The Bottom Line?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:01:08 -0400, RonSonic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The athlete has the right to have an expert witness observe the testing
of the 'B' sample. The allegations of malfeasance by the lab are
completely outrageous, and merely illustrates the immaturity, petulance
and xenophobia of (some of) our leftpondian correspondents.

Slow down. Having an observer present is little protection when the
tester, chosen by the prosecutor knows the sample before him is that of
the accused. These tests are not necessarily black and white and
there are many shades of gray. If the matter is to be proven, then
let the testor (the "scientist" we hear so much about) prove that he
can in fact identify dirty samples, i.e. those which in this case have
exogenous T. Give the testor 30 samples and tell him to identify
those with exogenous T. Now the athlete's expert can compare the
testor's results and grade him to determine the error rate.

This is the kind of scientific data that is needed before one can claim
something is "proven"

Hell, that's the sort of thing that's required in a police line up to do
something so simple as recognize a guy's face.

It's called accreditation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What about retesting the athlete in an independent lab? Permitted, or
> not?

By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the athlete?
No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

The prosecutor chose the lab and refuses to consider an alternative.
Now that is obvious.

You would think that in a world of science (this is science, right?) it would be
easy to agree on some third party lab.

Ron

Why not resample the athlete? The exogenous T should still be detectable
even if the T/E ratio has changed.

Also gives another chance to look at the T/E ratio.

However, what one might gain from this might simply the knowledge that the
T/E ratio changes due to multiple causes and especially during intense
competition. More research is needed before we employ this test, despite
its apparently 'utility' to doping control.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

> By an independent lab? That's been done. By one nominated by the
> athlete? No for obvious reasons.

No it is not so obvious. Or is it?

So Doctor Fuentes' lab, for example, or Doctor Ferarri's?

Of course a crooked athlete will know where to find a crooked lab. He's
been a client of one for years. It is in a crooked athlete's interest to
find a crooked lab. It is not in the event organiser's interest to
employ a crooked lab; quite the contrary. An athlete's reputation may be
damaged by a false positive result, but the event's reputation is also
damaged.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

Wada doesn't give a [censored] about the eventy or sports reputation. They
aren't in the business of running any sports. The health of the sport
is irrelevant to the, and it should be. The IOC has called for
suspension of this lab, they don't care about pro-cycling either. That
alone should be enough to force Wada to either release all the
information relating to the IOC call, and why they are still using that
lab.
If they have evaluated everything and cleared the lab, then they need
to say so and provide the documentation on it.
Using one government lab that is subject to political pressure is
irresponsible.
It's a lot like Bush's expert study groups decalring there was
concrete evidence of WMDs. Anyone who didn't find what the politicians
wanted was pushed out and blackballed. With the huge PR push to "get
the dopers" how much pressure do you think these people are under?
Not saying they did anything wrong, but the pressure and possibility
is there. If you use two labs, one reputable lab of the athletes choice
then this possible problem is greatly reduced.
Bill C

As we could expect you now put the blame on the Lab.

With all due respect it is the perfect example of a deseparate
argumentation.

What you suppose to be just a "french lab" is a complex of Europeans Lab in
Paris where scientist from around the world came for to to test, research
and study.
Many French and European scientists go to the USA, in the Lab or in the
Unirvisities, in the same way that many Americans scientists went to the
Europeans Lab and Universities.
The complex of Lab in Châtenay-Malabry is part of the world wide complex of
Labs.
By chance the level of reciprocal trade between the scientists and the LAB
in Europe and USA is higher than the lever of discussion in this NG.
..

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

If Floyd's B sample is intact and the chain of custody accounted for;
B
sample is then tested and results in the same T/E reading as the A
sample;
the B is then subject to CIR which shows the presence of synthetic
testosterone; is that a slam dunk against him or is there some way
around
these findings. Don Catlin says no, the drug "police" don't lose
those
types of cases. Any rbr "experts" want to weigh in with
fact/argument and
not hyperbole.

Interesting hypothetical which deserves a few comments (which have not
been previously raised).

1. Despite the report in LE that the CIR test was done, I have a
reservation. If the CIR/IRMS had been in fact performed on the A
sample, then the charge should have been that Landis had exogenous
testosterone and not merely that he failed the T/E ratio test for
endogenous testosterone.

2. What if it turns out that the CIR test was not performed on the A
sample, but is on the B sample and on the B sample it turns out
positive for exog testosterone. The question becomes "Can Landis's
lawyers now beat the case by arguing that the CIR test /must/ have
been done on /both/ the A and the B samples. Having failed to do so,
the results must be thrown out and never made public."

3. It so will lawyers come to be considered witches for having
breathed life into the dead

This from a Medscape source:
Endogenous natural human testosterone and its main metabolites excreted
into the urine in non-consumers of testosterone has been measured
at -21.3 to -24.4/1000 (delta 13C/1000 range) while testosterone from
consumers of various pharmaceuticals has been measured at -27.43 +/-
0.76/1000 (mean and SD). An individual with a naturally occurring delta
13C/1000 of -27.43 is 4 SDs away from the normal maximum.

Will we get to find out Floyd's measurement of delta 13C is the
question. If his measurement is within the range of consumed
testosterone then he's toast. Of course there will always be questions
as to the accuracy of the measurement and he may be able to show
evidence of being an outlier, but IMO, that's likely to be purely
academic.

I'm hoping his measurement is in the non-consumer range.

Phil H

Montesquiou said:

As we could expect you now put the blame on the Lab.

With all due respect it is the perfect example of a deseparate
argumentation.

What you suppose to be just a "french lab" is a complex of Europeans Lab in
Paris where scientist from around the world came for to to test, research
and study.
Many French and European scientists go to the USA, in the Lab or in the
Unirvisities, in the same way that many Americans scientists went to the
Europeans Lab and Universities.
The complex of Lab in Châtenay-Malabry is part of the world wide complex of
Labs.
By chance the level of reciprocal trade between the scientists and the LAB
in Europe and USA is higher than the lever of discussion in this NG.
.

Rather than attacking, please point out where what I have outlined as
possible concerns aren't valid.
You must be the one of the French version of our Neo-Cons all wrapped
in the flag refusing to admit that there's a possibility of wrondoing
or mistakes being made by anyone, respectively, French or American.
You'd be awfully hard pressed to make the case for me being
anti-French, since I'm not in any way, shape, or form.
There have been numerous questions raised about the lab from riders to
the IOC and other scientists. Then we have [censored] Pound and his unholy
crusade putting pressure on, along with grandstanding politicians and
prosecutors looking for a public stage.
All of these things add to the pressure on the lab.
It doesn't matter a rat's ass whether the lab was French, American,
Canadian, or whatever. That has NO bearing on the questions I'm
raising. You are giving them a complete free pass. Sandy, at least, has
raised substantive questions about the accusations against the lab that
are perfectly reasonable.
The system has to be open and credible first and foremost and right
now everyone has doubts because the leadership of the UCI, Wada, and
the IOC are all pointing fingers at each other. Numerous cases are
being turned over at CAS. We've had high profile samples mis-handled
and destroyed. The whole system is clouded in secrecy with no-peer
review. I could keep going. This is one area that Sandy and I are in
agreement on, and that's the system and it's leadership is totally
broken.
Defending anything based on it being a certain nationality, or even an
international group is moronic, as is attacking it for that reason.
The UN did a great job in Bosnia, Rhawanda, and disarming Hezbullah in
southern Lebanon didn't they? The US did a great job in Iraq, didn't
they? How about the Russians in Chechnya, or France in the Congo?
Screw-ups don't belong to any single group alone, and neither does
competency.
Stop waving the damn flag, or at least attack those attacking your
flag, and make fact based arguments.
Bill C

On 30 Jul 2006 08:44:27 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If they have evaluated everything and cleared the lab, then they need
to say so and provide the documentation on it.
Using one government lab that is subject to political pressure is
irresponsible.

Why the hell would they need to? There are certifying authorities in
most countries - just tell the lab to get recertified befoew doing any
additional business with them. And for an independent lab, have the
court or arbitration body present a list of certified labs to the
requesting party and have them choose a lab from the list.

Any procedure that will be permitted in court fits a certified lab
profile that will have more than one lab on the list.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

Why the hell would they need to? There are certifying authorities in
most countries - just tell the lab to get recertified befoew doing any
additional business with them. And for an independent lab, have the
court or arbitration body present a list of certified labs to the
requesting party and have them choose a lab from the list.

I'm not sure the certification means [censored] when the political pressure
is on. You probably remember the fiasco surrounding the MIA / Human
remains ID lab in Hawaii that the Pentagon kept insisting was fine and
everything was done properly right up until they had to shut it down
for 2 years and totally restructure it due to hundreds of violations.
The Government covered their total disregard for standards and
procedures up for years and recertified them several times while it was
going on as long as they were getting results they liked and could sell
to the families. I don't think the French politicians are any more
moral than ours so I have serious questions.

Quoted message said:

Any procedure that will be permitted in court fits a certified lab
profile that will have more than one lab on the list.

Exactly, so it'd be easy to get a second check on the testing. The
fact that they refuse to do this makes me wonder what they are hiding.

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Bill C