Heras and Faith in the testers

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bill C, Nov 23, 2005.

  1. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb

    http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml

    The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    Wednesday.

    The director of the laboratory carrying out the test said there had
    been a delay in the process.

    "The process has not finished, it is long and complicated and we will
    have to wait 48 hours more," said Francisco Rodriguez.




    I'm pretty cycnical, but I'm betting that if this hadn't been as high
    profile as it is, and as closely watched they would've just called it
    positive and said "That's that".
    The argument was that it was going to be bad for cycling and it's
    credibility either way. Well now IMO we have a third option that's
    really bad for the credibility of the sport, and we are still waiting
    for results, but how much faith is anyone going to have in the testing?
    It's getting uglier day by day.
    Bill C
     
    Tags:


  2. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

  3. "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Bill C wrote:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >>
    >>

    > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >>
    >> The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    >> Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    >> because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    >> Wednesday.

    >
    > The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in the
    > test.


    Were they talking about the same test?

    >
    > --
    > 1154 days until the next inaugural.
    >
    >
     
  4. Diablo Scott

    Diablo Scott Guest

    Robert Chung wrote:
    > Bill C wrote:
    >
    >>http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >>
    >>

    >
    > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >
    >>The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    >>Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    >>because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    >>Wednesday.

    >
    >
    > The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in the
    > test.
    >


    Hamilton's test is mixed cell population in blood. Heras's test is EPO
    in urine. They could hardly be more different.

    "El método no vale porque no es preciso ni válido." (The method is not
    valid, because it is neither precise nor valid) - The guy can really
    turn a phrase.
     
  5. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Bill C wrote:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >>>
    >>> The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    >>> Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    >>> because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    >>> Wednesday.

    >>
    >> The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in
    >> the test.

    >
    > Were they talking about the same test?


    Ooops. No. They were talking about the homologous blood doping test.
    However, the homologous blood doping test is newer than the EPO test, and
    thus has a shorter "history." In that case, the arbitration decision was
    that it wasn't even necessary to estimate an error rate.

    --
    1154 days until the next inaugural.
     
  6. "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    >> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> Bill C wrote:
    >>>> http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >>>>
    >>>> The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    >>>> Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    >>>> because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    >>>> Wednesday.
    >>>
    >>> The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in
    >>> the test.

    >>
    >> Were they talking about the same test?

    >
    > Ooops. No. They were talking about the homologous blood doping test.
    > However, the homologous blood doping test is newer than the EPO test, and
    > thus has a shorter "history." In that case, the arbitration decision was
    > that it wasn't even necessary to estimate an error rate.


    Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think there
    are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not enough time
    has passed?
     
  7. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > >> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]
    > >>> Bill C wrote:
    > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>

    > > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    > >>>> Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    > >>>> because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    > >>>> Wednesday.
    > >>>
    > >>> The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in
    > >>> the test.
    > >>
    > >> Were they talking about the same test?

    > >
    > > Ooops. No. They were talking about the homologous blood doping test.
    > > However, the homologous blood doping test is newer than the EPO test, and
    > > thus has a shorter "history." In that case, the arbitration decision was
    > > that it wasn't even necessary to estimate an error rate.

    >
    > Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think there
    > are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not enough time
    > has passed?


    Not necessarily, but are you going to argue against the idea that the
    longer a test is in use, the better understanding we have of it's
    accuracy and thier ability to conduct it properly?
    Bill C
     
  8. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    >
    > Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think
    > there are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not
    > enough time has passed?


    Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed early
    or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really believe that
    it's unnecessary?

    --
    1154 days until the nex inaugural.
     
  9. "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    >> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    >> >> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >> news:[email protected]
    >> >>> Bill C wrote:
    >> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>
    >> > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain
    >> >>>> winner
    >> >>>> Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be
    >> >>>> repeated
    >> >>>> because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    >> >>>> Wednesday.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in
    >> >>> the test.
    >> >>
    >> >> Were they talking about the same test?
    >> >
    >> > Ooops. No. They were talking about the homologous blood doping test.
    >> > However, the homologous blood doping test is newer than the EPO test,
    >> > and
    >> > thus has a shorter "history." In that case, the arbitration decision
    >> > was
    >> > that it wasn't even necessary to estimate an error rate.

    >>
    >> Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think there
    >> are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not enough
    >> time
    >> has passed?

    >
    > Not necessarily, but are you going to argue against the idea that the
    > longer a test is in use, the better understanding we have of it's
    > accuracy and thier ability to conduct it properly?
    > Bill C


    I didn't really argue anything, did I?
     
  10. "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    >>
    >> Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think
    >> there are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not
    >> enough time has passed?

    >
    > Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed early
    > or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really believe that
    > it's unnecessary?


    Where did I say that?

    >
    > --
    > 1154 days until the nex inaugural.
    >
    >
     
  11. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think
    > >> there are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not
    > >> enough time has passed?

    > >
    > > Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed early
    > > or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really believe that
    > > it's unnecessary?

    >
    > Where did I say that?
    >

    Anyone else have anymore questions?
    Bill C
     
  12. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Do you really believe that all tests developed after "the" (I think
    > >> there are several) EPO tests are automatically unreliable because not
    > >> enough time has passed?

    > >
    > > Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed early
    > > or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really believe that
    > > it's unnecessary?

    >
    > Where did I say that?
    >

    Anyone else have anymore questions?
    Bill C
     
  13. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >
    > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >
    > The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    > Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    > because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    > Wednesday.
    >
    > The director of the laboratory carrying out the test said there had
    > been a delay in the process.
    >
    > "The process has not finished, it is long and complicated and we will
    > have to wait 48 hours more," said Francisco Rodriguez.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I'm pretty cycnical, but I'm betting that if this hadn't been as high
    > profile as it is, and as closely watched they would've just called it
    > positive and said "That's that".
    > The argument was that it was going to be bad for cycling and it's
    > credibility either way. Well now IMO we have a third option that's
    > really bad for the credibility of the sport, and we are still waiting
    > for results, but how much faith is anyone going to have in the testing?
    > It's getting uglier day by day.
    > Bill C
    >

    WADA has urged all accredited labs to have their results examined by the
    WADA labs in Paris and (I think) Switzerland as a safeguard. I don't know
    that is being done here.

    However, it's unclear to me what the "error" is and who is making the claim
    and on what basis. Heras' representatives were there for the test procedure
    and would have spotted an improper procedure immediately. Anyway., the
    world can only sit tight until Friday. I understand Bush and Cheney are
    following this closely as it may be part of an al Q. conspiracy to take down
    Armstrong and all former Posties.
     
  14. matabala

    matabala Guest

    "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://tinyurl.com/9hlbb
    >
    > http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/e9257/sport_lng0_spo18_evt9257_sto793363.shtml
    >
    > The 'B' test to confirm whether or not four times Tour of Spain winner
    > Roberto Heras has committed a doping offence will have to be repeated
    > because of a technical error, sources close to the rider said on
    > Wednesday.
    >
    > The director of the laboratory carrying out the test said there had
    > been a delay in the process.
    >
    > "The process has not finished, it is long and complicated and we will
    > have to wait 48 hours more," said Francisco Rodriguez.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I'm pretty cycnical, but I'm betting that if this hadn't been as high
    > profile as it is, and as closely watched they would've just called it
    > positive and said "That's that".
    > The argument was that it was going to be bad for cycling and it's
    > credibility either way. Well now IMO we have a third option that's
    > really bad for the credibility of the sport, and we are still waiting
    > for results, but how much faith is anyone going to have in the testing?
    > It's getting uglier day by day.
    > Bill C
    >

    They're just laying the complicated groundwork for a non-positive finding.
    Big $ and politics will out in the end. Vino will still have a home with
    Liberty Seguros next season.
     
  15. I would actually say that the Epo test is newer. The homologous blood
    doping test has been used in other situations for well over a decade.
     
  16. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
    >>>

    >>
    >> Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed
    >> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really
    >> believe that it's unnecessary?

    >
    > Where did I say that?


    Well, I didn't want to do an exhaustive search, but the very first item
    found by the Google Groups search http://tinyurl.com/8mpb3 is a post in
    which you claim it unnecessary to evaluate the error rate for the
    homologous blood doping test. But perhaps I misunderstood, and you really
    do think it's important to know error rates.

    --
    1153 days until the next inaugural.
     
  17. Robert Chung wrote:

    > The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in the
    > test.


    They were the best arbitrators we have - borrowed
    directly from the Office of the Vice President.

    > --
    > 1154 days until the next inaugural.


    Please don't mention the oft-postponed Hamilton case
    and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
    post. That gives me migraines.
     
  18. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Robert Chung wrote:
    >
    >> The arbitrators in the Hamilton case said that there are no errors in
    >> the test.

    >
    > They were the best arbitrators we have - borrowed
    > directly from the Office of the Vice President.
    >
    >> --
    >> 1154 days until the next inaugural.

    >
    > Please don't mention the oft-postponed Hamilton case
    > and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
    > post. That gives me migraines.


    Have you considered prophylaxis?

    Not so btw, Happy Thanksgiving to all.

    --
    1153.
     
  19. Donald Munro

    Donald Munro Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Please don't mention the oft-postponed Hamilton case
    > and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
    > post. That gives me migraines.


    Just go to www.livedrunk.com and order some beta blockers.
     
  20. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

Loading...
Loading...