Heras and Faith in the testers



B

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
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"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.
>
>
 
D

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.
 
R

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.
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"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?
 
B

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
 
R

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.
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"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?
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"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.
>
>
 
B

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
 
B

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
 
B

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.
 
M

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.
 
P

Patricio Carlos

Guest
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.
 
R

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.
 
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.
 
R

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.