Has anyone been fired (testing labs)?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-

#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?

#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
downside to doing so.

So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
(for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)? Have they even
bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
they can do about it anyway?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>
> #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
> Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?

The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.


> #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
> time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
> lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
> number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
> & simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
> source of such leaks, they'd be fired.

I completely disagree. Leaks happen all the time in U.S. law
enforcement. What makes you think it's just a Euro thing?


Few would question that such an act
> was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
> the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule.

Let me ask you something - why are so concerned with the leaks - as
opposed to the positive test results? What is the point of finding out
who leaked this stuff?

I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
negative tests?



But in France,
> perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
> an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
> that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
> France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
> taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
> downside to doing so.
>
> So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
> (for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)?

Probably for the same reason nobody gets fired in your local
prosecutor's office for leaking informmation to the press.


Have they even
> bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
> they can do about it anyway?

How would they "look" for that person? Do these like use a magnifying
glass?


Magilla

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>
> #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
> Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>
> #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
> time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
> lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
> number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French.


<snip>



Dumbass -


A difference in mentality can be seen with their different approach to
jurisprudence. In France, once someone is charged with a crime, it is
up to the accused to prove his/her innocence. Here it is up to the
prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>negative tests?
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.


Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
person running the test. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
irrelevant.

Thanks,

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>
>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>
>>#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>>time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>>lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>>number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> A difference in mentality can be seen with their different approach to
> jurisprudence. In France, once someone is charged with a crime, it is
> up to the accused to prove his/her innocence. Here it is up to the
> prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>


This is only in theory. In reality, U.S. juries consider all defendants
guilty and it is up to defendants to disprove the prosecutor's case.
That's why innocent people are convicted all the time.


Magilla

 

[mal]

Truly naive.

Its nothing but credibility. I can't trust them to follow their own
protocols, why would I expect they didn't play loose with the rest?

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> >>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> >>negative tests?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>
>
> Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
> person running the test. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
> irrelevant.

Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
when divulged.

--
Michael Press

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> >>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> >>negative tests?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>
>
> Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
> person running the test.

How do you know that?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[jean-yves herve]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A difference in mentality can be seen with their different approach to
> jurisprudence. In France, once someone is charged with a crime, it is
> up to the accused to prove his/her innocence. Here it is up to the
> prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty.

We go over that one every now and then in RST so you must know that this
is not true. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in France too. The
main differences between the french an US systems are in the nature of
the system:
(1) a judge is in charge of the investigation,
(2) at the trial the judge's role is not to give points to
prosecution the defense in terms of who is doing the better job but to
"uncover the truth" (which in practice may makes it look like the judge
is taking sides)
(3) jurisprudence has nowhere near the same importance as in the USA
(it does not matter much what decision on a similar affair was reached
in some shithole 10 years earlier)

Another big difference is a perversion of the system:
(4) the objective of the investigation has become to obtain a
confession. If at any point during the investigation the accused makes
a confession, the case is pretty much in the bag, and yes in that case
it looks like the accused has to prove he's innocent at the trial.

jyh.

 

[Donald Munro]

jean-yves herve wrote:
> We go over that one every now and then in RST so you must know that this
> is not true. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in France too. The
> main differences between the french an US systems are in the nature of
> the system:
> (1) a judge is in charge of the investigation,
> (2) at the trial the judge's role is not to give points to
> prosecution the defense in terms of who is doing the better job but to
> "uncover the truth" (which in practice may makes it look like the judge
> is taking sides)
> (3) jurisprudence has nowhere near the same importance as in the USA
> (it does not matter much what decision on a similar affair was reached
> in some shithole 10 years earlier)
>
> Another big difference is a perversion of the system:
> (4) the objective of the investigation has become to obtain a
> confession. If at any point during the investigation the accused makes
> a confession, the case is pretty much in the bag, and yes in that case
> it looks like the accused has to prove he's innocent at the trial.

Perhaps you should get it added to the FAQ.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>>>negative tests?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>>
>>
>>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
>>person running the test. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
>>irrelevant.
>
>
> Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
> pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
> not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
> when divulged.
>

Can you give me any examples of when this actually happened? A positive
test is a positive test.

Thanks,

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>>>negative tests?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>>
>>
>>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
>>person running the test.
>
>
> How do you know that?
>


Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
the results based on this impartiality?

And If you're not saying that, then shut up and don't even bring it up
to begin with because all you're doing is making some ambiguous
implication that has never been shown to be true.

Can you give me any examples of this impartiality (in results, that is)?

You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
totally different things.


Magilla

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
> also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
> totally different things.





Dumbass -


It has to do with credibility.

If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[trg]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email protected]...
| Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
|
| #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
| Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
|
| #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the
first
| time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
| lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
| number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The
plain
| & simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
| source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
| was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not
following
| the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
| perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
| an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US...
something
| that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
| France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of
easily
| taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
| downside to doing so.
|
| So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing
labs
| (for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)? Have they even
| bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
| they can do about it anyway?
|
| --Mike Jacoubowsky
| Chain Reaction Bicycles
| www.ChainReaction.com
| Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
|

Mike,

It's no harder to fire somone in France for committing a professional error
than in it is in the US. For legal reasons it has to be well documented, but
that's the case in the States too. Also, since a couple of years ago, it's
also not really much harder to lay off people for economic reasons either.
(Now companies can lay off workers even when they're profitable). It is
however more ***expensive*** to fire folks for economic reasons.

-Tom

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> >>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> >>>>negative tests?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Dumbass -
> >>>
> >>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
> >>
> >>
> >>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
> >>person running the test. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
> >>irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
> > pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
> > not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
> > when divulged.
>
> Can you give me any examples of when this actually happened? A positive
> test is a positive test.

No, it is not a positive test, the assay run on the
1999 samples five years after. There is no
scientifically established protocol that can draw a
conclusion from their data.

--
Michael Press

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
>>also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
>>totally different things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> It has to do with credibility.
>
> If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>


I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
it don't mean Jack.



Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

mal wrote:

> Truly naive.
>
> Its nothing but credibility. I can't trust them to follow their own
> protocols, why would I expect they didn't play loose with the rest?
>
>


It depends what protocol they violate. Leaking test results doesn't
mean the result is falsified. It just means it was leaked.


Magilla

 

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:07:58 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>
>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>
>#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
>was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
>perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
>an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
>that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
>France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
>taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
>downside to doing so.

Or, more cynically and perhaps realistically. How much cash from a reporter can
one get for a leaked lab report?

>So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
>(for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)? Have they even
>bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
>they can do about it anyway?
>
>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReaction.com
>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>
>> #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>> Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>
>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.

The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
what the question is about.

>
>> #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>> time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>> lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>> number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>> & simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>> source of such leaks, they'd be fired.
>
>I completely disagree. Leaks happen all the time in U.S. law
>enforcement. What makes you think it's just a Euro thing?

They don't happen in medical testing labs. Remember that PI thing I keep
bringing up as part of my background. Trust me on this. Or at least trust that
any leakage has to be used as a lead to a legitimate source of the same info.

>Few would question that such an act
>> was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>> the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule.
>
>Let me ask you something - why are so concerned with the leaks - as
>opposed to the positive test results? What is the point of finding out
>who leaked this stuff?

Because the Floyd Landis case has been completely FUBARed by the leakage. It
would've been an ordinary weird test result that would've been resolved quietly
and properly if it hadn't been for the leaks.

>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>negative tests?

It'll turn dubious positives into either certain positives or certain negatives
without politics, ass covering and hysteria from assorted primates interfering.

Ron

>But in France,
>> perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
>> an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
>> that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
>> France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
>> taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
>> downside to doing so.
>>
>> So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
>> (for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)?
>
>Probably for the same reason nobody gets fired in your local
>prosecutor's office for leaking informmation to the press.
>
>
>Have they even
>> bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
>> they can do about it anyway?
>
>How would they "look" for that person? Do these like use a magnifying
>glass?
>
>
>Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

RonSonic wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>>
>>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>
>>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
>
>
> The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
> what the question is about.

How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?

Magilla