Why doesn't anyone question the isotope test???
Thomas A. Fine
question this exogenous testosterone test. They quote experts
and use words like "irrefutable", "proof", "perfect", etc.
Even CNN's Sanjay Gupta, himself allegedly some kind of expert,
simply referenced some other expert and then proved himself an idiot,
claiming there's something in synthetic testosterone that's not
in natural testosterone.
It's frustrating, because like most tests, it's not at all clear
cut and there's a significant margin for error, as well as possible
natural explanations for the results.
In attempt to clear things up, I've written up a page with everything
I've learned about the test, and everything I'd still like to know
about it.
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/testosterone_d13C.html
To sum up, the ranges of normal and synthetic testosterone's carbon-13
ratios seem to overlap. A simple limit on the delta 13C is not a
reliable test, nor is this what is used. Instead, the d13C of
testosterone is compared to other natural steroids and expected to be
similar.
The d13C of testosterone is influenced by diet, to a very significant
degree. It's unclear from what I've found so far if this can happen
fast enough to show a change overnight, but if it is possible, then
such an effect ought to be significantly exaggerated by an athlete
bonking and then consuming 10,000 or so calories. If the food consumed
was different than the past few days' meals, and if there was the expected
natural surge of testosterone you get from a performance such as stage
17, then you would expect a significant disparity between the d13C of
the testosterone and the comparison compound.
There's some other ideas in there as well. Some less likely, some more
likely. It's entirely possible that with additional information the
test might be shown to be highly reliable, but with the information
I have so far, this is simply not clear.
Input is welcome, and the web page will be updated with new information
as I find it.
tom
Tere
How much does diet effect 13C? Would one have to be vegetarian or even
vegan to see a significant elevation of C13? I assume that other
animals have 13C level similar to humans, so eating meat or dairy
products may mitigate any effect diet has on !#c.
Wouldn't a dietary source of 13C would effect all or many of the
compounds in the body.? Therefore they might be able to test the
background level of 13C in the urine and compare that to the 13C in the
testosterone
Charles Beristain
Fine) wrote:
>Nobody in the media is extending the tiniest bit of effort to
>question this exogenous testosterone test. They quote experts
>and use words like "irrefutable", "proof", "perfect", etc.
Tom
the Science Section of the New York Times ... I think it was two weeks
ago ( just after the announcement of Landis's situation) ..
they said that the cholestrol from the athlete was used as the
baseline for the comparison.. ... then testosterone from the urine
sample was separated out and it was tested .... they used typical
numbers like "25" for the cholesterol baseline and "28" for the
testosterone...with a difference of "3" proving there was some level
of synthetic testosterone in the athlete's body.
they also said that synthetic testosterone was made from Soy ... and
for some reason, soy has a different c13 level than the usual veggies
that we eat that our bodies convert to testosterone. I remember
something about 1 tenth of one percent difference... seemed like a
very small number.
charlieb in ct.
Nobody
Excellent questions. I too have wondered about the rate of
testosterone production and metabolism. Your questions
about the source of carbon in testosterone production and
how quickly diet can change the c12/c13 ratios are important.
Dave
Salvelinus
This blog is done by a real chemist who works for a large pharma.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/08/01/testosterone_carbon_isotopes_and_floyd_landis.php
Salvelinus
This blog is done by a real chemist who works for a large pharma.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/08/01/testosterone_carbon_isotopes_and_floyd_landis.php
gds
I find most of your premises plain wrong. The test being run is an
accepeted test that has been well researched for validity, reliability
and sensitivity. I see no references to scientifc articles appearing in
peer reviewed journals that suggest otherwise.
If the test has been shown to be valid then all of the bogeymen you are
throwing up have been looked at and rejected. You are simply listing a
bunch of "what ifs" without any knowledge about how they have been
addressed.
Get over it- he failed the test. Even Floyd has backed down from
claiming there is a problem with the test itself and has moved on to
tryon to explain where/how someone somehow got the stuff into him. Now
that is certainly a possibility even though the Why? part of that
escapes me.
Simon Brooke
('fi...@head-cfa.harvard.edu') wrote:
> Nobody in the media is extending the tiniest bit of effort to
> question this exogenous testosterone test. They quote experts
> and use words like "irrefutable", "proof", "perfect", etc.
Because the serious chemists all seem to say the test is bombproof, and
the only people saying it's not are Landis' legal team and wild-eyed
American tifosi.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; So, before proceeding with definitive screwing, choose the
;; position most congenital.
-- instructions for fitting bicycle handlebars
photos...@gmail.com
His legal tactics are strong indicators of his guilt or innocence (I
believe). If he truly had no idea on earth how he might have tested
positive, he would have had scientific experts observe the testing of
the b-sample. Instead, he sent two lawyers. And instead of attempting
to prove his innocence AND his lack of guilt, he has very quickly
jumped to the "entrenchment" tactic. Obviously, he believes there is
something to these tests. Current strategy: plant a billion seeds of
reasonable doubt. Come up with every possible incredible explanation
until they find one good enough to go to the appeals panel with. And he
can watch the public critical reaction to all of these explanations.
If it had been my sample, I'd have my team all over the carbon isotope
test, the lab's competence in performing it and the chain of custody
issues that seem to be of concern to many these days.
Tom Kunich
news:1155156587.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Read this page.
> This blog is done by a real chemist who works for a large pharma.
>
> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/08/01/testosterone_carbon_isotopes_and_floyd_landis.php
Unfortunately he doesn't actually know what the test is or how it's derived.
He is only commenting on the theoretical underpinning of such a test.
There's no question that a mass spectrometer can tell C12 from C13. No one
is questioning that.
What is being questioned are things like:
How many peaks are near the testosterone peak?
Is there any over lap of the peaks (normal)?
Since the total volume of testosterone is so small, how many atoms are we
talking about here? After all, since it is common for peaks to overlap, if
they are using all of the testosterone peak in order to obtain the maximum
volumn to test this would include components from the overlap.
As Mr. Fine pointed out, cholesterol and testosterone are derived from
different bodily functions and the diet has a notable lag time in production
of the testosterone whereas the cholesterol is almost immediately available.
I keep going back to one point - the 4:1 e/t ratio. That is a BOGUS value
from the start since the literature quotes NORMAL spikes up to 20:1.
Apparently it is the judgement of WADA and UCI that they can lose a few
riders here and there to false positives. They simply don't care.
chester
>
> I find most of your premises plain wrong. The test being run is an
> accepeted test that has been well researched for validity, reliability
> and sensitivity. I see no references to scientifc articles appearing in
> peer reviewed journals that suggest otherwise.
>
> If the test has been shown to be valid then all of the bogeymen you are
> throwing up have been looked at and rejected. You are simply listing a
> bunch of "what ifs" without any knowledge about how they have been
> addressed.
>
> Get over it- he failed the test. Even Floyd has backed down from
> claiming there is a problem with the test itself and has moved on to
> tryon to explain where/how someone somehow got the stuff into him. Now
> that is certainly a possibility even though the Why? part of that
> escapes me.
>
Again, the problem is that you simply accept whatever someone tells you
at face value, with little ability, or desire, to question it. It is a
real problem in society, and has been for centuries. In the US the
problem has reached epidemic levels, and has resulted in a huge moron
running (ruining?) the world
Perhaps Landis is guilty, but to simply state that the test results are
always without question is itself moronic and contradicts the test
equipment manufacturer's own comments.
It is NOT an "is it there or not" test, like some other steroid tests
are. It is a test that requires interpretation, and as the OP said,
there are crossovers in the values of natural vs synthetic. That is a fact.
mal
".
>
> Apparently it is the judgement of WADA and UCI that they can lose a few
> riders here and there to false positives. They simply don't care.
And that's why this whole doping stuff is so hipocritical. They'd rather
hang ten innocent riders to preserve the impression that they are doing the
right thing.
The wankers in senior positions are guilty of it, and Dick Pound is the
master.
They are self righteous ponces.
mal
NEVER claim anything is irrefutable or bombproof. Only those who quote them.
Experts are like hookers. They have different specialties, and will do
anything for money.
This is the reason they replaced rats with lawyers in scientific
experiments.
There were things that rats just wouldn't do.
"Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:g70qq3-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
Ray_...@hotmail.com
gds wrote:
"If the test has been shown to be valid then all of the bogeymen you
are
throwing up have been looked at and rejected. You are simply listing a
bunch of "what ifs" without any knowledge about how they have been
addressed."
Well that is my problem, I don't know that their test has been shown to
be valid as they us it. The criticism of WADA/UCI has been the lack
of transparency. If they have proof the test works, then they should
release the data.
As part of lab certification process blind samples are sent to the labs
for testing and the results compare to the known content. These
results for ALL labs should be released for public examination. What
has WADA/UCI to hide?
Thomas A. Fine
Tere <terence...@nist.gov> wrote:
>How much does diet effect 13C? Would one have to be vegetarian or even
>vegan to see a significant elevation of C13? I assume that other
>animals have 13C level similar to humans, so eating meat or dairy
>products may mitigate any effect diet has on !#c.
No, when you look at the meat, the carbon-13 is based on what the
meat ate. In an experiment with cows, they were able to alter
the delta 13C by 9 permill, which is a very wide range.
The biggest variant are how much of your diet is C3 plants (which is
most plants) or C4 plants (which is mainly corn and sugar cane, as
far as food goes). C4 plants drive your results to higher
carbon-13, which is a less negative d13C value, which makes you
more different from the synthetic. Not eating C4 plants will
cause you to have less carbon-13, and more negative d13C value,
closer to the synthetic value. It depends on which things you eat,
as C3 plants can range anywhere from -22 to -30 permill, with the
soy that's used to make testosterone apparently near the -30 permill
end of the range.
>Wouldn't a dietary source of 13C would effect all or many of the
>compounds in the body.? Therefore they might be able to test the
>background level of 13C in the urine and compare that to the 13C in the
>testosterone
They can and do compare to background value - of another natural
steroid. However, due to different rates and processes of production,
they are not expected to be identical, merely similar.
tom
Thomas A. Fine
Salvelinus <troy....@ipi.com> wrote:
>Read this page.
>This blog is done by a real chemist who works for a large pharma.
>
>http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/08/01/testosterone_carbon_isotopes_and_floyd_landis.php
Yeah, I've seen it.
There's nothing in there that answers any of my open questions. He
doesn't talk about how quickly a dietary change can alter carbon-13
ratios.
He writes:
"The typical Western industrial-country diet is derived from a mixture
of C3 and C4 stocks, so the appearance of testosterone with a C3-plant
isotopic profile is diagnostic."
What if the diet isn't typical. What if it was typical last week,
but today the diet was not typical, how does that alter tomorrow's
testosterone carbon-13 content?
tom
Thomas A. Fine
gds <gary...@msn.com> wrote:
>I find most of your premises plain wrong. The test being run is an
>accepeted test that has been well researched for validity, reliability
>and sensitivity. I see no references to scientifc articles appearing in
>peer reviewed journals that suggest otherwise.
Is there a specific thing that you can point to that's wrong, that
you can show how it is wrong? Or do you just always blindly trust
"experts"?
>If the test has been shown to be valid then all of the bogeymen you are
>throwing up have been looked at and rejected.
As if there is some "valid" stamp, that once used can never be revoked?
This is not how the real world works. Tests are rushed into place with
little validation, because the war against drugs has to be fought.
And because many of these tests are commercial products, and performing
too much validation is too expensive, and decreases profits.
There's a deeper problem too. You can't test athletes in these tests,
because they might lie about doping, and skew the results. So you
have to test "normal" people, and then assume that athletes will
behave the same. But this is demonstrably false - elite athletes
exceed normal parameters in many different ways.
>You are simply listing a
>bunch of "what ifs" without any knowledge about how they have been
>addressed.
Yes, this is the point. I want answers to these questions. It's
not so much that I don't know how they've been addressed -- I don't
know IF they've been addressed. So far, I've come up empty, and I
want to see if the power of the Internet can do better. So far,
not.
tom
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----
Thomas A. Fine
<photos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>His legal tactics are strong indicators of his guilt or innocence (I
>believe). If he truly had no idea on earth how he might have tested
>positive, he would have had scientific experts observe the testing of
>the b-sample. Instead, he sent two lawyers. And instead of attempting
>to prove his innocence AND his lack of guilt, he has very quickly
>jumped to the "entrenchment" tactic. Obviously, he believes there is
>something to these tests.
You've seen here that there are many people who tend to blindly trust
experts. So if assume that there exists an innocent Floyd Landis who
tends to trust authority, then he would act exactly as we've seen -
he'd desperately thrash about for an explanation that somehow fits,
since he knows he didn't dope. That would look pretty much like
what we're seeing.
I really don't think you can tell just by watching outward behaviour.
It's entirely consistent with how some personality types might react in
either the innocent or the guilty scenario. Maybe if you knew Floyd
personally, and knew what his true personality was (as opposed to his
public persona) then you might be able to guess.
tom
RonSonic
>I find most of your premises plain wrong. The test being run is an
>accepeted test that has been well researched for validity, reliability
>and sensitivity. I see no references to scientifc articles appearing in
>peer reviewed journals that suggest otherwise.
>
>If the test has been shown to be valid then all of the bogeymen you are
>throwing up have been looked at and rejected. You are simply listing a
>bunch of "what ifs" without any knowledge about how they have been
>addressed.
And you seem to be blindly assuming that they have been addressed. If I'm wrong
and you've got some real science that answers this please present it so we can
get smarter.
Ron
Thomas A. Fine
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>I keep going back to one point - the 4:1 e/t ratio. That is a BOGUS value
>from the start since the literature quotes NORMAL spikes up to 20:1.
Do you have a reference for this? I've looked around for a study that
measures T/E ratio after a testosterone surge, but haven't found anything.
I also haven't seen any references myself to a normal value that was
that high.
tom
RonSonic
>The serious chemists, or pharmacists as they are called in civilization,
>NEVER claim anything is irrefutable or bombproof. Only those who quote them.
Except the director of this particular lab, who insists there is no possibility
of error in this test.
I don't personally think he's serious, but a lot of other people do.
Ron
Chris
playing the ignorance of the general public, skewing public opinion where as
this needs to be tried in a real court not the court of public opinion.
"Thomas A. Fine" <fi...@head-cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:44da358a$1...@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...
seatos...@yahoo.com
is innocent.
Mark
Ray_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I don't know that their test has been shown to be valid as they us it.
This is perhaps a two part issue. The first part is to validate the
analytical part of the test and to understand how a test performs. This
can be done to a reasonable degree for many analytes. Let's assume for
discussion that the lab involved is competent and test validation has
been carried out properly. The second part of a test validation is to
understand the biologic variance and how different physiology impacts
interpretation of a properly carried out analytical test. This is the
part that is troublesome because it's not at all clear that there
exists a large enough database to ensure that the results are being
interpreted correctly. It's one thing to measure something accurately
and it's entirely another to understand what that measurement means. Of
course even with a very good test there will still be outliers and
false positives and negatives. All of this complicates interpretation
when important results are at stake.
>The criticism of WADA/UCI has been the lack of transparency.
There are a lot of imperfections in the whole WADA mission and
execution thereof. What I find most troublesome is that in speaking to
some WADA reps is that they appear to have crossed over from medical
science and pragmatism to more of a religious pursuit of catching the
dopers. While there are certainly dopers to catch, once a group moves
toward a "burn the witches" perspective I find it hard to blindly
accept a priori interpretation of results.
To be fair, the WADA mission is difficult as they are trying to catch
people altering their physiology who obviously do not want to get
caught and who clearly have resources available to be creative about
performance improvement. It's nice to ask for transparency (and I
agree) but transparency makes it somewhat easier to cheat. To me, that
is the reason why WADA and the labs involved need to be beyond reproach
and so squeaky clean that they are to be believed. As many have pointed
out in this forum over the years, the anti-doping groups have lost a
certain amount of credibility and that is a shame as their overall
mission remains valid.
Of course none of this means that an athlete did or did not dope.
Simply suggests that folks who blindly accept that the assays under
discussion are without flaw and that the results available at present
time are perfectly conclusive are as naive as folks that believe doping
is not widespread in high level sport.
In any case at least this gives RBR something to prattle on about until
next July.
Mark
Michael Press
> The test being run is an
> accepeted test that has been well researched for validity, reliability
> and sensitivity. I see no references to scientifc articles appearing in
> peer reviewed journals that suggest otherwise.
Do you have citations for the articles that form the basis
for the test?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<r7ednYIP-4OJ5EfZ...@comcast.com>,
"mal" <malco...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The serious chemists, or pharmacists as they are called in civilization,
> NEVER claim anything is irrefutable or bombproof. Only those who quote them.
> Experts are like hookers. They have different specialties, and will do
> anything for money.
>
> This is the reason they replaced rats with lawyers in scientific
> experiments.
They're plentiful, and the laboratory assistants do not
become attached to them
> There were things that rats just wouldn't do.
Problem is that experimental results cannot be
extrapolated to humans.
--
Michael Press
Tom Kunich
Sorry that I don't have it now but it was referenced on this group and I
read it. Can't remember which thread however.
Donald Munro
>> This is the reason they replaced rats with lawyers in scientific
>> experiments.
Michael Press wrote:
> They're plentiful, and the laboratory assistants do not
> become attached to them
What ? rbr has become quite attached to Lafferty.
Tom Kunich
news:44daefd1$0$9471$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
The term is "infected".
gds
Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> Is there a specific thing that you can point to that's wrong, that
> you can show how it is wrong? Or do you just always blindly trust
> "experts"?
Sure, you allege that no one in the media is questionaing the tests. I
have seen interviews with numerous people who are saying the test are
quite valid and reliable. These are folks are scientists in the field.
So, the media did raise the question and it seems it is being answered,
though not in a way you would prefer
>
>
> As if there is some "valid" stamp, that once used can never be revoked?
> This is not how the real world works. Tests are rushed into place with
> little validation, because the war against drugs has to be fought.
> And because many of these tests are commercial products, and performing
> too much validation is too expensive, and decreases profits.
What is the point of this argument? At it s core you are saying that
you don't believe that nay of the tests that come to market are any
good becasue they are all tainted by a variety of economic motives.
That has not been my experience. I have a number of years working in
labs and on the faculty of a medical school. My wife has over 20 years
of experience in large Pharma. Our experience is that overall
procedures for establishing validity and and reliability are pretty
good.
Does this mean that the system is perfect? Of course not, but you are
suggesting you don't believe anything and that is just silly.
>
> There's a deeper problem too. You can't test athletes in these tests,
> because they might lie about doping, and skew the results. So you
> have to test "normal" people, and then assume that athletes will
> behave the same. But this is demonstrably false - elite athletes
> exceed normal parameters in many different ways.
Right! Of course you establsih the test parameters on groups like what
you want to study. When I was involved in testing of this sort in the
military we found huge differences in the response to various stress
stimulii between regular infantry and elite troops. This is a
fundamental research issue. Why are you assuming that the testers
haven't figured this out? You are attacking with passion but no
ammunition.
>
> >You are simply listing a
> >bunch of "what ifs" without any knowledge about how they have been
> >addressed.
>
> Yes, this is the point. I want answers to these questions. It's
> not so much that I don't know how they've been addressed -- I don't
> know IF they've been addressed. So far, I've come up empty, and I
> want to see if the power of the Internet can do better. So far,
> not.
I guess its fine that you want these answers but who is that is
responsible for providing them? You are a paying client of whom? Sure
ultimately if fans desert the sport the sponsors and the sport itself
will suffer. But seriously, in the short run it does't seem to me that
you are a direct client.
I'll go back to the issue that all of the procedures were in place and
agreed to by the athletes before competing. I'm not talking aobut
leaks, that's plain wrong; but the testing procedures and the outcomes
were very clear.
aco...@earthlink.net
> Since the total volume of testosterone is so small, how many atoms are we
> talking about here?
You usually need ~1 umol of material, or 6.02 x 10^17 molecules, for
standard dual-inlet IRMS analysis. However, the test here uses a
GC/C/IRMS, which operates in a continuous flow manner analogous to a
GCMS, such that the sample requirement is significantly less. How much
less in this case, I don't know, but for standard GCMS analysis ~1 nmol
of material, or 6.02 x 10^14 molecules, injected onto the column is
plenty, and you can get by with much, much less.
Andy Coggan
Jeff Jones
>
> You usually need ~1 umol of material, or 6.02 x 10^17 molecules, for
> standard dual-inlet IRMS analysis. However, the test here uses a
> GC/C/IRMS, which operates in a continuous flow manner analogous to a
> GCMS, such that the sample requirement is significantly less. How much
> less in this case, I don't know, but for standard GCMS analysis ~1 nmol
> of material, or 6.02 x 10^14 molecules, injected onto the column is
> plenty, and you can get by with much, much less.
>
Extending this: molecular mass of 1 mol of testosterone = 288.43g.
Thus, 1 nmol = 2.88 x 10^-7g of material. Or buggerall, in layman's
terms.
One study I saw showed natural testosterone excretion was about an
order of magnitude greater than this (3 x 10^-6g/hour). And although
you could argue that 10 times buggerall is still buggerall, it's good
enough for GCMS.
Jeff
Thomas A. Fine
gds <gary...@msn.com> wrote:
>Sure, you allege that no one in the media is questionaing the tests. I
>have seen interviews with numerous people who are saying the test are
>quite valid and reliable. These are folks are scientists in the field.
>So, the media did raise the question and it seems it is being answered,
>though not in a way you would prefer
I've seen shallow empty things like "is this test reliable?" "Oh
yes, absolutely reliable" and that's it. But when I repeatedly see
these results reported as "exogenous testosterone detected in Floyd's
urine", I know for a fact that they simply don't get it.
I want someone to ask the deeper questions. Is there a measure for the
accuracy of the test? A false positive rate? Known factors that
can affect the outcome? That would be a start.
>Does this mean that the system is perfect? Of course not, but you are
>suggesting you don't believe anything and that is just silly.
I'm not suggesting that. I love to believe in things. Show me that
diet and/or testosterone surges have been studied in conjunction with
this test, and I'll be very interested. If no body can show me that,
then I have serious doubts, and anyone with training in lab testing
ought to have those same doubts.
>I was involved in testing of this sort in the
>military we found huge differences in the response to various stress
>stimulii between regular infantry and elite troops. This is a
>fundamental research issue. Why are you assuming that the testers
>haven't figured this out?
You keep saying that I'm assuming. I've spent quite a bit of time looking
for these papers on line. I assumed I would find them and so far I have
not, so now I want to see if anyone else can find them. Then, if no one
else can find them, I'll might assume they don't exist, depending on
how many people I've asked.
> I guess its fine that you want these answers but who is that is
>responsible for providing them? You are a paying client of whom? Sure
>ultimately if fans desert the sport the sponsors and the sport itself
>will suffer. But seriously, in the short run it does't seem to me that
>you are a direct client.
I'm a client of the media, and I expect the media to do its job. And
so far, it has not. If Reuters editors can accept a photo with the
worst photoshop alteration ever seen, then I can wonder how deeply
the media is really probing this issue, and I can try to probe more
deeply.
>I'll go back to the issue that all of the procedures were in place and
>agreed to by the athletes before competing. I'm not talking aobut
>leaks, that's plain wrong; but the testing procedures and the outcomes
>were very clear.
This is simply not true. The athletes agree to the testing. But not
the procedures -- the procedures are kept as secret as possible by the
testing agencies. I think that the athletes have been entirely too
trusting with respect to these procedures.
tom
mcc...@usa.net
on the isotope composition of steroids
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/b5_2003.pdf
Raptor
> Apparently it is the judgement of WADA and UCI that they can lose a few
> riders here and there to false positives. They simply don't care.
We must destroy cycling in order to save it.
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
gds
I guess truth is in the eye of the beholder. I have access tot he same
media that you do and come away with a very different conclusion.
Aside from all the technical talk about reliability, validity, etc
lets's go back to a real, fundamental question.
Why?
Why would the lab be motivated to publish bad results in a case that
was sure to be scrutinized.
Why would someone sabotage Floyd? He is neither a strong personality
that has angered lots of people nor was he in a psoition prior to stage
17 to be by most analysis a real contender.
Interestingly even FL and his advisors have pretty much given up on
arguing against the test itself. So, it appears that thye accept the
results as published (even if you don't) and have moved on to trying to
come up with an acceptabel explanation.
At this point I don't see one but if one is proffered I'd certainly
like to see if it holds water.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Why would the lab be motivated to publish bad results
Funding, the motivation for all publishing.
--
E. Dronkert
gds
Spoken like a true academic ;-)
Michael Press
<1155244325.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
"gds" <gary...@msn.com> wrote:
> Aside from all the technical talk about reliability, validity, etc
> lets's go back to a real, fundamental question.
>
> Why?
> Why would the lab be motivated to publish bad results in a case that
> was sure to be scrutinized.
> Why would someone sabotage Floyd? He is neither a strong personality
> that has angered lots of people nor was he in a psoition prior to stage
> 17 to be by most analysis a real contender.
Motive is a red herring, and the result is not open to
scrutiny as you assert. WADA does not disclose laboratory
procedures and decision criteria. WADA does not allow
specimen donors to take a portion of the specimen to a
laboratory of their own. WADA is at liberty to declare
anyone to have banned substances in their body.
--
Michael Press
Carl Sundquist
"Michael Press" <ja...@abc.net> wrote in message
news:jack-B0C76C.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> Motive is a red herring, and the result is not open to
> scrutiny as you assert. WADA does not disclose laboratory
> procedures and decision criteria. WADA does not allow
> specimen donors to take a portion of the specimen to a
> laboratory of their own.
Do anyone sense a business opportunity here? You could pee in the WADA cup
and your own cup at the same time and take your own sample to the lab of
your choice. Because it isn't sealed it it couldn't be brought forth as
evidence (and for lack of chain of custody), but at least you could see all
the results for yourself. Being inadmissible, there would be no point in
tainting your own sample.
RonSonic
Sandy and I commented on that concept. And yes sir, it sure as hell could meet
every legal standard in terms of maintaining a chain of custody and be useful as
evidence.
What do you suppose private investigators do but develop, secure and preserve
evidence for use in court. I'd hire a notary, we'd seal and maintain under
appropriate conditions for the sample. Hell, I'd insist on using whoever was
there from UCI or WADA as one of the many witnesses on the video we took.
The sample would be sealed, enveloped notarized and iced on video. A secure
locker at a medical lab would be retained and the sample filed there against
need. This is pretty straightforward stuff.
Ron
Phil Holman
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:boond210ugivk77qi...@4ax.com...
IIRC, Boardman supplied samples for future testing. I wonder how the
integrity of his samples is being preserved.
Phil H
Carl Sundquist
> Sandy and I commented on that concept. And yes sir, it sure as hell could
> meet
> every legal standard in terms of maintaining a chain of custody and be
> useful as
> evidence.
>
> What do you suppose private investigators do but develop, secure and
> preserve
> evidence for use in court. I'd hire a notary, we'd seal and maintain under
> appropriate conditions for the sample. Hell, I'd insist on using whoever
> was
> there from UCI or WADA as one of the many witnesses on the video we took.
>
> The sample would be sealed, enveloped notarized and iced on video. A
> secure
> locker at a medical lab would be retained and the sample filed there
> against
> need. This is pretty straightforward stuff.
>
I was looking at the chain of custody part from an expense aspect. At least
the WADA chain of custody costs can be spread over multiple daily samples
(and in the case of the Tour, couriered domestically). On an individual
daily basis, it could get rather expensive.
Tom Kunich
news:1155239155.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
OK, now let us suppose that the peak for testosterone is broad instead of a
sharp peak and that the surrounding peaks are also broad and overlapping.
What's the chances of one of the peaks on either side bleeding material into
the sample and that material being something that despises C13?
Tom Kunich
news:ebg6ib$9cn$1...@news.xmission.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Apparently it is the judgement of WADA and UCI that they can lose a few
>> riders here and there to false positives. They simply don't care.
>
> We must destroy cycling in order to save it.
Unhappily I'm getting that idea concerning the actions of WADA and the UCI.
RonSonic
Aye, it would be noncheap. Unless a rider's union deal could be arranged for
everyone to get backup samples to share the costs and enhance credibility.
Ron
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>I was looking at the chain of custody part from an expense aspect. At least
>the WADA chain of custody costs can be spread over multiple daily samples
>(and in the case of the Tour, couriered domestically). On an individual
>daily basis, it could get rather expensive.
If I were doing it as a business, I would offer it to everyone that
wanted to stop by after they gave to WADA, UCI, or whoever. If there
is a sense that WADA or the UCI was too cavalier about this issue, a
certified lab could probably do this in volume and cheaper than WADA.
There is no randomness - just a properly documented chain of custody
(we do that every day, literally) with testing done upon request. It
isn't inexpensive, but it isn't prohibitive either, to keep adding
refrigerators and back up power systems. A couple of grand of
refrigerators would pay for themselves.
Frankly, at this point if I were a ProTour team or sponsor, I'd be
thinking seriously about it IF I thought this was an issue. They
aren't stupid.
And if this kind of thing continues unabated over the next couple of
years and you don't hear of the ProTour teams or their future
equivalents doing something along those lines, then I would consider
it evidence that the teams know that the cheating is real and are
complicit in the cheating.
And, yes, I know that the C samples would not be part of the process,
but they would certainly help the sponsor and team in the public
relations fall out and in cleaning up the process.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Sandy
problems, almost all logistical, save the first, which is not a problem,
but perhaps a solution.
1) the "C sample" remains available as actual evidence. It may not be
well accepted, at first, in national disciplinary actions, but it will
be in TAS arbs. The latter will urge the former to accord appropriate
weight.
2) Voluntary or involuntary ? I suspect that most riders want blood or
urine samples non-mandatory. Just from a privacy aspect, not just
doping. Non-mandatory makes the collection and storage less cost-effective.
3) How many sites would be required ? The longer the transport the
riskier the conservation.
4) How many races to cover ? Will this be like the unholy typical
bureaucracy add-on costs of every other record keeping program ?
5) How far down the elite categories do you offer this ? Fees and costs
of racing keep increasing, and procedures get more complicated. Perhaps
a regional race needs no storage or tests at all. Drawing the lien.
6) Would the UCI and race officials allow collection at the exact same
moment and location, or would that indicate favoring one service over
others ? I doubt there will be too many urine collection depots built,
but we lawyers like to keep things "clean".
7) Where do I get my cut ? If the scheme gets around, all this just
goes down the toilet.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Thomas A. Fine
>lets's go back to a real, fundamental question.
>
>Why?
>Why would the lab be motivated to publish bad results in a case that
>was sure to be scrutinized.
>Why would someone sabotage Floyd? He is neither a strong personality
>that has angered lots of people nor was he in a psoition prior to stage
>17 to be by most analysis a real contender.
Well, let me be clear that I'm not favoring the sabotage theory. Anything
is possible, and I can talk about motives, but that's not my pet theory.
As far as my theory goes, there's no conspiracy. Somebody comes up with
a great idea for differentiating testosterone. WADA commisions some
studies, the results look good in general. The scientists who publish
these results are happy with their success. The have some caveats at
the end, some things that bear further investigation, but on the whole
they're convinced that this test is feasible.
WADA gets this study (really a collection of studies), and hands if off
to a private lab who builds a procedure up that based on the studies should
be accurate to some threshold value.
They use the test, but just sort of don't worry about the caveats, because
they seem like low probability things, and they're pretty well convinced
that their test is reliable.
As far as sabotage motives, it's pretty clear to me that some of the French
and other Europeans just hate Americans, and hate that we've been winning
over there. Le'quipe makes a big profit on these stories also.
>Interestingly even FL and his advisors have pretty much given up on
>arguing against the test itself. So, it appears that thye accept the
>results as published (even if you don't) and have moved on to trying to
>come up with an acceptabel explanation.
First, I think this test has been wrongly portrayed as so bulletproof
that Floyd believes that, and the media believes that. Second, there
seems to be a legal argument in there that the WADA and UCI procedures
for handling this provide very little allowance for questioning the
basic reliability of the test. They can find something wrong with how
it was performed, but they are unlikely to make any progress arguing
that the test is not reliable, even if they line up 100 experts.
From a lawyer's perspective, it's a waste of time because it is so
low percentage, not because it's right or wrong.
>At this point I don't see one but if one is proffered I'd certainly
>like to see if it holds water.
Well, according to the pdf file another person here has posted,
it seems that three years ago WADA itself thought enough of the exact
theory that I'm putting forward, that they commisioned a two-year
study on it. More on this in another posting.
Thomas A. Fine
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>Unhappily I'm getting that idea concerning the actions of WADA and the UCI.
It's important to understand their different roles. WADA was formed by
the International Olympic Committee, which covers all sports, and so WADA
does also.
The UCI is concerned only with cycling. It wants to promote and protect
the sport and the athletes.
WADA on the other hand is responsible to no one. As a brand new organization,
it wants to prove that it is a needed organization. To do that, it needs
to catch dopers. What better way to do this than to pick a sport at
random, perhaps one which you personally aren't fond of, and crush it
like a bug. In other words, WADA has no interest in protect cycling -
it only has an interest in protecting itself. Since cycling is only
one of many "clients", you can make all the other sports very happy,
by not focusing on them, and by having the appearance of doing a great
job, in a very public way.
WADA would have no interest in preventing leaks - the sooner the news
hits the fan, the more proactive WADA will appear.
The UCI has to work with WADA, as long as it wants cycling to be in the
Olympics. I don't think the UCI is enjoying this, but they can't afford
to be highly critical of WADA, lest it look like they're trying to protect
cycling by hiding the problems.
tom
Curtis L. Russell
Fine) wrote:
>WADA would have no interest in preventing leaks - the sooner the news
>hits the fan, the more proactive WADA will appear.
That's taking the position that WADA has no interest in looking
professional. If there is the appearance of leaks it is in the long
term interest of all involved to either ferret out the leak and leaker
or to dispel any appearance of a leak by demonstrating how it happened
otherwise.
Anything else and even convictions won't dispel the appearance of the
gang that couldn't shoot straight.
aco...@earthlink.net
That would depend entirely on the quality of the chromatography, which
in turns depends on how much "clean up" or purification is performed
before injecting the sample, how the GC is operated (e.g., oven
program), what type of column is used, how much use has it seen, etc.,
etc., etc. IOW, it's really impossible to say, although 1) those who
use such instruments are clearly aware of this issue, and 2) the
requirement for having a "clean" peak is far greater when using
GC/C/IRMS than it is when using GCMS (which essentially couples two
devices that can isolate materials based on their chemical structure in
tandem). In that regard, GC/C/IRMS is more like classic GC-FID.
Certainly, if you were Landis (or part of his legal team), you'd demand
to see the actual chromatograms from your analysis (pun intended <g>),
rather than just rely on the numbers, i.e., the measured enrichments.
Andy Coggan
Curtis L. Russell
>3) How many sites would be required ? The longer the transport the
>riskier the conservation.
Most commercial shippers offer completely acceptable secure custodial
transports that hold up in both civil and criminal cases, including
across international borders. The per sampl cost wouldn't be high
enough to be an issue IMO. I wouldn't want to pay it for a non-ProTour
or equivalent, but at that level it would be the cost of doing
business.
The sponsor would want it IMO and so would the team, at least for the
riders that would change results and make the news for a week or more.
The riders are in an interesting position, since OOH it could clear
them and provide back-up, but it OOH could also get them kicked off a
team when they missed actual testing anyway. I guess clean riders
would want the test and the dirty riders would not. And the naive ones
that believed the team doctor that they couldn't be caught on the low
dope line will be surpised...
gds
Good answer! and I'll just add that in my experience in measuring T
using GLC the peaks are very sharp and if there is contamination there
is a very visisble and obvious "shoulder." We never experienced a
contaminant that was congruent withthe T peak.
Thomas A. Fine
<mcc...@usa.net> wrote:
>WADA is funding a research study aimed at examining the effect of diet
>on the isotope composition of steroids
>
>http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/b5_2003.pdf
Thank you very much for finding this!
Here's the entire contents of this file (cut and paste didn't work,
I typed it in, so typos are probably mine, grammatical errors are
probably theirs):
PROJECT REVIEW
"Influence for Changes in Diet on the Dynamics of 13C/12C in Selected
Urinary Steroids"
The 13C/12C-ratio of urinary steroids is an accepted parameter to
detect abuse of androgenic anabolic steroids. Significant
differences in 13C/12C between selected reference and target steroids
are regarded as an unequivocal evidence for presense of synthetic
material. However, theoretically this procedure might result in
false positive cases: Significant differences in isotope ratios
might result when isotopic composition of diet changes within a short
period of time and when physiological carbon fluxes to references and
target compounds are of different order of magnitude.
Isotopic composition of diet necessarily changes after transcontinental
travelling due to different contributions of isotopically distinct
carbon sources of diet. On the other hand, few is known concerning
the exchange rates of carbon during steroid biosynthesis.
The aim of the study is to elucidate the dynamics of carbon exchange
in steroid metabolism. This will help to obtain significantly more
insight into the quality of information given by isotope ratio
analysis of urinary steroids.
The study requires systematic variation of isotopic composition of
diet in a longitudinal study with few selected subjects. When
possible, we intend to develop explicit models for the carbon fluxes
in steroid metabolic pathways.
[end of quote]
This means I'm not a whacked-out moron. These scientists are proposing
the study of the EXACT effect that I have claimed is possible - that
diet might be able to affect this test in a short period of time.
Particularly if the target and comparison compounds are formed by
different chemical pathways or at different rates.
This two-year study was started in 2003, and should have been completed
by now. In fact I've found an abstract of the results on line at
this URL:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/gasir2005/GasiR_2005_Program_and_Abstracts.pdf
And this says, in part:
In some subjects a parallel change of 13C/12C could be observed for
all steroids. A close to perfect fit to these data can be achieved by
a one compartment model, where the half lives' magnitudes are
hundreds of hours. However different asymptotic values exist for
different steroids, indicating that significant isotopic
fractionation is present in the respective pathways. No evidence for
time delay could be found here, suggesting that ingested foodstuff
immediately is included into steroid biosynthesis. In contrast some
subjects showed sigmoidal and strongly lagged increase of 13C/12C.
The actual existence of more than one compartment is hereby to be
deduced. Furthermore different steroids exhibited different dynamics,
but the
[THIS PART WAS CROSSED OUT]
delta? DID NOT EXCEED 3 per mil.
[END CROSSED OUT PART]
WOW! Basically, last nights meal CAN IMMEDIATELY affect the carbon-13
ratio, although the speed of the affect varies by subject. Furthermore,
different steroids behave differently, meaning the test target
MIGHT respond more quickly than the comparison steroid, even without
the presumed surge in testosterone production.
And why was that part of the abstract crossed out. Did late results
indicate that the delta COULD exceed 3 per mil? At any rate, I seriously
doubt any of their test subjects were bonking and consuming 8000-10000
calories in a day, so you wouldn't expect the study to show the kind of
swing that an elite athlete could generate.
Here's what we now know for sure: IF he consumed items with significantly
less carbon-13 than usual, then given the likely surge in testosterone
production he exerienced, and the likely massive amount of food that was
cosumed, the EXPECTED result would be a significant shift in his
testosterone delta 13C, compared to a less significant shift in other
natural steroids which did not surge in production.
In other words, the most likely result from mother nature (IF last
night's meal was low in carbon-13) would be a false positive on the
isotope test!!!
I can't think of a more damning indictment of this test! How could
the media not find this?!
But still not a complete slam dunk. We don't have the details on which
steroids this study found reacted more slowly or quickly (although given
the small size of the study (six subjects) and the variation among
subjects, it isn't clear that there would be useful data here).
What did Floyd eat, and was it different than usual?
We know he consumed beer and whiskey. What is the delta 13C of these
items. The whiskey is particularly tantalizing, since (some?) whiskies
are distilled, a process which is likely to discrimintate one way or
another with respect to carbon-12 and carbon-13.
tom
Bob in CT
Tests like this should not be allowed. A test that gives false positives
based on what you eat is just ludicrous.
--
Bob in CT
gds
You are the inquiring mind and are crowing about a study of 10 people
that has not yet been published and replicated.
But it is an interesting hypothesis and clearly if studies show that
various food ingestiion patterns impact the results of the test then
the validity will become an open question.
If the Landis camp wants to go back to the beer/Jack Daniels defense
I'm sure those authors would be happy to redo their test based on
consuming those beverages--assuming the study is funded of course.
aco...@earthlink.net
I believe that the words weren't meant to be crossed out, but instead
to be underlined, thus adding further emphasis (along with the use of
ALL CAPS) to the conclusion that the current anti-doping "cut-off" is
still sufficient to avoid false negatives.
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
BTW, note that the subjects in this study were on a cholesterol-free
diet for 28 d before any measurements were made. It would obviously be
more difficult to detect differential changes in 13C natural abundance
in various steroids in someone consuming meat, since the contribution
of de novo synthesis would be diminished.
Andy Coggan
aco...@earthlink.net
...while measurements were made.
Andy Coggan
Curtis L. Russell
What is the statisitcal probability that anyone in their right mind
would scan this far down a post, never mind actually read this far
down, to ever see this addition?
And statistically, does 'people in their right mind' rise to the level
of a measurable population group on rbr? Or is that not statistics
anyway?
Just wondering. Friday afternoon, dead from a long week and ready to
order a pizza from Ledos to pick up on the way and go home...
Thomas A. Fine
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>acog...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I believe that the words weren't meant to be crossed out, but instead
>> to be underlined, thus adding further emphasis (along with the use of
>> ALL CAPS) to the conclusion that the current anti-doping "cut-off" is
>> still sufficient to avoid false negatives.
>>
>> Andy Coggan
>
>BTW, note that the subjects in this study were on a cholesterol-free
>diet for 28 d before any measurements were made. It would obviously be
>more difficult to detect differential changes in 13C natural abundance
>in various steroids in someone consuming meat, since the contribution
>of de novo synthesis would be diminished.
>
>Andy Coggan
>
And what effect on the test would there be if you were consuming and
metabolizing 8000-10000 calories a day? What effect would there
be if the subject had signifcantly depleted their energy stores
the previous day (bonked)? What effect would there be if there was a
significant surge in production of a natural steroid after a shift in diet?
These are also things that are all likely well outside of the parameters
of the test subjects, and it seems they would all skew towards exagerating
the comparison of delta 13C in testosterone and the baseline steroid.
tom
gds
Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> >
>
> And what effect on the test would there be if you were consuming and
> metabolizing 8000-10000 calories a day? What effect would there
> be if the subject had signifcantly depleted their energy stores
> the previous day (bonked)? What effect would there be if there was a
> significant surge in production of a natural steroid after a shift in diet?
>
> These are also things that are all likely well outside of the parameters
> of the test subjects, and it seems they would all skew towards exagerating
> the comparison of delta 13C in testosterone and the baseline steroid.
>
> tom
Don't know! And neither do you. Why do you conclude there would be any
skewing or that you know what direction it might take.
Look if you arguing that there is a lot of stuff in the world that is
still to be understood I agree 100%. But to simply rant that if you
don't know xyz you can't make any judgements on abc just isn't so. All
the judgements we make is based on current knowledge; and I don't see
how it can be any other way. Sure, future research will show that we
got some stuff wrong. But you can't stop living to wait for all the
future results.
Michael Press
Sandy <leu...@free.fr> wrote:
8) Racing needs an expiration date. After M days race
results are official. After N days samples are destroyed.
The NASCAR method is appealing. First across the finish
line is the winner, except in the event of head butting.
Doping tests are used to sanction teams and riders.
--
Michael Press
yeahyeah
Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> And what effect on the test would there be if you were consuming and
> metabolizing 8000-10000 calories a day? What effect would there
> be if the subject had signifcantly depleted their energy stores
> the previous day (bonked)? What effect would there be if there was a
> significant surge in production of a natural steroid after a shift in diet?
>
> These are also things that are all likely well outside of the parameters
> of the test subjects, and it seems they would all skew towards exagerating
> the comparison of delta 13C in testosterone and the baseline steroid.
>
> tom
I'm sure Floyd's lawyers will launch a defense similar to this. And
the answer from CAS will be what it always is when these defenses are
used: YOU SHALL NOT QUESTION THE TEST.
Michael Press
fi...@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Thomas A. Fine) wrote:
> In article <SqSCg.2695$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >"Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> >news:ebg6ib$9cn$1...@news.xmission.com...
> >> We must destroy cycling in order to save it.
> >
> >Unhappily I'm getting that idea concerning the actions of WADA and the UCI.
>
[...]
> WADA would have no interest in preventing leaks - the sooner the news
> hits the fan, the more proactive WADA will appear.
>
> The UCI has to work with WADA, as long as it wants cycling to be in the
> Olympics. I don't think the UCI is enjoying this, but they can't afford
> to be highly critical of WADA, lest it look like they're trying to protect
> cycling by hiding the problems.
My dream is that UCI changes their name to
The World Cycling Federation, then dumps IOC and WADA.
Their public perception would improve dramatically.
--
Michael Press
aco...@earthlink.net
I don't know, but I find top-posting an annoying habit, and so try to
avoid it all costs.
Andy Coggan
Ewoud Dronkert
> I find top-posting an annoying habit, and so try to
> avoid it all costs.
That is of course commendable, but cutting superfluous old text is a
virtue too.
Dave S.
-master cutter
--
E. Dronkert
yeahyeah
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> What is the statisitcal probability that anyone in their right mind
> would scan this far down a post, never mind actually read this far
> down, to ever see this addition?
There are some people who edit the quoted text down to what they're
actually responding to. If you use Google Groups to read the messages,
you can hide the quoted text, but that doesn't work right when people
top post.
the term "right mind" could be interpreted literally like
right-brained, in which case the majority of posters to r.b.r are
probably utilising their right brain (artistic ability) much more than
their analytical left-brain when formulating their posts.
Thomas A. Fine
gds <gary...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Thomas A. Fine wrote:
>> And what effect on the test would there be if you were consuming and
>> metabolizing 8000-10000 calories a day? What effect would there
>> be if the subject had signifcantly depleted their energy stores
>> the previous day (bonked)? What effect would there be if there was a
>> significant surge in production of a natural steroid after a shift in diet?
>>
>> These are also things that are all likely well outside of the parameters
>> of the test subjects, and it seems they would all skew towards exagerating
>> the comparison of delta 13C in testosterone and the baseline steroid.
>>
>> tom
>
>Don't know! And neither do you. Why do you conclude there would be any
>skewing or that you know what direction it might take.
We can reasonably guess. A testosterone surge will mix new testosterone
with previously produced testosterone, biased towards any readings in
the new testosterone since there's more of it. The comparison steroid
that does not surge will not be similarly biased.
Also, in terms of calories consumed, a higher metabolism will eliminate
yesterdays testosterone faster, biasing the results in the athlete
towards showing stronger changes in the short-run, relative to the slower
metabolism of the test subjects.
These aren't random guesses, they're the most logical guesses based on
what I know.
>Look if you arguing that there is a lot of stuff in the world that is
>still to be understood I agree 100%. But to simply rant that if you
>don't know xyz you can't make any judgements on abc just isn't so. All
>the judgements we make is based on current knowledge; and I don't see
>how it can be any other way. Sure, future research will show that we
>got some stuff wrong. But you can't stop living to wait for all the
>future results.
There's times when you have to make decisions based on evidence that
you know to be inadeqate or flawed. Is this really one of those
times? A cyclist's career has been destroyed with a test that looks
like it probably works ok most of the time.
IF Floyd is innocent, then by the time science figures that out, he'll
be too old to compete, and the press will not be very interested at
that late date in restoring his credibility, and even less interested
in some dry science story.
"Probably works ok most of the time" is simply not a good enough
standard where the risk is a cyclist's career and reputation, and the
benefit is... well, what is the benefit? It hasn't given us clean
cycling. It has damaged the reputation of cycling. If the test is
revealed as being innaccurate, it will also damage the reputation of
drug testing.
tom
Donald Munro
> And statistically, does 'people in their right mind' rise to the level
> of a measurable population group on rbr? Or is that not statistics
> anyway?
We're outliers on a Chung chart.
> Just wondering. Friday afternoon, dead from a long week and ready to
> order a pizza from Ledos to pick up on the way and go home...
Better measure the Carbon isotopes in the pizza before you start eating it.
gds
Thomas A. Fine wrote:
>
> "Probably works ok most of the time" is simply not a good enough
> standard where the risk is a cyclist's career and reputation, and the
> benefit is... well, what is the benefit?
I'll agree with the statement but not that the statement represents the
current situatiion. From what I read and hear there is a gnereal
concensus in the scientific community that the test is very good.
Clearly that concnesus is not shared at rbr. But that really doesn't
matter.
As to benefit that can start another debate. There are many who think
it important to run the sport "clean" and thus all dopers need to get
caught and punished. I'm not in that camp. I actually see no moral
difference between using PED's and getting help from a nutritionist.
I'd like to see the PED use come out in the open so that it can be
safer. Athletes have looked for an advantage, legal or otherwise
forever. Prohibition ws tried and abondoned. Human nature is human
nature.
nobody
The problem is WADA and others are not just clinically and scientifically
'doing their jobs' sans emotion.
Let's look at their practices. They have:
1. prematurely outed the athletes to the press prior to completed testing
2. they fail to adequately apologize or publish those whose findings are
reversed.
3. had to reverse some findings due to chemical differences between some
individuals, bacterial contamination, etc. (after already 'declaring' the
rider guilty)
4. seem to view the riders as 'evil dopers' and even those with no positive
tests are seen as 'evil waiting to be caught'.
5. openly dissed riders who have always tested clean 'we know he's dirty'
6. try to admit incompletely controlled 'research tests' many years after
the fact
7. use tests that are not 'ready for prime time' with the rationale that
anything is ok in the 'war against doping in pro cycling'
8. are allowed to use 'innuendo' and 'suspicion' as valid evidence
9. don't permit riders any due process, independent testing, having a
general 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude.
10. won't give out any information on their testing to the riders after the
stages. Why not?
11. will not sanction employees involved in shady practices, will not pull
accreditations of labs who violate protocol or leak results, and, afaik,
won't allow independent examination of the testing protocols.
12. they appear at the door at 7am and during medical emergencies other
inopportune times and demand everything come to a screeching halt while
they get their samples. All this simply because they are allowed to do
out-of-competition testing - they take this as a license to be as rude as
possible.
...I'm sure I left out a few.
Basically they terrorize the athletes and even clean athletes have
mentioned how upset they get when the testing van pulls up outside. It's no
wonder.
This process needs to be more balanced, and to shift in favor of the
athletes, and their safety, away from immediate and premature condemnation.
Of course cheating is bad, but if everyone is cheating (and everyone knows
it) then the results are nearly unchanged. They're cheating the system more
than the other athletes.
Tom Kunich
news:1155311088.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I absolutely agree with you on this subject. The company I worked for
designed and constructed LC columns. The design of these things was
extraordinarily difficult and from column to column the performance varied a
great deal. Some columns might give very sharp peaks and others broad
flattened peaks that ran into the adjoining peaks. There were several
different types of columns as well.
Our chemists would make long and arduous testing procedures to develop tests
in which the peaks would be as sharp as possible as so that the peaks would
be as separate as possible.
And every day I'd sit in there speaking with one of the development chemists
he would be getting calls from chemists all over the world who had never
bothered to run the calibrations series on their own equipment, who had the
tests which were tediously written up ENTIRELY WRONG and who were claiming
that it was our equipment which was faulty.
It is best to understand that chromotography is an artform and those who are
not artists cannot achieve great accuracy.
Tom Kunich
news:jack-112AD5.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
I'm beginning to have the idea that the Olympics are little more than crap
now anyway. Of what use is an Olympics in which professionals compete? What
then of the World Championships in most sports?
The Olympics had a place when they were composed of amateur athletes. But
when professionalism became the name of the game the Olympics became
obsolete.
I'm all for dumping the Olympics, WADA and anything else that smacks of
world domination.
RonSonic
wrote:
>On 11 Aug 2006 11:05:06 -0400, fi...@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Thomas A.
>Fine) wrote:
>
>>WADA would have no interest in preventing leaks - the sooner the news
>>hits the fan, the more proactive WADA will appear.
>
>That's taking the position that WADA has no interest in looking
>professional. If there is the appearance of leaks it is in the long
>term interest of all involved to either ferret out the leak and leaker
>or to dispel any appearance of a leak by demonstrating how it happened
>otherwise.
They don't need to look professional. They have the IOC and it's "authority"
behind them.
>Anything else and even convictions won't dispel the appearance of the
>gang that couldn't shoot straight.
They don't have to care how they look.
Ron
Michael Press
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Ernestine: We don't care. We don't have to. [snort] We're
the Phone Company.
--
Michael Press
benn.t...@hotmail.com
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I'm beginning to have the idea that the Olympics are little more than crap
> now anyway. Of what use is an Olympics in which professionals compete? What
> then of the World Championships in most sports?
>
> The Olympics had a place when they were composed of amateur athletes. But
> when professionalism became the name of the game the Olympics became
> obsolete.
>
> I'm all for dumping the Olympics, WADA and anything else that smacks of
> world domination.
Tell them to throw ice skates in my coffin, cuz hell has frozen over.
Simon Brooke
Oh good. So you'll have a 'World Series' for American cycling to go with
your 'World Series' for basketball and baseball and Nascar racing and
whatever else, and the rest of the world can get on with proper cycling.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.
Raptor
> I'm beginning to have the idea that the Olympics are little more than crap
> now anyway. Of what use is an Olympics in which professionals compete? What
> then of the World Championships in most sports?
>
> The Olympics had a place when they were composed of amateur athletes. But
> when professionalism became the name of the game the Olympics became
> obsolete.
>
> I'm all for dumping the Olympics, WADA and anything else that smacks of
> world domination.
They're just the largest quadrennial international multi-sport festival,
that's all. A few sports have healthy, busy schedules and for them the
Olympics are no big deal. But to the other sports, the Olympics are the
biggest deal.
Amateur or professional, it doesn't make much difference. The current O
charter works better than the old, IMO.
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
Fred Fredburger
> What is the statisitcal probability that anyone in their right mind
> would scan this far down a post, never mind actually read this far
> down, to ever see this addition?
Nil.
> And statistically, does 'people in their right mind' rise to the level
> of a measurable population group on rbr?
If you asked, you already knew the answer.
Howard Kveck
Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
Back in late June, I suggested having a third sample thatthe team could hold on
to. You mentioned a few reasons why it might be problematic to do this (most of
which I agree with, btw):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ef440b0514ad40d3?hl=en&
It does look like more people are thinking it might be a reasonable thing to do,
at least as evidenced by this thread. I think it'd still be hard to decide who holds
the samples as riders swap teams. Perhaps the thing to do is mandate that the
samples (*all* of them, including the ones the UCI and co. have) are destroyed after
one year (or some other convenient time span) from the time they're taken. To me,
it'd be ridiculous to be changing results too long after an event has been run via a
new testing technique.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?