Marion Jones B sample negative for EPO
Tom_A
So much for "unassailable" tests...
Do you think Dicky P. will apologize?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Aren't you the comedian! No, if Dick Pound says anything,
he will say how this shows the fairness and due process
of the Anti-Doping Crusade, neglecting to mention his
previous excommunication of the heretic Jones.
Later, his consigliere will have the head of the lab
taken out and shot.
Ben
ST
1157598676.4...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Tom_A"
<thean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No shit........
Where are all the crackpots who said the test was always right??
Artoi
"Tom_A" <thean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
She should let us all know what's the regime that beat the test! ;)
--
Bucky
Here's my questions:
- Is there any difference between A and B samples? i.e. are they
collected at the same time?
- If A sample is positive and B sample is negative, why is the athlete
cleared? Maybe the B test was inaccurate.
Tom_A
Bucky wrote:
> This will probably help the public perception of Floyd Landis slightly.
> Here's my questions:
>
> - Is there any difference between A and B samples? i.e. are they
> collected at the same time?
Same sample, split into 2 parts.
>
> - If A sample is positive and B sample is negative, why is the athlete
> cleared? Maybe the B test was inaccurate.
'cuz dems da rules!
The purpose of the B test is obviously to reduce the chance that a
false positive in the first test will unduly "convict" an athlete. Of
course, those rules were written at a time when the testers actually
considered there may BE false positives...
Artoi
"Bucky" <uw_ba...@email.com> wrote:
> This will probably help the public perception of Floyd Landis slightly.
> Here's my questions:
>
> - Is there any difference between A and B samples? i.e. are they
> collected at the same time?
Yes, from the same collection sample.
> - If A sample is positive and B sample is negative, why is the athlete
> cleared? Maybe the B test was inaccurate.
To give athlete the benefit of the doubt. The testing on Sample A may be
wrong, and then again, Sample B test may also be wrong.
The hard part is to establish the cut off point for positive and
negative results. Obviously it's based on probability as all biological
tests. So if you are good and keep that whatever level on the border,
then you may easily get a split result b/n the two samples.
--
Donald Munro
> Later, his consigliere will have the head of the lab
> taken out and shot.
Does Putin's old company give correspondence courses ?
raylopez99
refrigerated properly will result in the hormone ratios being skewed
and causing a false positive, but I am at a loss to explain why the A
and B samples came out differently. Perhaps the tests are
hypersensitive.
Just to be Devil's Advocate, statistically there is a very small chance
that the second test is wrong, but to prove something with 100%
certainty would require a "C" sample, then a "D" sample to check the
"C" sample, ad infinidem.
RL
Simon Brooke
('uw_ba...@email.com') wrote:
> This will probably help the public perception of Floyd Landis slightly.
> Here's my questions:
>
> - Is there any difference between A and B samples? i.e. are they
> collected at the same time?
Yes. You pee into one single container, and then some of the content is
poured into each of two containers, which are immediately sealed; these
are the 'A' and 'B' samples. They should be identical, since they came
out of the same pot.
> - If A sample is positive and B sample is negative, why is the athlete
> cleared? Maybe the B test was inaccurate.
One of the tests has to have been inaccurate, because the samples should
be identical. If one of the tests is inaccurate, the athlete gets the
benefit of the doubt.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker
B. Lafferty
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1157600820.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Tom_A wrote:
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15455119.htm
>>
>>
>> So much for "unassailable" tests...
>>
>> Do you think Dicky P. will apologize?
>
> Aren't you the comedian! No, if Dick Pound says anything,
> he will say how this shows the fairness and due process
> of the Anti-Doping Crusade, neglecting to mention his
> previous excommunication of the heretic Jones.
It does show that one aspect of the system works. Whether or no Jones runs
clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
JessicaG
"Tom_A" <thean...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157598676.4...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15455119.htm
>
>
> So much for "unassailable" tests...
>
> Do you think Dicky P. will apologize?
>
To state the obvious, the EPO tests are different from the testosterone
tests.
Robert Chung
> "Tom_A" wrote
>>
>> So much for "unassailable" tests...
>>
>> Do you think Dicky P. will apologize?
>
> To state the obvious, the EPO tests are different from the testosterone
> tests.
Right. The testosterone tests are unassailable.
cr...@hotmail.com
Tom_A wrote:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15455119.htm
>
>
> So much for "unassailable" tests...
That made me realize another reason to have a different lab doing the
test on the B sample. If the same lab comes up with 2 different results
it makes them look incompetent. There's tremendous pressure on the lab
never to have 2 different results or they may lose their contract.
Bruce Gilbert
<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157638035....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
That may not be too far from reality...
Bruce
Robert Chung
>
> It does show that one aspect of the system works.
"Well," said my sister, "at least now we know the airbags work."
Tom_A
You're right...the EPO tests can actually detect (rather than merely
just infer) the presence of the synthetic version of the chemical.
My "unassailable" comment was also directed at P-Dicky's statements
about the validity of the *experimental* version of the EPO test used
on the '99 TDF samples.
aco...@earthlink.net
> Tom_A wrote:
> > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15455119.htm
> >
> > So much for "unassailable" tests...
>
> That made me realize another reason to have a different lab doing the
> test on the B sample. If the same lab comes up with 2 different results
> it makes them look incompetent.
How's this for irony?
(I was just going to post that Catlin was recently quoted about the
Landis situation as saying something to the effect that "I can't recall
the last time we had an A sample that was non-negative followed by a B
sample that wasn't." However, when I did a quick PubMed search to make
certain I was spelling his name correctly, I came across the above
article.)
Andy Coggan
photos...@gmail.com
Of course not. More likely, he'll point-out something along the lines
of the high standard required to produce what they call a positive
result, and that her b-sample was probably not 100% "clean" either.
Not-guilty versus innocent.
What we do not see, are the cases where it is likely that a doper has
been discovered, but their A-sample just missed the numbers required
for a positive. I'll bet that there has been a lot of near-miss
situations
amit....@gmail.com
aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
> (I was just going to post that Catlin was recently quoted about the
> Landis situation as saying something to the effect that "I can't recall
> the last time we had an A sample that was non-negative followed by a B
> sample that wasn't." However, when I did a quick PubMed search to make
> certain I was spelling his name correctly, I came across the above
> article.)
guidi (phonak) recently dodged a bullet when his A sample was non-neg.
for EPO but the B sample came back clear.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> runs clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
Or not. There shouldn't have been a leak in the first place, and it should
have been up to the athlete to choose whether to reveal to positive A sample
test or not. To say that the system "works" requires that its intentions are
achieved. One of those intentions is (supposedly) to not accuse athletes
unfairly. That intent was not achieved in this case.
Never mind that many/most may continue to believe that Marion Jones is
guilty based on all manner of other circumstantial evidence. That's not
supposed to come into play; this isn't ice-dancing, after all, where a
performance is based upon not just what's in front of you, but their history
as well (which never made much sense to me...).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:UkTLg.16254$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Alex
B. Lafferty wrote:
> It does show that one aspect of the system works. Whether or no Jones runs
> clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
It also shows it is possible for mistakes to be made during testing.
---------------------
Alex
Alex
Bucky wrote:
> This will probably help the public perception of Floyd Landis slightly.
> Here's my questions:
>
> - Is there any difference between A and B samples? i.e. are they
> collected at the same time?
Same time. Basically you pee in a cup and then they split the pee into
two
samples
> - If A sample is positive and B sample is negative, why is the athlete
> cleared? Maybe the B test was inaccurate.
Those are the rules. Here in the US we like to give the benefit of the
doubt to the
accused. It is up to the accuser to prove guilt. Unfortunately
because of some
dick, some athletes have been forced to prove their innocense.
-------------------
Alex
Alex
> test on the B sample. If the same lab comes up with 2 different results
> it makes them look incompetent. There's tremendous pressure on the lab
> never to have 2 different results or they may lose their contract.
That's one reason why the lab should never know who the sample belongs
to. You don't want them to try to get the same results. They should
be performing the test the same on every sample.
-------------------
Alex
wsc...@udel.edu
> Same time. Basically you pee in a cup and then they split the pee into
> two
> samples
Actually only the athlete handles the urine/containers until they are
sealed to avoid any chance of sabotage. "They" don't handle the
samples until they are sealed.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> > Aren't you the comedian! No, if Dick Pound says anything,
> > he will say how this shows the fairness and due process
> > of the Anti-Doping Crusade, neglecting to mention his
> > previous excommunication of the heretic Jones.
>
> It does show that one aspect of the system works. Whether or no Jones runs
> clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
Counselor,
As you well know, even a guilty woman can be framed,
or tried prejudicially in the press. The anti-doping testocracy
is supposed to bust people based on the results of tests, not
on your or my suspicions.
A person of suspicions might further argue that an anti-doping
apparatus that can't even bust Marion Jones, much less fail
to bust her and manage to look bad in the process, is an enterprise
which serves neither an enforcement nor a deterrent function,
and is in need of institutional overhaul.
Ben
dbrower
>
>, if Dick Pound says anything,
> he will say how this shows the fairness and due process
> of the Anti-Doping Crusade, neglecting to mention his
> previous excommunication of the heretic Jones.
>
> Later, his consigliere will have the head of the lab
> taken out and shot.
Chosen as the quote of the day on http://trustbut.blogspot.com, my
rundown
of Landis-related news.
In a followup, Smarmy Dick has sent the consigliere out, according to
the AP quote:
World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound said "EPO is open to
interpretation."
"Maybe the first one was made too hastily," the Montreal lawyer said
in a phone interview Thursday with The Associated Press. "You wouldn't
think there would be variations between the amount in sample A and
sample B. I'm sure there will be some explanation forthcoming from the
lab or from USADA.
"I think the test is good, you just have to know how to read it."
-dB
William Asher
> A person of suspicions might further argue that an anti-doping
> apparatus that can't even bust Marion Jones, much less fail
> to bust her and manage to look bad in the process, is an enterprise
> which serves neither an enforcement nor a deterrent function,
> and is in need of institutional overhaul.
Or a *really* suspicious person would argue that an anti-doping apparatus
performing all of the above functions is doing precisely what its operators
intend it to do and therefore will never be overhauled. Cancer man
suggested that to me.
--
Bill Asher
ilan
believe that these
meets should be open, just like the Tour de France, in the sense that
top rated
athletes cannot be turned away at the organiser's discretion.
-ilan
B. Lafferty
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:UEYLg.8626$yO7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> It does show that one aspect of the system works. Whether or no Jones
>> runs clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
>
> Or not. There shouldn't have been a leak in the first place, and it should
> have been up to the athlete to choose whether to reveal to positive A
> sample test or not. To say that the system "works" requires that its
> intentions are achieved. One of those intentions is (supposedly) to not
> accuse athletes unfairly. That intent was not achieved in this case.
>
> Never mind that many/most may continue to believe that Marion Jones is
> guilty based on all manner of other circumstantial evidence. That's not
> supposed to come into play; this isn't ice-dancing, after all, where a
> performance is based upon not just what's in front of you, but their
> history as well (which never made much sense to me...).
The only issue here for me is the leaking of her name. If it was done by a
official of her federation, WADA or the lab, that is clearly wrong.
Sometimes the admission that the a test came up positive comes from the
athlete or his/her team. Just ask Floyd.
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:UkTLg.16254$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> news:1157600820.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Tom_A wrote:
>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15455119.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> So much for "unassailable" tests...
>>>
>>> Do you think Dicky P. will apologize?
>>
>> Aren't you the comedian! No, if Dick Pound says anything,
>> he will say how this shows the fairness and due process
>> of the Anti-Doping Crusade, neglecting to mention his
>> previous excommunication of the heretic Jones.
>
> It does show that one aspect of the system works. Whether or no Jones
> runs clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
Of course, there is always a possibility that between test A and test B,
some money changed hands. It already happened when athletes were earning a
mere pittance, so why wouldn't it happen now?
Benjo
B. Lafferty
<aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1157645129....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20060729-9999-1s29landis.html
Going back to 1984 would seem to mean he is referring, perhaps, to
testosterone testing. But, that isn't clear from his quoted comments. The
pub med link pertains to epo testing.
dusto...@mac.com
> It does show that one aspect of the system works.
It shows the tests are unreliable.
> Whether or no Jones runs
> clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
Whether anyone is doping or not doping is a very open question because
the tests are unreliable.
Since the police, not the tests, are implicating dopers in by far the
larger part, the tests are unreliable both when they are positive and
when they are negative. Hardly just cause for ending careers.
Just how bad the situation is will be revealed when Dick Pound's
statements IRT this negative B test do not, as ever, contain a trace of
humility. Of course, he's had a big ol' boner for Marion Jones ever
since she stood up to him (her apt "kangaroo court" comment) in the
media. Personal grudges? Always a factor with Pound, going back to his
failure to medal in the '60 Olympics (the guys who beat him were
doping. Or maybe they were just doping better than him? <g>) --D-y
B. Lafferty
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1157655461.2...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>
>> > Aren't you the comedian! No, if Dick Pound says anything,
>> > he will say how this shows the fairness and due process
>> > of the Anti-Doping Crusade, neglecting to mention his
>> > previous excommunication of the heretic Jones.
>>
>> It does show that one aspect of the system works. Whether or no Jones
>> runs
>> clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
>
> Counselor,
>
> As you well know, even a guilty woman can be framed,
> or tried prejudicially in the press. The anti-doping testocracy
> is supposed to bust people based on the results of tests, not
> on your or my suspicions.
Which is why she hasn't been busted. Any evedice that she was framed or is
that just unsupported speculation on your part?
>
> A person of suspicions might further argue that an anti-doping
> apparatus that can't even bust Marion Jones, much less fail
> to bust her and manage to look bad in the process, is an enterprise
> which serves neither an enforcement nor a deterrent function,
> and is in need of institutional overhaul.
You might argue that. It depends on who leaked the news of the a sample
positive. I have't been folllowing her case closely enough to know the
answer to that. I wouldn't say the drug testing authorities look bad not
catching all cheaters. Cheats tend to be ahead of the testing curve. What
you can say is that some federations are less agressive than others in
searching out the ceats within their sports.
>
> Ben
>
Tom_A
aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
> How's this for irony?
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16926300&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> (I was just going to post that Catlin was recently quoted about the
> Landis situation as saying something to the effect that "I can't recall
> the last time we had an A sample that was non-negative followed by a B
> sample that wasn't." However, when I did a quick PubMed search to make
> certain I was spelling his name correctly, I came across the above
> article.)
>
> Andy Coggan
Doh! I wonder if he can make revisions to the paper at this
point.....especially the title :-)
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1157659590....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> It does show that one aspect of the system works.
>
> It shows the tests are unreliable.
Explain how that is.
>
>> Whether or no Jones runs
>> clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
>
> Whether anyone is doping or not doping is a very open question because
> the tests are unreliable.
Interesting assertion. Do give your detailed opinion why to WADA and USA
T&F.
>
> Since the police, not the tests, are implicating dopers in by far the
> larger part, the tests are unreliable both when they are positive and
> when they are negative. Hardly just cause for ending careers.
>
> Just how bad the situation is will be revealed when Dick Pound's
> statements IRT this negative B test do not, as ever, contain a trace of
> humility. Of course, he's had a big ol' boner for Marion Jones ever
> since she stood up to him (her apt "kangaroo court" comment) in the
> media. Personal grudges? Always a factor with Pound, going back to his
> failure to medal in the '60 Olympics (the guys who beat him were
> doping. Or maybe they were just doping better than him? <g>) --D-y
Yada, yada, yada..............
>
Frank Drackman
"dbrower" <dbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound said "EPO is open to
> interpretation."
>
> "Maybe the first one was made too hastily," the Montreal lawyer said
> in a phone interview Thursday with The Associated Press. "You wouldn't
> think there would be variations between the amount in sample A and
> sample B. I'm sure there will be some explanation forthcoming from the
> lab or from USADA.
>
> "I think the test is good, you just have to know how to read it."
>
This reminds me of the "I know pornography when I see it" standard.
Michael Press
<1157656348.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"dbrower" <dbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
What happened is that their chief reader,
Karnak the Magnificent, was on vacation.
--
Michael Press
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> > As you well know, even a guilty woman can be framed,
> > or tried prejudicially in the press. The anti-doping testocracy
> > is supposed to bust people based on the results of tests, not
> > on your or my suspicions.
>
> Which is why she hasn't been busted. Any evedice that she was framed or is
> that just unsupported speculation on your part?
Well, her test result was leaked and she was tried and
convicted in the press. I don't believe the original test
result was faked (I have no way of knowing either way)
but that her result was enthusiastically leaked because
of her past history and Pound and others' obvious mission
to get her. That, to my mind, is framing.
For example, although Richard Jewell (the Atlanta security
guard) was never tried or convicted of a crime, I think what
happened to him was framing. The analogy is imperfect
since Jones is a semi-privileged athlete and quite likely
an actual doper, while Jewell was a straight-up innocent
putz in the wrong place. However, the system is supposed
to give even guilty people due process.
> >
> > A person of suspicions might further argue that an anti-doping
> > apparatus that can't even bust Marion Jones, much less fail
> > to bust her and manage to look bad in the process, is an enterprise
> > which serves neither an enforcement nor a deterrent function,
> > and is in need of institutional overhaul.
>
> You might argue that. It depends on who leaked the news of the a sample
> positive. I have't been folllowing her case closely enough to know the
> answer to that. I wouldn't say the drug testing authorities look bad not
> catching all cheaters. Cheats tend to be ahead of the testing curve. What
> you can say is that some federations are less agressive than others in
> searching out the ceats within their sports.
When the testing authorities are catching people at
random, more or less, and it seems there's no guarantee
that as one dopes more, the odds of getting caught go up
(unless you're as clumsy as Tyler), then testing isn't a
deterrent. When the athletes get excluded from events,
condemned in public and so on with no positive or with
an A sample only, an athlete could very well think "Why not
dope? If my number comes up they'll do me anyway."
I don't _support_ this. I'm not _for_ dope. I'd like to
see the enforcement types act in a way that _deters_
doping.
Ben
B. Lafferty
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1157670922.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> > As you well know, even a guilty woman can be framed,
>> > or tried prejudicially in the press. The anti-doping testocracy
>> > is supposed to bust people based on the results of tests, not
>> > on your or my suspicions.
>>
>> Which is why she hasn't been busted. Any evedice that she was framed or
>> is
>> that just unsupported speculation on your part?
>
> Well, her test result was leaked and she was tried and
> convicted in the press.
Who leaked it? Afrench employee in Catlin's lab? Seriouly, who leaked the
result?
> I don't believe the original test
> result was faked (I have no way of knowing either way)
> but that her result was enthusiastically leaked because
> of her past history and Pound and others' obvious mission
> to get her. That, to my mind, is framing.
It's not framing, regardless of what you chose to think. Framing involves
seting someone up with false, incriminating evidence.
>
> For example, although Richard Jewell (the Atlanta security
> guard) was never tried or convicted of a crime, I think what
> happened to him was framing. The analogy is imperfect
> since Jones is a semi-privileged athlete and quite likely
> an actual doper, while Jewell was a straight-up innocent
> putz in the wrong place. However, the system is supposed
> to give even guilty people due process.
I agree, bad analogy.
>
>> >
>> > A person of suspicions might further argue that an anti-doping
>> > apparatus that can't even bust Marion Jones, much less fail
>> > to bust her and manage to look bad in the process, is an enterprise
>> > which serves neither an enforcement nor a deterrent function,
>> > and is in need of institutional overhaul.
>>
>> You might argue that. It depends on who leaked the news of the a sample
>> positive. I have't been folllowing her case closely enough to know the
>> answer to that. I wouldn't say the drug testing authorities look bad not
>> catching all cheaters. Cheats tend to be ahead of the testing curve.
>> What
>> you can say is that some federations are less agressive than others in
>> searching out the ceats within their sports.
>
> When the testing authorities are catching people at
> random, more or less, and it seems there's no guarantee
> that as one dopes more, the odds of getting caught go up
> (unless you're as clumsy as Tyler), then testing isn't a
> deterrent.
Random?? Testng isn't a deterrant if you think you won't get caught. That
does seem to be the case if Operation Puerto is any indication.
> When the athletes get excluded from events,
> condemned in public and so on with no positive or with
> an A sample only, an athlete could very well think "Why not
> dope? If my number comes up they'll do me anyway."
Lifetime bans for the first offense with penates for suppliers and ppossible
teams might give some athletes a different viewpoint.
> I don't _support_ this. I'm not _for_ dope. I'd like to
> see the enforcement types act in a way that _deters_
> doping.
I doubt that deterrance has anthing to do with the way the authorities
act--except for the immediate fallout from major busts. Deterrance is not a
major motvator in the face of big money.
>
> Ben
>
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1157659590....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> >> It does show that one aspect of the system works.
> >
> > It shows the tests are unreliable.
>
> Explain how that is.
If a sample is divided in half, and the same test is used on both
halves with different results, the test is unreliable.
If the test were reliable, it would give the same results every time.
If "the system" is going to end careers as punishment for positive
tests, shouldn't the tests be, say, 100% reliable? How much collateral
damage is OK in the War on People?
"The system"? You mean leaks, and publicity following, that keep B-test
negatives from competing? The system that kicks riders out of races for
code names on lists when its testing is so unreliable that it can't
find positives among the athletes supposedly named by substitution?
> >> Whether or no Jones runs
> >> clean is still a very open question in the minds of many.
> >
> > Whether anyone is doping or not doping is a very open question because
> > the tests are unreliable.
>
> Interesting assertion. Do give your detailed opinion why to WADA and USA
> T&F.
It's a completely logical assertion that doesn't have anything to do
with associations, rumors, "personality conflicts" or anything other
than faulty tests.
> > Since the police, not the tests, are implicating dopers in by far the
> > larger part, the tests are unreliable both when they are positive and
> > when they are negative. Hardly just cause for ending careers.
> >
> > Just how bad the situation is will be revealed when Dick Pound's
> > statements IRT this negative B test do not, as ever, contain a trace of
> > humility. Of course, he's had a big ol' boner for Marion Jones ever
> > since she stood up to him (her apt "kangaroo court" comment) in the
> > media. Personal grudges? Always a factor with Pound, going back to his
> > failure to medal in the '60 Olympics (the guys who beat him were
> > doping. Or maybe they were just doping better than him? <g>) --D-y
>
> Yada, yada, yada..............
It was even worse:
<But Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said: "EPO
is open to interpretation. Maybe the first one was made too hastily.
You wouldn't think there would be variations between the amounts in
sample A and sample B. I'm sure there will be some explanation
forthcoming from the lab or from Usada. I think the test is good, you
just have to know how to read it.">
That's a big "DUH" in my book-- "I don't know much about how these
tests work".
There's one part of the "reliability" right there, by Pound's
admission: "Not all the readers are reliable" ("some of them don't know
how to read too good").
"Too hasty"? Why? Because her sample had been ID'd?
Remembering how it took extra special expert "readers" to find Hamilton
"positive"... IOW, we'll find someone to say this is a positive test,
wink wink nudge nudge since we know who gave the sample, and we think
they're guilty... Is that the way it happened? How extensive is the
leak network here?
If you can't find the cheaters by testing, you're obligating others to
cheat or go home. That's the basic problem here. Don't scapegoat the
athletes; the real fault lies elsewhere. --D-y
Michael Press
<1157676161.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> Remembering how it took extra special expert "readers" to find Hamilton
> "positive"... IOW, we'll find someone to say this is a positive test,
> wink wink nudge nudge since we know who gave the sample, and we think
> they're guilty... Is that the way it happened? How extensive is the
> leak network here?
The place to stop the leaks is at the external urethral
sphincter muscle.
--
Michael Press
Mike Jacoubowsky
Agreed, but in all circumstances it should be the athlete's choice. To me,
such leaks are not a minor issue at all. They threaten the integrity of the
entire process. Leaks occur because someone seeks to gain from doing so in
some manner, and that should be considered to be as flagrant a violation
(meaning punished by civil or criminal courts in a way that's as destructive
to ones livelihood as a two-year suspension might be for an athlete) as the
athlete who's been found guilty of doping.
The process should truly be beyond reproach. It doesn't instill confidence
when it's apparent that people on the inside (of the WADA, labs etc) act as
though they have something to gain by leaking results of a positive test.
Even if it turns out that the leak in this case was more closely related to
the athlete than the testing lab, that doesn't invalidate the need to have
severe penalties in place in the event it was the lab etc who leaked the
information. Accountability, to this admitted outsider to the process,
appears very one-sided.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:NB_Lg.16383$Qf.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> the AP quote:
>
> World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound said "EPO is open to
> interpretation."
>
> "Maybe the first one was made too hastily," the Montreal lawyer said
> in a phone interview Thursday with The Associated Press. "You wouldn't
> think there would be variations between the amount in sample A and
> sample B. I'm sure there will be some explanation forthcoming from the
> lab or from USADA.
>
> "I think the test is good, you just have to know how to read it."
Dick Pound should be on a crusade, both public and private, to find out why
there would be informational leaks in the first place... who is leaking the
info, and what that person or those persons may have to gain from doing so.
Unless he deals with the motivation of such forces currently at work within
the anti-doping complex, he runs the risk of his organizations being
discredited due to conflicts of interest (an incentive to find positive
results that might call into question whether something was actually
positive or not).
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> > Well, her test result was leaked and she was tried and
> > convicted in the press.
>
> Who leaked it? Afrench employee in Catlin's lab? Seriouly, who leaked the
> result?
Who cares? Possibly someone at USATF, more likely that
than Catlin. What is impressive is how Dicky P and company
pronounce their judgments on leaked results without seeming
to think that leaking is a problem. For a lawyer, you seem
unconcerned with the idea that the probably-guilty should
get as fair a shake as the probably-innocent. If nothing else
you should be concerned that it damages the reputation of
the testing apparat.
I doubt that many of the columnists who wrote about what
a cheater Marion Jones was will write public apologies,
but I think they will be more circumspect next time somebody
gets busted, even if the bustee is positive in both A and B.
A little credibility has been lost.
> > When the testing authorities are catching people at
> > random, more or less, and it seems there's no guarantee
> > that as one dopes more, the odds of getting caught go up
> > (unless you're as clumsy as Tyler), then testing isn't a
> > deterrent.
>
> Random?? Testng isn't a deterrant if you think you won't get caught. That
> does seem to be the case if Operation Puerto is any indication.
>
>
> > When the athletes get excluded from events,
> > condemned in public and so on with no positive or with
> > an A sample only, an athlete could very well think "Why not
> > dope? If my number comes up they'll do me anyway."
>
> Lifetime bans for the first offense with penates for suppliers and ppossible
> teams might give some athletes a different viewpoint.
We have four year bans now and it doesn't stop people.
What we need is better and more uniform enforcement,
not spotty enforcement with more draconian penalties.
Benjo posted a while ago about studies which suggest
that crime (real crime, not sports-crime) is deterred more
by increasing the chance of being caught and very little
by increasing penalties. IMO a similar thing exists for,
say, crime in New York: the outrageously stiff penalties
for minor drug offenses never deterred drug use, but the
more-efficient enforcement introduced by police chiefs
Kelly, Bratton etc. is regarded as helping reduce crime.
> > I don't _support_ this. I'm not _for_ dope. I'd like to
> > see the enforcement types act in a way that _deters_
> > doping.
>
> I doubt that deterrance has anthing to do with the way the authorities
> act--except for the immediate fallout from major busts. Deterrance is not a
> major motvator in the face of big money.
Ostensibly, deterring drug use is part of WADA's goal.
I admit I haven't read the charter recently, so maybe it's
not, but then what is WADA's goal?
Simon Brooke
Lafferty ('Ma...@Italia.com') wrote:
> Random?? Testng isn't a deterrant if you think you won't get caught.
> That does seem to be the case if Operation Puerto is any indication.
Operacion Puerto has yet to produce any concrete evidence at all against
any athlete at all. I know the mills of justice grind slow, but it does
begin to look as if there wasn't a lot of meal to grind in the first
place.
I ask yet again: whose blood is in those blood bags? Why has no-one yet
taken Basso up on his offer to be tested? Why are athletes in all
strength and endurance sports not being asked to submit to DNA testing?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed
B. Lafferty
"Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pgi8t3-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <1N2Mg.8716$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, B.
> Lafferty ('Ma...@Italia.com') wrote:
>
>> Random?? Testng isn't a deterrant if you think you won't get caught.
>> That does seem to be the case if Operation Puerto is any indication.
>
> Operacion Puerto has yet to produce any concrete evidence at all against
> any athlete at all. I know the mills of justice grind slow, but it does
> begin to look as if there wasn't a lot of meal to grind in the first
> place.
Until you have read the 500+ page initial report that was given to the UCI,
you are hardly in a position to make any credible conclusion such as you
state.
>
> I ask yet again: whose blood is in those blood bags? Why has no-one yet
> taken Basso up on his offer to be tested? Why are athletes in all
> strength and endurance sports not being asked to submit to DNA testing?
Basso's (and Ullrich's) lawyers have said their clients will not allow
themselves to be tested.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> > Operacion Puerto has yet to produce any concrete evidence at all against
> > any athlete at all. I know the mills of justice grind slow, but it does
> > begin to look as if there wasn't a lot of meal to grind in the first
> > place.
>
> Until you have read the 500+ page initial report that was given to the UCI,
> you are hardly in a position to make any credible conclusion such as you
> state.
I'm not going to read the 500 page report until David Walsh translates
it into French.
Ben
Simon Brooke
Lafferty ('Ma...@Italia.com') wrote:
>
> "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pgi8t3-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>> in message <1N2Mg.8716$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, B.
>> Lafferty ('Ma...@Italia.com') wrote:
>>
>>> Random?? Testng isn't a deterrant if you think you won't get caught.
>>> That does seem to be the case if Operation Puerto is any indication.
>>
>> Operacion Puerto has yet to produce any concrete evidence at all
>> against any athlete at all. I know the mills of justice grind slow,
>> but it does begin to look as if there wasn't a lot of meal to grind in
>> the first place.
>
> Until you have read the 500+ page initial report that was given to the
> UCI, you are hardly in a position to make any credible conclusion such
> as you state.
>>
>> I ask yet again: whose blood is in those blood bags? Why has no-one
>> yet taken Basso up on his offer to be tested? Why are athletes in all
>> strength and endurance sports not being asked to submit to DNA
>> testing?
>
>
> Basso's (and Ullrich's) lawyers have said their clients will not allow
> themselves to be tested.
Chapter and verse, please? Basso has publicly said[1] he /is/ willing to be
tested. If he backs down from that, then I'd be the first to agree it
would be very damaging for his position. When did he back down?
[1] 12th July
Robert Chung
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Until you have read the 500+ page initial report that was given to the
>> UCI, you are hardly in a position to make any credible conclusion such
>> as you state.
>
> I'm not going to read the 500 page report until David Walsh translates
> it into French.
If you wait long enough maybe Pom will scan it in and post it.
B. Lafferty
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep05news2
Michael Press
<1157697261.3...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> I doubt that many of the columnists who wrote about what
> a cheater Marion Jones was will write public apologies,
> but I think they will be more circumspect next time somebody
> gets busted, even if the bustee is positive in both A and B.
> A little credibility has been lost.
A hack for the local fish wrap wrote on the sports page
today that the testing apparatus shot themselves in the
foot, and that the US major league sports governing bodies
are completely justified in remaining independent of
`independent' testing agencies. Granted, the day before in
the same pages some toad eating drum thumper attacked the
head of the Professional Golf Association for saying that
he means to keep drug testing out of that guild.
Do the torch carrying, pitchfork brandishing crowd ever
think that they could walk into the office one morning,
get escorted to the lab, and ordered to deliver a sample?
--
Michael Press
dbrower
> >> Basso's (and Ullrich's) lawyers have said their clients will not allow
> >> themselves to be tested.
> >
> > Chapter and verse, please? Basso has publicly said[1] he /is/ willing to
> > be
> > tested. If he backs down from that, then I'd be the first to agree it
> > would be very damaging for his position. When did he back down?
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep05news2
Simon is a Basso, not Landis fan, and I feel for him, tripping over
this cognitively dissonant situation. Basso is doing a major PR
footbullet here, unless he ignores his legal advice and does the DNA
test anyway.
When I started following Landis, I asked myself, "What would he have to
do,
and how would he have to act to legally answer an incorrect accusation,
and vindicate himself to the public?" So far, Landis has not done
anything significantly inconsistant with what I have imagined, and
we'll know much more on Monday.
Basso hiding behing the lawyer on the DNA test is exactly the wrong
thing to do to preserve his public reputation. If he gets off, maybe
some people will care, and maybe some won't, but it is not as good for
him as a clear vindication.
Do the test, man.
-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
Fred Fredburger
Until it's translated into Tagalog, it isn't relevant.
Bob Schwartz
> Basso hiding behing the lawyer on the DNA test is exactly the wrong
> thing to do to preserve his public reputation. If he gets off, maybe
> some people will care, and maybe some won't, but it is not as good for
> him as a clear vindication.
>
> Do the test, man.
Unless its his blood in the bag. Then he's doing the right thing
by making the offer and then hiding behind his lawyer.
They found a shitload o' blood. It belongs to somebody. They
threw out Tyler's stash a long time ago. Without treading on
the presumption of innocence I think it is safe to conclude that
somebody besides soccer players is guilty.
Bob Schwartz
Donald Munro
> If you wait long enough maybe Pom will scan it in and post it.
Not likely unless you can persuade him of the relevance of the report to
capitalism and the free market.
Donald Munro
> I think it is safe to conclude that somebody besides soccer players is
> guilty.
Dumbass,
Soccer players can't dope, they get tested all the time.
Ron Ruff
> Do the torch carrying, pitchfork brandishing crowd ever
> think that they could walk into the office one morning,
> get escorted to the lab, and ordered to deliver a sample?
I've worked at places where this certainly happened... once to me.
Andre
I believe sample A was correct. Sample B came back negative because
deals were made, and money was exchanged.She's been doping for 7 years.
dbrower
dumbass,
cyclists don't dope! /They/ get tested all the time!
Waaaaa!
-dB
Donald Munro
>> Dumbass,
>> Soccer players can't dope, they get tested all the time.
dbrower wrote:
> cyclists don't dope! /They/ get tested all the time!
Now I'm feeling sheepish.
RonSonic
Alex
> Basso's (and Ullrich's) lawyers have said their clients will not allow
> themselves to be tested.
Which makes perfect sense. It is upto the accuser to prove guilt, not
the other way around.
------------------
Alex
B. Lafferty
"Alex" <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:1158086049....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Most jurisdictions consider DNA (bodily fluids in general) to be evidentiary
material that a prosecutor may obtain by court order if reasonable cause is
shown. Thus, the accused's bodily fluids can be use by the prosecution to
meet the prosecution's burden of proof.
Robert Chung
>>
>>> Basso's (and Ullrich's) lawyers have said their clients will not allow
>>> themselves to be tested.
>>
>> Which makes perfect sense. It is upto the accuser to prove guilt, not
>> the other way around.
>
> evidentiary material that a prosecutor may obtain by court order if
> reasonable cause is shown. Thus, the accused's bodily fluids can be
> use by the prosecution to meet the prosecution's burden of proof.
Well, then there's no reason for Basso or Ullrich to offer themselves up
for testing. The prosecutor can obtain a court order.