LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?



H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, "Sandy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.


Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested positive for EPO
in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I should state from the outset,
Sandy, that I am not of the opinion that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE"
or any of that kind of conspiratorial ****. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply
not sure and would like to know. Onward.

As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples and decided to
run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why? Second issue: what if theose 'B'
samples had ended up being needed for some other thing (say, there was a court
case...)? Having been opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that
the athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is opened and
tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one way or the other. I know
that Brian likes to say that they can use the leftovers, but that isn't the way it's
done (and for a damn good reason).

The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any tests runs on
that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on old samples. By that I mean
the standard double-blind kinds of tests that are used to double check the validity
of a test: where a group of samples are created, some with EPO and some without,
tested and then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using the
'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was sort of on a fishing
expedition. Not that i mean they were looking for *someone's* sample to turn up
positive, but looking to see what turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it
turned up showing EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind testing of the
procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.

The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the info. Since there
was no longer a counter sample to test, what could the athlete do? The leaker at the
lab surely knows that only a certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow
the possible list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was fairly
easily able to string things together so he coulld write a story that named the
biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to me, particularly in light of the
other issues I had with it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested
> positive for EPO in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I
> should state from the outset, Sandy, that I am not of the opinion
> that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE" or any of that kind
> of conspiratorial ****. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply not
> sure and would like to know. Onward.


Not researching, but going from my memory ...

> As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples
> and decided to run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why?


As I recall, the lab indicated to WADA that they had a "new" test which
would discover otherwise undiscovered EPO. What that test is has not been
disclosed, so far as I know. The purpose, partially, seems to have been to
set out a new procedure for validation and acceptance at a later date. WADA
wants more positives, so it goes without saying they were interested in
supporting the new test.

> Second issue: what if theose 'B' samples had ended up being needed
> for some other thing (say, there was a court case...)? Having been
> opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that the
> athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is
> opened and tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one
> way or the other.


As in the Landis case, the findings would have been valid evidence, but not
of irrefutable weight. No evidence really is. Lawyers deal with
inconclusive evidence all the time ; otherwise there would be no trial
events.

> The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any
> tests runs on that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on
> old samples. By that I mean the standard double-blind kinds of tests
> that are used to double check the validity of a test: where a group
> of samples are created, some with EPO and some without, tested and
> then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using
> the 'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was
> sort of on a fishing expedition. Not that i mean they were looking
> for *someone's* sample to turn up positive, but looking to see what
> turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it turned up showing
> EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
> blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind
> testing of the procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.


I agree. But, again, it was an experimental test, subject to validation and
acceptance later. Like cooking, you can play with spices until you have
something repeatable and delicious.

> The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the
> info. Since there was no longer a counter sample to test, what could
> the athlete do? The leaker at the lab surely knows that only a
> certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow the possible
> list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was
> fairly easily able to string things together so he coulld write a
> story that named the biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to
> me, particularly in light of the other issues I had with it.


I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab. I would
appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation. If you can imagine
that the lab indicated that it had a new test, wanted to publicize it,
wanted to get a step on its competitors (or gain academic and commercial
glory), then it was motivated to disclose the findings. Not nice, but not
necessarily unethical. The samples belonged to UCI, and were available for
this purpose. Research in many fields is done on likely targets rather than
on uncertain samples, just for the reason that your abbreviate the testing
if it is unsuccessful, and then move on to academic evaluations. Again,
like cooking, you learn if you like a light dusting of pepper on chocolate
by trying it. Then you go for general adoption in a broad application.

The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it, if he properly tied
the results to the origin of the positive samples. I can't see where ethics
were badly served ; indeed, I see the opposite. I don't know of any
follow-up which would have either discredited the (unknown) testing
procedure, nor the results, nor the links to a specific athlete. It's just
a case of dirty linen being exposed in public. Tawdry desires for scandal,
a general trend in our world, encourage this. Disclosing secrets sells
papers, true, but because people want to read this stuff, and unless the
materials published were truly false, there is no offense to morality - just
a great inconvenience occasioned to a public figure.

What gets me angry is that all this use of diagnostic equipment, money,
political clout, etc., is going to embellish a game. Kids' stuff. Not
serious, not uplifting, not fundamentally useful to humanity. Just for a
second, imagine all the money that has been spent since WADA came on the
scene could be diverted to assuaging the misery of daily life. Wow ! But
like tons of things (Ferraris, perfumes, foie gras, Rolex watches), luxury
is a special market that demands its own existence be prolonged and
enhanced. Cycling is a sport when it's fun. When it's a business, it
sucks.

Sorry for being long-winded.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
R

Ryan Cousineau

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What gets me angry is that all this use of diagnostic equipment, money,
> political clout, etc., is going to embellish a game. Kids' stuff. Not
> serious, not uplifting, not fundamentally useful to humanity. Just for a
> second, imagine all the money that has been spent since WADA came on the
> scene could be diverted to assuaging the misery of daily life. Wow ! But
> like tons of things (Ferraris, perfumes, foie gras, Rolex watches), luxury
> is a special market that demands its own existence be prolonged and
> enhanced. Cycling is a sport when it's fun. When it's a business, it
> sucks.


Dumbass, we're using the Internet for the lowest possible purpose:
posting in rbr. I'm pretty sure WADA has higher moral ground than us,
when it comes to wasteful expenditures of time and money.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not researching, but going from my memory ...

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/aa86109310340d68
>
>> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/39c694be816bfe14
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/772615130fec5571


I give my memory two stars, the reporter a delayed star, and your research
three.
Now go get wet before the traffic builds.
 
On May 27, 1:01 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)


You might give me just a little credit for understanding there are
"interests" on both sides, OK?

I don't know about "independent authorities" except what has been seen
here and elsewhere IRT white-out, mis-labled specimens, hearing
testimony about "shooting fish in a barrel".
And the apparent shelf life difference between Marion Jones' B sample
EPO content and that of the alleged Armstrong "positive" from 1999.
Many, many weeks, and voila, it is still there?!?!?

> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.


"Give us a positive test" does not mean "I want to believe". Not at
all.

I "believe" we live in an adversarial world of men, which includes the
"justice system".

Using leaks, innuendo, police agencies incl. border guards, yellow
journalism, "get me a positive reader in here!" BS "testing", and all
the rest of it stinks. Well, that's what happens when people make
stupid rules! (repeating repeating repeating): If "everyone" is doping
and not getting caught by the testing undertaken by various agencies,
there is something wrong with the rules and the testing.

Making rules that can be fairly and evenly enforced would be better.
Omerta was better, except for the alleged EPO deaths-- and is there a
real list anywhere, a body count with names? The point remains: had
EPO use been openly controlled, the danger would have been greatly
reduced. IOW, being able to go to someone other than a gofer/mechanic/
masseur-type team employee to get your meds, such as a real medical
doctor with experience in the field.

At least the movement (Pound ****) against altitude tents seems to
have gone thud. Better than piercing the skin, after all... --D-y
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]
com>,
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Sandy" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> > All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> > interested parties.
> > None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> > have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> > the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> > financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> > their views.)
> > You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> > entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> > positive really broke the rules. I would.

>
> Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested positive for EPO
> in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I should state from the outset,
> Sandy, that I am not of the opinion that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE"
> or any of that kind of conspiratorial ****. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply
> not sure and would like to know. Onward.
>
> As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples and decided to
> run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why? Second issue: what if theose 'B'
> samples had ended up being needed for some other thing (say, there was a court
> case...)? Having been opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that
> the athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is opened and
> tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one way or the other. I know
> that Brian likes to say that they can use the leftovers, but that isn't the way it's
> done (and for a damn good reason).
>
> The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any tests runs on
> that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on old samples. By that I mean
> the standard double-blind kinds of tests that are used to double check the validity
> of a test: where a group of samples are created, some with EPO and some without,
> tested and then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using the
> 'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was sort of on a fishing
> expedition. Not that i mean they were looking for *someone's* sample to turn up
> positive, but looking to see what turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it
> turned up showing EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
> blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind testing of the
> procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.
>
> The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the info. Since there
> was no longer a counter sample to test, what could the athlete do? The leaker at the
> lab surely knows that only a certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow
> the possible list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was fairly
> easily able to string things together so he coulld write a story that named the
> biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to me, particularly in light of the
> other issues I had with it.


Do I recall correctly one more event? That Lance
Armstrong was asked for and provided codes that were
later used as evidence that certain coded samples
tested were his?

--
Michael Press
 
On May 28, 8:49 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> Do I recall correctly one more event? That Lance
> Armstrong was asked for and provided codes that were
> later used as evidence that certain coded samples
> tested were his?


Close. Ressiot told Armstrong that he was investigating the rumor that
LANCE had a TUE for EPO as a result of his cancer. Armstrong said he
had no such TUE and to prove it, gave permission for the UCI to
release the sample forms to Ressiot. The forms showed no TUE's but
they did show the sample codes.

But that's a red herring. The real question is why the forms that
Ressiot had gotten from the LNDD had the codes on them at all.
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On 28 May 2007 12:42:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On May 28, 8:49 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Do I recall correctly one more event? That Lance
>> Armstrong was asked for and provided codes that were
>> later used as evidence that certain coded samples
>> tested were his?

>
>Close. Ressiot told Armstrong that he was investigating the rumor that
>LANCE had a TUE for EPO as a result of his cancer. Armstrong said he
>had no such TUE and to prove it, gave permission for the UCI to
>release the sample forms to Ressiot. The forms showed no TUE's but
>they did show the sample codes.
>
>But that's a red herring. The real question is why the forms that
>Ressiot had gotten from the LNDD had the codes on them at all.


Because that's the deal they made?

Ron
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <465a84f[email protected]>, "Sandy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >
> > Well, I'll give a rundown on the things about the "LANCE tested
> > positive for EPO in '99" situation that I found not very up and up. I
> > should state from the outset, Sandy, that I am not of the opinion
> > that "that dirty French lab was out to get LANCE" or any of that kind
> > of conspiratorial ****. Nor am I a "true believer" - I'm simply not
> > sure and would like to know. Onward.

>
> Not researching, but going from my memory ...
>
> > As we know, someone at the lab took a bunch of frozen 'B' samples
> > and decided to run the newer EPO test on them. First issue: why?

>
> As I recall, the lab indicated to WADA that they had a "new" test which
> would discover otherwise undiscovered EPO. What that test is has not been
> disclosed, so far as I know. The purpose, partially, seems to have been to
> set out a new procedure for validation and acceptance at a later date. WADA
> wants more positives, so it goes without saying they were interested in
> supporting the new test.


I had some recollection of them working on a new test but using the old one in
this instance - Robert has pointed that out too. I completely agree with you on the
issue of WADA and their desire for more positive tests (and as I've said, I wish they
had a keen desire for *good* tests - be they positive or negative).

> > Second issue: what if theose 'B' samples had ended up being needed
> > for some other thing (say, there was a court case...)? Having been
> > opened under circumstances outside of the norm (I thought that the
> > athlete was entitled to have a rep there when the 'B' sample is
> > opened and tested), they were no longer useable to prove anything one
> > way or the other.

>
> As in the Landis case, the findings would have been valid evidence, but not
> of irrefutable weight. No evidence really is. Lawyers deal with
> inconclusive evidence all the time ; otherwise there would be no trial
> events.


That is true but there is the "court of public opinion" that needs to be worried
about too.

> > The next thing that was odd to me was that there had never been any
> > tests runs on that procedure to see if it actually worked the same on
> > old samples. By that I mean the standard double-blind kinds of tests
> > that are used to double check the validity of a test: where a group
> > of samples are created, some with EPO and some without, tested and
> > then compared to the register that shows which were which. By using
> > the 'B' samples of unknown content, it really looks like the lab was
> > sort of on a fishing expedition. Not that i mean they were looking
> > for *someone's* sample to turn up positive, but looking to see what
> > turns up, period. Kyle Legate has stated that if it turned up showing
> > EPO metabolites, then it's pretty much accurate and he works with
> > blood all day (from what I recall). But the lack of real double-blind
> > testing of the procedure on old samples leaves me with doubts.

>
> I agree. But, again, it was an experimental test, subject to validation and
> acceptance later. Like cooking, you can play with spices until you have
> something repeatable and delicious.


Heh, I suppose I'm not a very good example on the "repeatable" part of that
equation, as I do all my herbing and spicing by eye and taste. There's always a bit
of variation in the end result... Not what one wants in science.

> > The last thing that seemed less than optimal was the leak of the
> > info. Since there was no longer a counter sample to test, what could
> > the athlete do? The leaker at the lab surely knows that only a
> > certain number of riders get tested, so it does narrow the possible
> > list of people down to a very small group. And the reporter was
> > fairly easily able to string things together so he coulld write a
> > story that named the biggest name. That seemed a little unethical to
> > me, particularly in light of the other issues I had with it.

>
> I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab. I would
> appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation.


I'd say Robert (again) has that one further downstream in this thread.

> If you can imagine
> that the lab indicated that it had a new test, wanted to publicize it,
> wanted to get a step on its competitors (or gain academic and commercial
> glory), then it was motivated to disclose the findings. Not nice, but not
> necessarily unethical. The samples belonged to UCI, and were available for
> this purpose. Research in many fields is done on likely targets rather than
> on uncertain samples, just for the reason that your abbreviate the testing
> if it is unsuccessful, and then move on to academic evaluations. Again,
> like cooking, you learn if you like a light dusting of pepper on chocolate
> by trying it. Then you go for general adoption in a broad application.
>
> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it, if he properly tied
> the results to the origin of the positive samples. I can't see where ethics
> were badly served ; indeed, I see the opposite. I don't know of any
> follow-up which would have either discredited the (unknown) testing
> procedure, nor the results, nor the links to a specific athlete. It's just
> a case of dirty linen being exposed in public. Tawdry desires for scandal,
> a general trend in our world, encourage this. Disclosing secrets sells
> papers, true, but because people want to read this stuff, and unless the
> materials published were truly false, there is no offense to morality - just
> a great inconvenience occasioned to a public figure.


What seemed less than ethical to me was setting it up so that a reporter could
publish the findings that came from a test and experiment that had seemed to have a
few dubious aspects. If the results came via a test that had been completely trialed
(as I described above), then I would be far less inclined to find it suspect.

> What gets me angry is that all this use of diagnostic equipment, money,
> political clout, etc., is going to embellish a game. Kids' stuff. Not
> serious, not uplifting, not fundamentally useful to humanity. Just for a
> second, imagine all the money that has been spent since WADA came on the
> scene could be diverted to assuaging the misery of daily life. Wow ! But
> like tons of things (Ferraris, perfumes, foie gras, Rolex watches), luxury
> is a special market that demands its own existence be prolonged and
> enhanced. Cycling is a sport when it's fun. When it's a business, it
> sucks.


Well, except for the foie gras part, I have absolutely no disagreements with any
of that. Oh, and as for Prudhomme's comment about money not being the evil that
befalls cycling - holy ****. That's either the most dishonest p.o.v. ever or the most
ludicrously misinformed.

> Sorry for being long-winded.


Oh, please. Hardly. Your posts don't begin to enter into the definition of
logorrheic - that's over in rmr.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" wrote:
> I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab.
> I would appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation.
> [...] Not nice, but not necessarily unethical. [...]
> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it


I think that a reasonable but not airtight case can be made that: 1)
the lab was both not nice and not ethical; and 2) either Ressiot did a
lousy job or else he, too, was unethical (or both).
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On May 28, 9:29 am, "Sandy" wrote:
>> I have less memory of how the results ended up outside the lab.
>> I would appreciate knowing, as that could change my estimation.
>> [...] Not nice, but not necessarily unethical. [...]
>> The reporter seems to have done an excellent job of it

>
> I think that a reasonable but not airtight case can be made that: 1)
> the lab was both not nice and not ethical; and 2) either Ressiot did a
> lousy job or else he, too, was unethical (or both).


Working from memory, and one eye, I recall that the results of the extra
Armstrong tests were presented to WADA quite a while before they became
public. It would likely be in that transmission chain, or after its end,
that the results were disclosed.

Something I have learned is that almost no commercial entity is concerned
with "ethics" if it does not also involve a legal violation. That is the
kind of distinction I have often been presented with in counselling clients.
It's not my job to be the moral guidepost, and it would likely be a
pointless effort.

Again, you may have better knowledge of the point of disclosure of the lab
results.

I do think that you and I agree that the "new test" has never been set forth
in detail, nor has the test become part of procedural norms. Tell me if I
err.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
On May 29, 3:02 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Working from memory, and one eye, I recall that the results of the extra
> Armstrong tests were presented to WADA quite a while before they became
> public. It would likely be in that transmission chain, or after its end,
> that the results were disclosed.


The results were never publicly disclosed.

> Something I have learned is that almost no commercial entity is concerned
> with "ethics" if it does not also involve a legal violation.


I don't know about France but in California the release of a table
such as the one published in L'Equipe would be both an ethical and a
legal violation, even if those data are collected by a commercial
entity.

> I do think that you and I agree that the "new test" has never been set forth
> in detail, nor has the test become part of procedural norms. Tell me if I
> err.


AFAIK, the new test has never been set forth in detail. However, WADA
doesn't have to announce when a test becomes part of a procedural
norm: they can phase in a test whenever they want. As we saw with the
homologous blood doping test, they don't need to estimate the false
positive rate or release any other validation data. And, as we saw in
the Landis case, individual labs can evidently set their own
positivity standards: Landis' tests would not have been considered
positive at the UCLA lab.
 
S

SLAVE of THE STATE

Guest
On May 27, 5:12 am, Simon "Doc" Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> ... people who lose testicles
> normally have lower than normal testosterone.


Okay Doc.

-----------------------------------
http://www.tc-cancer.com/tcsex.html

Having one testicle removed

If you have had one testicle removed there is often no reason why your
ability to father children, sexual performance or sexual appetite
should be affected. The remaining testicle will usually make more
testosterone (the male sex hormone) and sperm to make up for the one
that has been removed.
---------------------------

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3396

Orchidectomy
If you have one testicle removed, there are no lasting side effects.
The other testicle makes up for the missing one by making more
testosterone and sperm.
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 29, 3:02 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:


> > I do think that you and I agree that the "new test" has never been set forth
> > in detail, nor has the test become part of procedural norms. Tell me if I
> > err.

>
> AFAIK, the new test has never been set forth in detail. However, WADA
> doesn't have to announce when a test becomes part of a procedural
> norm: they can phase in a test whenever they want. As we saw with the
> homologous blood doping test, they don't need to estimate the false
> positive rate or release any other validation data. And, as we saw in
> the Landis case, individual labs can evidently set their own
> positivity standards: Landis' tests would not have been considered
> positive at the UCLA lab.


This last aspect is really troublesome to me. I guess that's where Pound can get
the idea that he needs a "positive reader." I think the standards should be, well,
standard.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?