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
| > (tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
| > all)
| > of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people
chose
| > their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous
when
| > they signed up.
|
| Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
| idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
| bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
| spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
| surprised.
|
| Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you
need
| to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
| This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
| wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?
|
| > | > You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
| > | > pretty badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was
| > enough
| > | > evidence in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive
| > tests
| > | and now we see that these tests are not reliable.
| >
| > Pushing for stronger actions on those caught doping is not evil. Having
| > tests that aren't reliable is. We spend too much time pretending that a
| > problem with one makes the other something to be ignored.
|
| Pushing for stronger actions IS most certainly evil if you prefer to
ignore
| the fact that there are a significant percentage of false positives that
| cannot be identified as such.
|
