Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> The first test (at LNDD) was a positive. The second test was at Ghent -
>>> that was
>>>inconclusive. They retested that sample at LNDD and got another positive.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't consider that "different results." If you get an inconclusive
>>>>test, you should just run it again. They did that and got a positive.
>>>
>>> Well, the fact that they get different results (and I know that
>>>"positive", "inconclusive" and "negative" are different results) at different
>>>labs indicates that there are problems with a) lab personnel, b) lab equipment,
>>>c) the tests themselves. Those factors are are a start of a list of possible
>>>problems. I imagine that others with more experience in a lab can fire off some
>>>more. Anyway, a test should be repeatable with the same results in any lab.
>>>That's one of the core principles of the scientific method.
>>>
>>
>>No, an inconclusive result is not considered a result. It should never
>>have been divulged by the lab and simply re-run by them until they got a
>>definitive result.
>
>
> Perhaps the Ghent lab got the best result the sample would allow and the LNDD
> results are the ones that are inaccurate. the point that I'm making and you're
> ignoring is that the labs *should* be able to repeat the tests and get the same
> result - that is a core part of the process, I think. But they can't, as evidenced by
> this example.
>
>
>>I hate to tell you, by the labs that run your medical tests do the same
>>thing all the time. Nobody said lab work was perfect. Somehow, you
>>think that if lab work isn't perfect it can't be used. Not true.
>
>
> One of my friends runs a lab at a cancer research center in Seattle - she'd
> disagree with you on that point, Magilla.
>


End your friendship. She's wrong.

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>>>By the way, Mayo doped. Let's not get stupid. Guy goes from getting
>>>>dropped in the Tour and crying on worldwide TV to off the front. Plus,
>>>>he's from Spain - home of the doping culture in cycling.
>>>>
>>>>Mayo will lose this case. Mayo is doped to the gills. Same with that
>>>>Spanish war refugee Herasshole.
>>>
>>>
>>>... I don't want it to be accomplished by assumptions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Neither do I. The LNDD said Mayo's EPO test was positive. Mayo's
>>argument apparently claims they had no right to run the "B" test since
>>the "A" test was negative.
>>
>>In fact, the A test was merely inconclusive and simply re-run by the LNDD.
>
>
> No, the 'B' test was inconclusive at Ghent and re-run by LNDD.
>


What about the A-test?

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>
>
>>> The fact that they get different results at different labs says a lot
>>>about the integrity of the testing.
>>
>>
>>Can you give any examples of this? Name a specific athlete case.
>
> _______________________
> "The Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) has officially rejected a request from the
> International Cycling Union (UCI) to re-open the Iban Mayo case, after the sport's
> world governing received a second opinion on the B sample taken from Mayo in the 2007
> Tour de France. Mayo's A sample tested positive for EPO (Erythropoietin) shortly
> after the Tour last year, however results of his B sample, tested in the first
> instance by Belgium's national anti-doping lab in Gent last October returned an
> inconclusive result, clearing the rider of any wrong doing.
>
> "However the UCI, not convinced by the Gent lab's findings, sought a second
> opinion on the sample. It had the French Chatenay-Malabry lab, whose practices came
> under scrutiny after Floyd Landis' positive sample from the 2006 Tour, test the
> sample which returned a positive reading in mid-December.
>
> "RFEC, however, has stated that the second testing is illegal, describing it as
> being "in contrast to the principles of justice", and that re-opening the case would
> be double jeopardy.
>
> ""We wrote to the UCI on December 28 to inform them that the competition committee
> could not reopen [the Iban Mayo file]," explained Eugenio Bermudez, general secretary
> of the RFEC. "No one can be tried twice for the same facts ".
>
> "The UCI has appealed the matter with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
> where the matter is expected to be resolved in Lausanne, Switzerland
> "We supported Mayo and we will continue to do," added Bermudez."
> _______________________
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jan08/jan08news
>


Mayo is a doper. End of argument. Both his A and B sample were positive.

Magilla

 

[Kyle Legate]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> That's hilarious. I was suppose to guess to start with "Beke" in my
> search. Jesus Christ, one day a meteor will hit this earth. And it
> will be because I have been asking God (my dad) to make sure it happens.
>
http://www.theonion.com/content/magazine/could_this_asteriod_solve

 

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
> His first rabies TEST was inconclusive.

What about the IQ test ?

 

[Bill C]

On Mar 25, 11:18 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > >  MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >    The first test (at LNDD) was a positive. The second test was atGhent -
> > >    that was
> > > inconclusive. They retested that sample at LNDD and got another positive.
>
> > >> I don't consider that "different results."  If you get an inconclusive
> > >> test, you should just run it again.  They did that and got a positive.
>
> > >    Well, the fact that they get different results (and I know that
> > > "positive", "inconclusive" and "negative" are different results) at different
> > > labs indicates that there are problems with a) lab personnel, b) lab equipment,
> > > c) the tests themselves. Those factors are are a start of a list of possible
> > > problems. I imagine that others with more experience in a lab can fireoff some
> > > more. Anyway, a test should be repeatable with the same results in anylab.
> > > That's one of the core principles of the scientific method.
>
> > No, an inconclusive result is not considered a result.  It should never
> > have been divulged by the lab and simply re-run by them until they got a
> > definitive result.
>
>    Perhaps the Ghent lab got the best result the sample would allow and the LNDD
> results are the ones that are inaccurate. the point that I'm making and you're
> ignoring is that the labs *should* be able to repeat the tests and get thesame
> result - that is a core part of the process, I think. But they can't, as evidenced by
> this example.
>
> > I hate to tell you, by the labs that run your medical tests do the same
> > thing all the time.  Nobody said lab work was perfect.  Somehow, you
> > think that if lab work isn't perfect it can't be used.  Not true.
>
>    One of my friends runs a lab at a cancer research center in Seattle- she'd
> disagree with you on that point, Magilla.
>
> --
>                               tanx,
>                                Howard
>
>                         Whatever happened to
>                         Leon Trotsky?
>                         He got an icepick
>                         That made his ears burn.
>
>                      remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Labs never make mistakes either, or repeated mistakes. Always believe
them.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/20/5058736-cp.html

Eastern Health chairwoman apologizes for botched breast cancer tests

By THE CANADIAN PRESS

Bill C

 

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:31:23 +0200, Donald Munro <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Sandy wrote:
>> His first rabies TEST was inconclusive.
>
>What about the IQ test ?

Negative.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:31:23 +0200, Donald Munro <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> His first rabies TEST was inconclusive.
>> What about the IQ test ?
>
> Negative.

Non-positive.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bill C wrote:

> On Mar 25, 11:18 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The first test (at LNDD) was a positive. The second test was at Ghent -
>>>> that was
>>>>inconclusive. They retested that sample at LNDD and got another positive.
>>
>>>>>I don't consider that "different results." If you get an inconclusive
>>>>>test, you should just run it again. They did that and got a positive.
>>
>>>> Well, the fact that they get different results (and I know that
>>>>"positive", "inconclusive" and "negative" are different results) at different
>>>>labs indicates that there are problems with a) lab personnel, b) lab equipment,
>>>>c) the tests themselves. Those factors are are a start of a list of possible
>>>>problems. I imagine that others with more experience in a lab can fire off some
>>>>more. Anyway, a test should be repeatable with the same results in any lab.
>>>>That's one of the core principles of the scientific method.
>>
>>>No, an inconclusive result is not considered a result. It should never
>>>have been divulged by the lab and simply re-run by them until they got a
>>>definitive result.
>>
>> Perhaps the Ghent lab got the best result the sample would allow and the LNDD
>>results are the ones that are inaccurate. the point that I'm making and you're
>>ignoring is that the labs *should* be able to repeat the tests and get the same
>>result - that is a core part of the process, I think. But they can't, as evidenced by
>>this example.
>>
>>
>>>I hate to tell you, by the labs that run your medical tests do the same
>>>thing all the time. Nobody said lab work was perfect. Somehow, you
>>>think that if lab work isn't perfect it can't be used. Not true.
>>
>> One of my friends runs a lab at a cancer research center in Seattle - she'd
>>disagree with you on that point, Magilla.
>>
>>--
>> tanx,
>> Howard
>>
>> Whatever happened to
>> Leon Trotsky?
>> He got an icepick
>> That made his ears burn.
>>
>> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Labs never make mistakes either, or repeated mistakes. Always believe
> them.
>
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/20/5058736-cp.html
>
> Eastern Health chairwoman apologizes for botched breast cancer tests
>
> By THE CANADIAN PRESS
>
> Bill C


The medical profession is a cesspool of mistakes and reckless acts,
mostly because doctors are more worried about their vacation and boat
than your health. 100,000 people a year die to medical malpractice.

That study was done by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). Howard's
statement by his friend that she doesn't mmake mistakes is something
that would get a good chuckle from any malpractice lawyer laugh.

Magilla

 

[Bill C]

On Mar 26, 12:19 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> That study was done by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).  Howard's
> statement by his friend that she doesn't mmake mistakes is something
> that would get a good chuckle from any malpractice lawyer laugh.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We agree that labs make mistakes. Goes for government and crime labs
here too. That's the thing with anything involving humans and
machines, you get both human and mechanical error. That's also the
reason, that when there's ANY solid question raised, that I think they
need to make the error on the not guilty side. That's also why I think
every sample should be tested at a Wada lab, and another accredited
lab of the athlete's choice with qualified observers allowed to follow
every step in cycling. In the legal world there's a lot more
protection from lab errors, and it's not against the rules to question
the tests either.
Some athlete's are gonna deny it all, even if they were caught on
video, surrounded by witnesses, and 100 people confessed to helping,
that's a given, but we need to make sure the system has as much
transparency and credibility so that when these pinheads get nailed
they can spout, but it's useless.
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

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

> Bill C wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:18 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>>I hate to tell you, by the labs that run your medical tests do the same
> >>>thing all the time. Nobody said lab work was perfect. Somehow, you
> >>>think that if lab work isn't perfect it can't be used. Not true.
> >>
> >> One of my friends runs a lab at a cancer research center in Seattle -
> >> she'd disagree with you on that point, Magilla.

> Howard's statement by his friend that she doesn't mmake mistakes is something
> that would get a good chuckle from any malpractice lawyer laugh.

I'd agree with you if that was what I had said. I was referring to your statement:
"Somehow, you think that if lab work isn't perfect it can't be used. Not true."

See the difference?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?