Has anyone been fired (testing labs)?
Mike Jacoubowsky
#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
downside to doing so.
So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
(for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)? Have they even
bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
they can do about it anyway?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
MagillaGorilla
> Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>
> #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
> Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
> #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
> time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
> lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
> number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
> & simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
> source of such leaks, they'd be fired.
I completely disagree. Leaks happen all the time in U.S. law
enforcement. What makes you think it's just a Euro thing?
Few would question that such an act
> was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
> the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule.
Let me ask you something - why are so concerned with the leaks - as
opposed to the positive test results? What is the point of finding out
who leaked this stuff?
I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
negative tests?
But in France,
> perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
> an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
> that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
> France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
> taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
> downside to doing so.
>
> So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
> (for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)?
Probably for the same reason nobody gets fired in your local
prosecutor's office for leaking informmation to the press.
Have they even
> bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
> they can do about it anyway?
How would they "look" for that person? Do these like use a magnifying
glass?
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
> I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> negative tests?
Dumbass -
It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
> > So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
> > (for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)?
>
> Probably for the same reason nobody gets fired in your local
> prosecutor's office for leaking informmation to the press.
Bad analogy. The prosecutor is not supposed to be impartial. The judge
is. Note how lawyers give statements to the press but judges never do.
In the case of cycling or any other sport, the lab is also supposed to
be impartial. The lab should not be engaging in anything beyond
testing.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>
> #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
> Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>
> #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
> time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
> lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
> number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French.
<snip>
Dumbass -
A difference in mentality can be seen with their different approach to
jurisprudence. In France, once someone is charged with a crime, it is
up to the accused to prove his/her innocence. Here it is up to the
prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
MagillaGorilla
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>negative tests?
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
person running the test. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
irrelevant.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>negative tests?
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>
>
>
>>>So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing labs
>>>(for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)?
>>
>>Probably for the same reason nobody gets fired in your local
>>prosecutor's office for leaking informmation to the press.
>
>
>
> Bad analogy. The prosecutor is not supposed to be impartial. The judge
> is. Note how lawyers give statements to the press but judges never do.
FACT: Judges are notoriously partial and their silence to the press does
not equate to their impartiality. Most judges are partial to prosecutors.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I was unaware that WADA labs engage in anything other than testing.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
This is only in theory. In reality, U.S. juries consider all defendants
guilty and it is up to defendants to disprove the prosecutor's case.
That's why innocent people are convicted all the time.
Magilla
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
when divulged.
--
Michael Press
Howard Kveck
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> >>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> >>negative tests?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>
>
> Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
> person running the test.
How do you know that?
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
jean-yves herve
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A difference in mentality can be seen with their different approach to
> jurisprudence. In France, once someone is charged with a crime, it is
> up to the accused to prove his/her innocence. Here it is up to the
> prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty.
We go over that one every now and then in RST so you must know that this
is not true. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in France too. The
main differences between the french an US systems are in the nature of
the system:
(1) a judge is in charge of the investigation,
(2) at the trial the judge's role is not to give points to
prosecution the defense in terms of who is doing the better job but to
"uncover the truth" (which in practice may makes it look like the judge
is taking sides)
(3) jurisprudence has nowhere near the same importance as in the USA
(it does not matter much what decision on a similar affair was reached
in some shithole 10 years earlier)
Another big difference is a perversion of the system:
(4) the objective of the investigation has become to obtain a
confession. If at any point during the investigation the accused makes
a confession, the case is pretty much in the bag, and yes in that case
it looks like the accused has to prove he's innocent at the trial.
jyh.
Donald Munro
> We go over that one every now and then in RST so you must know that this
> is not true. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in France too. The
> main differences between the french an US systems are in the nature of
> the system:
> (1) a judge is in charge of the investigation,
> (2) at the trial the judge's role is not to give points to
> prosecution the defense in terms of who is doing the better job but to
> "uncover the truth" (which in practice may makes it look like the judge
> is taking sides)
> (3) jurisprudence has nowhere near the same importance as in the USA
> (it does not matter much what decision on a similar affair was reached
> in some shithole 10 years earlier)
>
> Another big difference is a perversion of the system:
> (4) the objective of the investigation has become to obtain a
> confession. If at any point during the investigation the accused makes
> a confession, the case is pretty much in the bag, and yes in that case
> it looks like the accused has to prove he's innocent at the trial.
Perhaps you should get it added to the FAQ.
MagillaGorilla
Can you give me any examples of when this actually happened? A positive
test is a positive test.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article <LPOdnfniW80...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>>>negative tests?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>>
>>
>>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
>>person running the test.
>
>
> How do you know that?
>
Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
the results based on this impartiality?
And If you're not saying that, then shut up and don't even bring it up
to begin with because all you're doing is making some ambiguous
implication that has never been shown to be true.
Can you give me any examples of this impartiality (in results, that is)?
You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
totally different things.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
> also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
> totally different things.
Dumbass -
It has to do with credibility.
If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
mal
Its nothing but credibility. I can't trust them to follow their own
protocols, why would I expect they didn't play loose with the rest?
trg
news: yV4ah.9924$yE6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Mike,
It's no harder to fire somone in France for committing a professional error
than in it is in the US. For legal reasons it has to be well documented, but
that's the case in the States too. Also, since a couple of years ago, it's
also not really much harder to lay off people for economic reasons either.
(Now companies can lay off workers even when they're profitable). It is
however more ***expensive*** to fire folks for economic reasons.
-Tom
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
No, it is not a positive test, the assay run on the
1999 samples five years after. There is no
scientifically established protocol that can draw a
conclusion from their data.
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
You are confusing WADA protocol with scientific accuracy. When you get
AIDS tested by your doctor or your wife get her pussy smear analyzed,
neither one of those are done under WADA protocol either. Does that
mean the results are not accurate.
As for the 5 year lapse of time, so what. The samples were frozen.
They didn't degrade in the freezer.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
it don't mean Jack.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
It depends what protocol they violate. Leaking test results doesn't
mean the result is falsified. It just means it was leaked.
Magilla
RonSonic
wrote:
>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>
>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>
>#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
>was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
>perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
>an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
>that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
>France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
>taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
>downside to doing so.
Or, more cynically and perhaps realistically. How much cash from a reporter can
one get for a leaked lab report?
RonSonic
wrote:
>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>
>> #1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>> Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>
>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
what the question is about.
>
>> #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>> time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>> lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>> number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>> & simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>> source of such leaks, they'd be fired.
>
>I completely disagree. Leaks happen all the time in U.S. law
>enforcement. What makes you think it's just a Euro thing?
They don't happen in medical testing labs. Remember that PI thing I keep
bringing up as part of my background. Trust me on this. Or at least trust that
any leakage has to be used as a lead to a legitimate source of the same info.
>Few would question that such an act
>> was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>> the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule.
>
>Let me ask you something - why are so concerned with the leaks - as
>opposed to the positive test results? What is the point of finding out
>who leaked this stuff?
Because the Floyd Landis case has been completely FUBARed by the leakage. It
would've been an ordinary weird test result that would've been resolved quietly
and properly if it hadn't been for the leaks.
>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>negative tests?
It'll turn dubious positives into either certain positives or certain negatives
without politics, ass covering and hysteria from assorted primates interfering.
Ron
RonSonic
wrote:
>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
>>>also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
>>>totally different things.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>>
>> It has to do with credibility.
>>
>> If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> K. Gringioni.
>>
>
>
>I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
And he can't copy a number from a piss bottle onto a piece of paper without
fucking it up.
> If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
>it don't mean Jack.
What if it's a tech who likes cash.
Ron
Kurgan Gringioni
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >
> > It has to do with credibility.
> >
> > If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
>
> I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
> If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
> it don't mean Jack.
Dumbass -
You don't know who's doing the leaking.
It's obviously someone who has some sort of "clearance", otherwise they
wouldn't have access to the information.
And, if "some secretary" has that sort of access, then there's a
question of security. Sorta like when the Math Department at my
university had open access in the directory and students who were
working in the department (as administrative peons, just like a
secretary) were able to go in and change the grades. The only reason
they ever found out is one of them fucked up and left a file there
created on their account.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
MagillaGorilla
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:56:07 -0500, MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
>>>>also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
>>>>totally different things.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>
>>>It has to do with credibility.
>>>
>>>If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>
>>>K. Gringioni.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
>
>
> And he can't copy a number from a piss bottle onto a piece of paper without
> fucking it up.
So what, mistakes happen.
>> If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
>>it don't mean Jack.
>
>
> What if it's a tech who likes cash.
You got no proof of money changing hands.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>>
>>>It has to do with credibility.
>>>
>>>If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>
>>>K. Gringioni.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
>> If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
>>it don't mean Jack.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> You don't know who's doing the leaking.
>
> It's obviously someone who has some sort of "clearance", otherwise they
> wouldn't have access to the information.
I would imagine pretty much anybody had access to the results.
> And, if "some secretary" has that sort of access, then there's a
> question of security.
You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil pushing intern
at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition because it's on
the form...
MagillaGorilla
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:07:58 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>
>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>
>>#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>>time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>>lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>>number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>>& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>>source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
>>was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>>the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
>>perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
>>an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US... something
>>that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
>>France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of easily
>>taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
>>downside to doing so.
>
>
> Or, more cynically and perhaps realistically. How much cash from a reporter can
> one get for a leaked lab report?
Probably not as much as Fuentes gets to maintain a blood bank and
dispense EPO. Either say the lab falsified the results or SHUT THE FUCK
UP. Don't make these gay insinuations that are hypothetical theories in
your mind that you use to invalidate test results.
If Lance has such a big problem with the leak, he should have sued the
lab. But he didn't.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>>
>>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>
>>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
>
>
> The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
> what the question is about.
How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>>
>>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>
>>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
>
>
> The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
> what the question is about.
>
>
>>>#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>>>time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>>>lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>>>number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>>>& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>>>source of such leaks, they'd be fired.
>>
>>I completely disagree. Leaks happen all the time in U.S. law
>>enforcement. What makes you think it's just a Euro thing?
>
>
> They don't happen in medical testing labs. Remember that PI thing I keep
> bringing up as part of my background. Trust me on this. Or at least trust that
> any leakage has to be used as a lead to a legitimate source of the same info.
>
Leaking happens in all professions, in all contries.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Few would question that such an act
>>
>>>was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>>>the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule.
>>
>>Let me ask you something - why are so concerned with the leaks - as
>>opposed to the positive test results? What is the point of finding out
>>who leaked this stuff?
>
>
> Because the Floyd Landis case has been completely FUBARed by the leakage. It
> would've been an ordinary weird test result that would've been resolved quietly
> and properly if it hadn't been for the leaks.
>
Hey dumbass,
The UCI leaked the result, followed by Phonak, not the lab. Get your
facts straight before you get righteous about what those non-existent
facts mean.
And it wouldn't have been resolved quietly. Floyd went AWOL during the
post-Tour crits and the media smelled blood. Floyd did that becase he
got the results, not because anyone leaked anythhing. The lab had
nothing to do with any leaks in Floyd's case.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>negative tests?
>
>
> It'll turn dubious positives into either certain positives or certain negatives
> without politics, ass covering and hysteria from assorted primates interfering.
>
Get real.
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> > It's obviously someone who has some sort of "clearance", otherwise they
> > wouldn't have access to the information.
>
> I would imagine pretty much anybody had access to the results.
Dumbass -
The "access" example I gave of our Math Department was they had access
to change the results.
That is not acceptable.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> without
>> fucking it up.
>
> So what, mistakes happen.
Right. The point being, that the environment in the lab is such that there
aren't likely any serious ramifications for not following the rules (or
making mistakes that have dramatic consequences).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Supposition. The theory that they did not degrade is
not proven. The EPO test is delicate and indirect.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Correct no proof, just as you have no proof for
asserting that an assay for EPO in five year old urine
samples is dependable.
--
Michael Press
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <LPOdnfniW80...@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> >>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> >>>>negative tests?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Dumbass -
> >>>
> >>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
> >>
> >>
> >>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
> >>person running the test.
> >
> >
> > How do you know that?
> >
>
>
> Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
> the results based on this impartiality?
No. I'm saying that you've made a bold statement about who did or did not leak
the results but you haven't offered any sort of rational reason why you believe it
to be true.
> And If you're not saying that, then shut up and don't even bring it up
> to begin with because all you're doing is making some ambiguous
> implication that has never been shown to be true.
Hmm, sounds likewhat you're doing.
> Can you give me any examples of this impartiality (in results, that is)?
>
> You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
> also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
> totally different things.
Firstly, I haven't said anything about "falsifying" tests. But why do you think
that a person who might come up with a result on a test being used in a way that has
never been run through any sort of trial would not have any compunctions about
leaking that result?
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
> having access to your AIDS test results?
Only college graduates know how to conduct themselves
honorably. I must have overlooked that class in the
course catalogue.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
disposed of quietly?
--
Michael Press
Mike Jacoubowsky
> before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
> are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
> disposed of quietly?
Magilla should shortly be making the case that that's proof malfeasance
isn't an issue.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Michael Press" <ja...@abc.net> wrote in message
news:jack-81E6D5.2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
jean-yves hervé
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.
jyh.
Steven Bornfeld
>
> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
> having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil pushing intern
> at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition because it's on
> the form...
I don't know the legalities in Europe. In the U.S. leaking this
information is almost certainly a violation of federal law. I am sure
that the facility could not claim they are not responsible for the
illegal actions of any of their employees, whether high-level or low.
How well these federal laws are enforced on a day-to-day basis is
another thing. But in a high-profile case such as this, the feds would
have to get involved.
Steve
RonSonic
wrote:
And you've got no proof that they are either honest, or competent. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ron
RonSonic
wrote:
>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>It has to do with credibility.
>>>>
>>>>If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>thanks,
>>>>
>>>>K. Gringioni.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
>>> If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
>>>it don't mean Jack.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>>
>> You don't know who's doing the leaking.
>>
>> It's obviously someone who has some sort of "clearance", otherwise they
>> wouldn't have access to the information.
>
>I would imagine pretty much anybody had access to the results.
>
>
>> And, if "some secretary" has that sort of access, then there's a
>> question of security.
>
>You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
>having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil pushing intern
>at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition because it's on
>the form...
RIght, the one's who'd be FIRED, right fucking now if they leaked a word that
got into the press.
Ron
MagillaGorilla
Or...that the mistakes made aren't that serious. We'll know how serious
they are in the CAS hearing.
The problem I have with your statement is the athlete is allowed to view
the entire testing of the B-sample and then to refute any so-called
sloppiness in a CAS hearing.
Given the fact that WADA has yet to lose a single case......see my point?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Sure I do. The consensus amongst the scientific community is if EPO
degraded you would simply not find any EPO. If you find EPO it
obviously didn't degrade.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Sure I do...I got 150+ CAS precedents where athletes and their attorneys
took them to task and CAS won every time.
My, what selective memory you have. I bet you if athletes won 150
cases, you would point that out to me. But when they lose 150 cases,
you pretend it doesn't exist.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Nobody's changing lab results. It's not just a single number that
coomes up. You got all sorts of other things. And the B-sample test
along with it's results can be monitored by the athlete. How is someone
suppose to falsify a witnessed test?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
You know what I mean: who the fuck is a receptionist that her trust and
secrecy is supposedly so honorable?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
>> having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil pushing
>> intern at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition because
>> it's on the form...
>
>
>
> I don't know the legalities in Europe. In the U.S. leaking this
> information is almost certainly a violation of federal law. I am sure
> that the facility could not claim they are not responsible for the
> illegal actions of any of their employees, whether high-level or low.
> How well these federal laws are enforced on a day-to-day basis is
> another thing. But in a high-profile case such as this, the feds would
> have to get involved.
>
> Steve
Research results were leaked in Lance's case. There was no name
attached to them. Therefore no violation. It was the reporter from
L'Equipe that matched the name and ID number. It is very unlikley
whoever leaked this iinfo at the lab knew that could be done and
probably assumed they were merely leaking "general" results that riders
in the '99 Tour used EPO.
If this happened in the U.S. I seriously doubt the FBI would care. In
fact, it did happpen. Tammy Thomas sued USADA claiming that her case
was published in a medical journal article and that everyone knew it was
her. The FBI was never involved in that case.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
How would they find out who leaked it?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article <uDadnSwWlqZ...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <LPOdnfniW80...@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>>>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>>>>>negative tests?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dumbass -
>>>>>
>>>>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
>>>>person running the test.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
>>the results based on this impartiality?
>
>
> No. I'm saying that you've made a bold statement about who did or did not leak
> the results but you haven't offered any sort of rational reason why you believe it
> to be true.
>
Wrong. You guys are implying that leaking information equates to
falsifying it. The burden of proof lays with you, not me. If you can't
prove the lab work was falsified, then you failed to meet your burden.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
So you in fact ARE implying the results were falsified.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Both of these are incredibly stupid questions with obvious answers that
you should be able to come up with yourself.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
>>Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
>>before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
>>are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
>>disposed of quietly?
>
>
> Magilla should shortly be making the case that that's proof malfeasance
> isn't an issue.
Hey..all these positives tests get arbitration hearings. The athletes
get to WITNESS the fucking testing of the B-sample as well as its
result. They get to argue all that malfeasance. So far, no athlete has
won a case.
What lab malfeasance are you talking about?
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Wrong. If the EPO degrades the EPO test would be negative, not
positive. It's just like a DNA test. If DNA degrades you don't get a
match. You get no banding.
There is scientific consensus on what I just said. And what you said is
simply not accurate and refuted by science.
Magilla
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
I'm not sure that FBI would be the agency involved. I also have my
doubts that it would be a treated as a big deal by the feds. But to be
fair, I think the Tammy Thomas leak predated implementation of HIPAA.
Obviously, this would have no bearing on a lab in Europe in any case.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Bob in CT
<Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Please support the "scientific consensus" with some links. I note that
there was also "scientific consensus" that stress caused ulcers, but that
was entired proved false.
--
Bob in CT
MagillaGorilla
Medical record violations are generally treated as civil matters, since
most laws are only administrative code violations at the state level.
Any federal law that is violated would be investigated by the FBI or
nobody at all. ATF, DEA, SS, CIA have no jurisdiction.
USADA is considered a federal organization and drug samples are not
afforded the same confidentiality protections under the law as medical
records.
Tammy Thomas's case did not predate HIPAA. She invoked research federal
law but the judge ruled that published journal articles on WADA testing
is not classified as human research (i.e. clinical trials with
pharmaceuticals or other medical devices or treatments).
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
You are correct about the scentific consensus of ulcers not being caused
by stress (it was later proven to be caused by bacteria and its
discoverer awarded the Nobel Prize). To be honest with you I never
suspected ulcers to be caused by stress because most diagnoses of ulcers
were done through patient's opinions. Also, why would stress cause
gastrointestinal ulcers? It doesn't make sense from a hormonal
standpoint. The stomach lining is built to withstand any amount of acid
it secretes, so I never bought that myself.
As for the EPO test, do the Google yourself. All the WADA labs agree
that EPO simply wouldn't be there if it degraded. But it's common
sense....if blood degrades, it won't degrade into EPO. The EPO test
only detects EPO-r proteins...
EPO is a protein, just like DNA. And DNA has been found in samples
decades old that weren't even preserved.
Magilla
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Actually, HIPAA violations are reported and enforced by HHS Office for
Civil Rights:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacyhowtofile.htm
>
> USADA is considered a federal organization and drug samples are not
> afforded the same confidentiality protections under the law as medical
> records.
>
> Tammy Thomas's case did not predate HIPAA. She invoked research federal
> law but the judge ruled that published journal articles on WADA testing
> is not classified as human research (i.e. clinical trials with
> pharmaceuticals or other medical devices or treatments).
I'll take your word on her lawyer's approach. As far as HIPAA, the law
was passed but there was a significant time lag until compliance was
required (very incrementally) so it is altogether possible that the leak
of information predated compliance deadlines. I'm hardly an expert
here, but I doubt her case would proceed along the same lines had the
leak occured after HIPAA provisions were fully in place.
Steve
>
>
> Magilla
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
On the contrary. The urine assay for EPO does not
detect EPO; rather it detects chemical species that are
derived from EPO. These same chemical species can and
have been shown to derive from processes other than EPO
fractionation.
Again, presence of certain fractions is not proof of
EPO administration in five year old samples, because
the science of five year old samples has not been done.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
DNA is not a protein. Chemically, DNA is much hardier than protein.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
The WADA protocol does not detect EPO.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
The burden of proof is to show that an assay on five
year old samples is reliable. We have not seen the
false positive and false negative rates on fresh
samples. The WADA protocol is mostly kept secret.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Yes, I know exactly what you mean, and made it clear,
if indirect, in my first reply. An honorable
practitioner will have honorable staff.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<jyh-CDC942.0...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com
>,
jean-yves hervé <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> In article <jack-81E6D5.2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <Umudna3kJ6_...@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
> > before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
> > are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
> > disposed of quietly?
>
> How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
> through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
> UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
> of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.
What reason did the UCI give for prematurely announcing
laboratory data? Why is it Landis could not continue
racing until the investigation and hearings were
completed? Accusation is proof of guilt. I am
extrapolating from one known case of irregularities at
the laboratory that was never publicly resolved.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
You asked "How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?".
I do not. _That_ is the problem.
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
Dude. What do you know about the research testing that they did? The
lab said it was EPO. Why should I believe you? You have no personal
knowledge of what happened.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article <quKcnRcyg-_...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <C2udnW6FFdP...@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
>>>>having access to your AIDS test results?
>>>
>>>
>>>Only college graduates know how to conduct themselves
>>>honorably. I must have overlooked that class in the
>>>course catalogue.
>>
>>You know what I mean: who the fuck is a receptionist that her trust and
>>secrecy is supposedly so honorable?
>
>
> Yes, I know exactly what you mean, and made it clear,
> if indirect, in my first reply. An honorable
> practitioner will have honorable staff.
>
Bullshit.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article
> <jyh-CDC942.0...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com
>
>>,
>
> jean-yves hervé <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <jack-81E6D5.2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Umudna3kJ6_...@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
>>>before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
>>>are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
>>>disposed of quietly?
>>
>>How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
>>through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
>>UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
>>of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.
>
>
> What reason did the UCI give for prematurely announcing
> laboratory data?
That reaon was UCI speculation, not fact.
Why is it Landis could not continue
> racing until the investigation and hearings were
> completed?
He could. He chose not to. Don't you know the basic facts of the case?
>
>Accusation is proof of guilt.
In WADA tests, a positive dope test ends up being proven true 99.9% of
the time. So if by accusation, you mean positive test, you are correct.
When your doctor tells you you tested positive for strep throat, do you
tell him,"Oh that's just your fucking accusation."
I am
> extrapolating from one known case of irregularities at
> the laboratory that was never publicly resolved.
Well, share it with everyone. Don't hide it.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Sounds like Lance's problem, not your problem. If Lance and the
athletes don't care, why should we?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
The EPO testing protocol is not secret. It's been published for years.
Thanks,
Magilla
Kurgan Gringioni
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > Dumbass -
> >
> >
> > The "access" example I gave of our Math Department was they had access
> > to change the results.
> >
> > That is not acceptable.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
>
> Nobody's changing lab results.
Dumbass -
How do you know?
The lab is already not following other protocol.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
MagillaGorilla
Then how do they get the B-samples to match the A's sample results - the
B-samples are tested in front of expert witnesses selected by the athletes?
That's how I know.
Magilla
RonSonic
wrote:
No, but if the kid down the street tells me you tested positive for chlamydea,
should I believe him?
Ron
jean-yves hervé
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
> In article
I don't give a damn what reasons the UCI had for doing what they did.
They received the results from the lab and then *they* decided to
announce them urbi et orbi. This has nothing to do with the lab. So,
contrary to your claim, there is only a single case (Armstrong) of
results improperly leaking out for the Chatenay Malabry lab. I don't if
you realize that you sound just like a member of the Landis PR team by
repeating stuff like that that is patently false just because you think
that it damages the image of the lab.
jyh.
Michael Press
<jyh-BB025C.0...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com
Answer to the first question is that the UCI
preemptively announced the result to prevent someone
else announcing it.
--
Michael Press
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Firstly, I haven't said anything about "falsifying" tests. But why do
> > you think that a person who might come up with a result on a test being
> > used in a way that has never been run through any sort of trial would not
> > have any compunctions about leaking that result?
> >
>
>
> So you in fact ARE implying the results were falsified.
No, you in fact are reading more into what I wrote than is there. By doing so,
you evade the question. You stated that the person who did the test wouldn't be the
one who leaked it, yet you can't give any reason for that assertion.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?