N
nobody
Guest
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:01:08 -0400, RonSonic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 30 Jul 2006 05:38:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> > 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.
wrote:
>On 30 Jul 2006 05:38:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> > 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.