Re: you people are idiots



D

dbrower

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> > Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
> > Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
> > causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
> > for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
> > or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication.

>
> Not true. Ask Catlin aty UCLA and he'll tell you why this doesn't
> apply to his lab.


Excellent, let's play "Appeal-to-Authority!"

When it's clear that Catlin's lab would have declared Landis' IRMS/CIR
results negative, what will you say?

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
comment.
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>> Well, no. Your "~.005%" is off. A lot. In a study by the National Academy of
>>>Sciences, they found that just contamination of the glassware used in the tests
>>>causes a false positive rate of 3-5%. Furthermore, those tests will show positives
>>>for illegal drugs if the testee has used any number of over the counter medications
>>>or such things as anti-depressants, heart, ulcer or diabetes medication.

>>
>>Not true. Ask Catlin aty UCLA and he'll tell you why this doesn't
>>apply to his lab.

>
>
> Excellent, let's play "Appeal-to-Authority!"
>
> When it's clear that Catlin's lab would have declared Landis' IRMS/CIR
> results negative, what will you say?
>
> -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> comment.
>


This trustbut guy is a simpleton and uses flawed logic left and right.

The issue in CAS isn't going to be whether the UCLA lab protocol would
have declared Landis test negative or not, but rather whether Catlin
testifies that just having 1 metabolite out of 4 being positive is good
enough (it clearly is under WADA Protocol). Given that USADA declined
to dimiss the case, I think we pretty much know that this is going to
have to be Catlin's answer.

Just because Catlin's lab has a more stringent standard, doesn't mean
that a lower threshold is wrong (or means it is negative under WADA
Protocol).

The way to look at this issue is that Catlin's lab has simply adopted a
higher standard on its own. Labs are free to do that so long as their
threshold meets WADA protocol, which the Landis result does.

Let me know if you need any more help with your homework, Junior.


Magilla
 
D

dbrower

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Just because Catlin's lab has a more stringent standard, doesn't mean
> that a lower threshold is wrong (or means it is negative under WADA
> Protocol).
>
> The way to look at this issue is that Catlin's lab has simply adopted a
> higher standard on its own. Labs are free to do that so long as their
> threshold meets WADA protocol, which the Landis result does.
>
> Let me know if you need any more help with your homework, Junior.


Hey Sonny, do you you really think WADA and Mr. Pound are down with a
lab letting DOPERS!!!! off the hook by having more stringent standards
than prescribed on the stone?

Uh huh. OK.

right.

-dB
 
D

dbrower

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> This trustbut guy is a simpleton and uses flawed logic left and right.


It must be true. Please enlighten me with more examples, exalted
banana eater.

simply,

-dB
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>Just because Catlin's lab has a more stringent standard, doesn't mean
>>that a lower threshold is wrong (or means it is negative under WADA
>>Protocol).
>>
>>The way to look at this issue is that Catlin's lab has simply adopted a
>>higher standard on its own. Labs are free to do that so long as their
>>threshold meets WADA protocol, which the Landis result does.
>>
>>Let me know if you need any more help with your homework, Junior.

>
>
> Hey Sonny, do you you really think WADA and Mr. Pound are down with a
> lab letting DOPERS!!!! off the hook by having more stringent standards
> than prescribed on the stone?
>
> Uh huh. OK.
>
> right.
>
> -dB
>



Evidently they are.

Thanks,

Magilla