Testing reliability

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C

Key words; preliminary, field test

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C

Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C

Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field
test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects
(guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot for
possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in
and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the
field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with
white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in
bulk. ;-)

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825303.800
>
> A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
> and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
> SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
> is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
> the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
> give positive results when no cocaine is present.
>
> The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
> preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.
>
> Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
> tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
> restricted peer review.
> Bill C
>

Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field
test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects
(guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot for
possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in
and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the
field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with
white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in
bulk. ;-)

Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation. The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825303.800
> >
> > A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some
> > samples,
> > and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
> > SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for
> > cocaine
> > is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only
> > does
> > the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also
> > wrongly
> > give positive results when no cocaine is present.
> >
> > The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as
> > a
> > preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.
> >
> > Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new
> > WADA
> > tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
> > restricted peer review.
> > Bill C
> >
>
> Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field
test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects
(guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot
for
possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in
and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the
field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with
white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in
bulk. ;-)

Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation.

Because a test for one substance, and a field test for police no less, turns
out to have questionable accuracy, doesn not mean that an unrelated test
necessarily suffers from a defect. You're trying to say that the orange is
in this basket over here is rotten, therefore the apples in the basket over
there are probably rotten as well.

Question the EPO test but don't try to show unreliabilty by comparison to an
unrelated test in another field of endeavor.

Quoted message said:

The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation. The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not. That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
---------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation. The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not. That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
---------------
Alex

Brian the point is that unless something is thoroughly and openly
tested and reviewed before declaring it accurate there's a good chance
people are going to get screwed badly. The cocaine test was accepted as
accurate for years, apparently, because it hadn't been subjected to
serious independent scrutiny. Luckily there was a backup for that test
so that it wasn't the only thing being used to convict people. With the
EPO test there is no second test to verify the first. It's totally
disingenuous to claim that the results form the EPO test are valid
because a few limited scientists connected to the people doing the
prosecution say it's accurate, despite all the questions raised by
other reliable scientists.
Blind faith, or a small scale evaluation does NOT make a test
accurate, unfortunately the coke test was accepted, and so is the epo
test being accepted.
Just because they can find some expert witnesses to say it's accurate
doesn't make it accurate, or for that matter inaccurate. Until it's
proven IMO it should be suspended.
I think Alex is right on the money in that they were desperate for a
tool to nail riders on EPO and they don't really give a [censored] about the
accuracy as long as they are able to get some results to crow about. I
totally disagree with you that it's perfectly OK to force the athlete
into endless guilty until proven innocent appeals based on this test.
Bill C
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

Quoted message said:

That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways. To get back to the initial field test on cocaine, it is not the test
that is used in court to meet the prosecution's burden of proof. The formal
lab test with evidentiary chain of custody intact must be used at trial.

Quoted message said:

---------------
Alex

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

Quoted message said:

That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways.

Quoted message said:

OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate the
test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
"Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where have
we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if
the
test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

Quoted message said:

That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways.

Quoted message said:

OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate the
test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
"Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where have
we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
Bill C

My understanding is that all of that information was provided to Tyler
Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
>
> The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if
> the
> test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

> That forces the accused to try to prove their
> innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so
> they
> have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways.

>

OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate the
test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
"Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where have
we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
Bill C

My understanding is that all of that information was provided to Tyler
Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.

I meant to say Bekke(sp?), assuming we're confining ourselves to the EPO
test for the moment.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> >
> > The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if
> > the
> > test is accurate or not.
>
> I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
>
> > That forces the accused to try to prove their
> > innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so
> > they
> > have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
>
> Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
> authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
> then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
> ways.
>
> >
OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate the
test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
"Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where have
we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
Bill C

My understanding is that all of that information was provided to Tyler
Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.

I meant to say Bekke(sp?), assuming we're confining ourselves to the EPO
test for the moment.

Quoted message said:

I'll have to do more digging. My understanding was that one of the
reasons for the delays in Hamilton's appeal was that they had not
provided the detailed, in-depth information needed to scientifically
evaluate the testing system that Hamilton had requested. Everything
I've seen says that they are refusing to give out the detailed info on
the EPO test that would allow an independent agency totally unconnected
to either wada or the UCI to evaluate it reasonably. Instead they trot
out their experts, and say that THEY are further evaluating it or it
has d to be done at a wada accredited lab. I am not willing to take
anything as sole reliable evidence from a lab who's seriously
financially and politically connected to the people being investigated
who have a well known position. Can you say rubber stamp for cash? I
don't believe the drug companies' labs, and that's been a good thing
when their claims have been independently studied, same for Wada.
If Wada had independent verification of their testing they'd be
trumpeting it in response to all the questions being raised about the
testing. Lord knows they shoot their mouths off on everything else with
no regard for cases in process. Giving your bosses and money people
results to keep the money coming in, even if the results are
questionable isn't exactly unheard of. There have been plenty of things
in science that didn't quite turn out to be what was claimed at first.
That's why the open peer review system is so important and I have seen
no evidence of them allowing that in any of the doping testing cases.
If you can show me some cases of where they have farmed out studies on
the testing to objective outside institutions with no Wada control I
will give you the argument. I have no problem with Wada observers, as I
have none with riders observers, but I do question research done under
their control.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>> > In article <[email hidden]>,
>> >
>> > The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care
>> > if
>> > the
>> > test is accurate or not.
>>
>> I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
>>
>> > That forces the accused to try to prove their
>> > innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so
>> > they
>> > have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
>>
>> Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
>> authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant
>> may
>> then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of
>> possible
>> ways.
>>
>> >
> OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
> of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate
> the
> test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
> "Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
> to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where
> have
> we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
> Bill C
>
My understanding is that all of that information was provided to Tyler
Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.

I meant to say Bekke(sp?), assuming we're confining ourselves to the EPO
test for the moment.

Quoted message said:

I'll have to do more digging. My understanding was that one of the
reasons for the delays in Hamilton's appeal was that they had not
provided the detailed, in-depth information needed to scientifically
evaluate the testing system that Hamilton had requested. Everything
I've seen says that they are refusing to give out the detailed info on
the EPO test that would allow an independent agency totally unconnected
to either wada or the UCI to evaluate it reasonably.

As to Hamilton, we discussed the discovery aspects of arbitration here last
year. IIRC, WADA/USDA was required to provide the date several days before
the beginning of the arbitration, which they apparently did. As to the EPO,
it seems to me that there must be knowledge of the test spcifics
in-as-much-as Bekke was able to show that his body dumping protein under
endurance stress could mess up the test and that he was one of the rare
athletes to do that..

Quoted message said:

Instead they trot
out their experts, and say that THEY are further evaluating it or it
has d to be done at a wada accredited lab. I am not willing to take
anything as sole reliable evidence from a lab who's seriously
financially and politically connected to the people being investigated
who have a well known position. Can you say rubber stamp for cash? I
don't believe the drug companies' labs, and that's been a good thing
when their claims have been independently studied, same for Wada.

I think your cynicism is moving in the direction of paramoia. :-) Remember,
we're talking about national labs and well respected university labs. Of
course you never know. Maybe Don Caitlin is on the take. ;-)

Quoted message said:

If Wada had independent verification of their testing they'd be
trumpeting it in response to all the questions being raised about the
testing. Lord knows they shoot their mouths off on everything else with
no regard for cases in process. Giving your bosses and money people
results to keep the money coming in, even if the results are
questionable isn't exactly unheard of. There have been plenty of things
in science that didn't quite turn out to be what was claimed at first.
That's why the open peer review system is so important and I have seen
no evidence of them allowing that in any of the doping testing cases.
If you can show me some cases of where they have farmed out studies on
the testing to objective outside institutions with no Wada control I
will give you the argument. I have no problem with Wada observers, as I
have none with riders observers, but I do question research done under
their control.
Bill C

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> > In article <[email hidden]>,
>>> >
>>> > The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care
>>> > if
>>> > the
>>> > test is accurate or not.
>>>
>>> I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
>>>
>>> > That forces the accused to try to prove their
>>> > innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so
>>> > they
>>> > have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
>>>
>>> Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
>>> authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant
>>> may
>>> then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of
>>> possible
>>> ways.
>>>
>>> >
>> OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
>> of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate
>> the
>> test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
>> "Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
>> to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where
>> have
>> we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
>> Bill C
>>
> My understanding is that all of that information was provided to Tyler
> Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.
>

I meant to say Bekke(sp?), assuming we're confining ourselves to the EPO
test for the moment.

>

I'll have to do more digging. My understanding was that one of the
reasons for the delays in Hamilton's appeal was that they had not
provided the detailed, in-depth information needed to scientifically
evaluate the testing system that Hamilton had requested. Everything
I've seen says that they are refusing to give out the detailed info on
the EPO test that would allow an independent agency totally unconnected
to either wada or the UCI to evaluate it reasonably.

As to Hamilton, we discussed the discovery aspects of arbitration here last
year. IIRC, WADA/USDA was required to provide the date several days before
the beginning of the arbitration, which they apparently did. As to the EPO,
it seems to me that there must be knowledge of the test spcifics
in-as-much-as Bekke was able to show that his body dumping protein under
endurance stress could mess up the test and that he was one of the rare
athletes to do that..

Quoted message said:

Instead they trot
out their experts, and say that THEY are further evaluating it or it
has d to be done at a wada accredited lab. I am not willing to take
anything as sole reliable evidence from a lab who's seriously
financially and politically connected to the people being investigated
who have a well known position. Can you say rubber stamp for cash? I
don't believe the drug companies' labs, and that's been a good thing
when their claims have been independently studied, same for Wada.

I think your cynicism is moving in the direction of paramoia. :-) Remember,
we're talking about national labs and well respected university labs. Of
course you never know. Maybe Don Caitlin is on the take. ;-)

Quoted message said:

If Wada had independent verification of their testing they'd be
trumpeting it in response to all the questions being raised about the
testing. Lord knows they shoot their mouths off on everything else with
no regard for cases in process. Giving your bosses and money people
results to keep the money coming in, even if the results are
questionable isn't exactly unheard of. There have been plenty of things
in science that didn't quite turn out to be what was claimed at first.
That's why the open peer review system is so important and I have seen
no evidence of them allowing that in any of the doping testing cases.
If you can show me some cases of where they have farmed out studies on
the testing to objective outside institutions with no Wada control I
will give you the argument. I have no problem with Wada observers, as I
have none with riders observers, but I do question research done under
their control.
Bill C

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4533786.stm
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N62/fusion.00n.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1013&scid=64
http://www.usvetdsp.com/griffiths.htm
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007488.html
What was that about government and other "well respected" labs not
screwing up or covering it up? Not paranoia, just experience and a bias
towards the accused being innocent until proven otherwise beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> >>
> >> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email hidden]...
> >>> > In article
> >>> > <[email hidden]>,
> >>> >
> >>> > The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not
> >>> > care
> >>> > if
> >>> > the
> >>> > test is accurate or not.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
> >>>
> >>> > That forces the accused to try to prove their
> >>> > innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose,
> >>> > so
> >>> > they
> >>> > have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
> >>>
> >>> Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the
> >>> charging
> >>> authority to prove a positive test result. The
> >>> respondent/defendant
> >>> may
> >>> then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of
> >>> possible
> >>> ways.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >> OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the
> >> details
> >> of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate
> >> the
> >> test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
> >> "Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details
> >> secret
> >> to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where
> >> have
> >> we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
> >> Bill C
> >>
> > My understanding is that all of that information was provided to
> > Tyler
> > Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.
> >
>
> I meant to say Bekke(sp?), assuming we're confining ourselves to the
> EPO
> test for the moment.
>
> >

I'll have to do more digging. My understanding was that one of the
reasons for the delays in Hamilton's appeal was that they had not
provided the detailed, in-depth information needed to scientifically
evaluate the testing system that Hamilton had requested. Everything
I've seen says that they are refusing to give out the detailed info on
the EPO test that would allow an independent agency totally unconnected
to either wada or the UCI to evaluate it reasonably.

As to Hamilton, we discussed the discovery aspects of arbitration here
last
year. IIRC, WADA/USDA was required to provide the date several days
before
the beginning of the arbitration, which they apparently did. As to the
EPO,
it seems to me that there must be knowledge of the test spcifics
in-as-much-as Bekke was able to show that his body dumping protein under
endurance stress could mess up the test and that he was one of the rare
athletes to do that..

Quoted message said:

Instead they trot
out their experts, and say that THEY are further evaluating it or it
has d to be done at a wada accredited lab. I am not willing to take
anything as sole reliable evidence from a lab who's seriously
financially and politically connected to the people being investigated
who have a well known position. Can you say rubber stamp for cash? I
don't believe the drug companies' labs, and that's been a good thing
when their claims have been independently studied, same for Wada.

I think your cynicism is moving in the direction of paramoia. :-)
Remember,
we're talking about national labs and well respected university labs. Of
course you never know. Maybe Don Caitlin is on the take. ;-)

Quoted message said:

If Wada had independent verification of their testing they'd be
trumpeting it in response to all the questions being raised about the
testing. Lord knows they shoot their mouths off on everything else with
no regard for cases in process. Giving your bosses and money people
results to keep the money coming in, even if the results are
questionable isn't exactly unheard of. There have been plenty of things
in science that didn't quite turn out to be what was claimed at first.
That's why the open peer review system is so important and I have seen
no evidence of them allowing that in any of the doping testing cases.
If you can show me some cases of where they have farmed out studies on
the testing to objective outside institutions with no Wada control I
will give you the argument. I have no problem with Wada observers, as I
have none with riders observers, but I do question research done under
their control.
Bill C

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4533786.stm
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N62/fusion.00n.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1013&scid=64
http://www.usvetdsp.com/griffiths.htm
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007488.html
What was that about government and other "well respected" labs not
screwing up or covering it up? Not paranoia, just experience and a bias
towards the accused being innocent until proven otherwise beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Bill C

Houston is indeed a problem. The other cases you not are quite different.
As to Houston, the test itself is not in question. Clearly ,the people who
administered the test lacked qualification and oversight. Where is that
qualification and oversight missing in WADA certified labs? Where is there
any evidence of that.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>> >
>> > "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email hidden]...
>> >>
>> >> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> >>> news:[email hidden]...
>> >>> > In article
>> >>> > <[email hidden]>,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not
>> >>> > care
>> >>> > if
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > test is accurate or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
>> >>>
>> >>> > That forces the accused to try to prove their
>> >>> > innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose,
>> >>> > so
>> >>> > they
>> >>> > have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the
>> >>> charging
>> >>> authority to prove a positive test result. The
>> >>> respondent/defendant
>> >>> may
>> >>> then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of
>> >>> possible
>> >>> ways.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >> OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the
>> >> details
>> >> of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate
>> >> the
>> >> test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
>> >> "Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details
>> >> secret
>> >> to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where
>> >> have
>> >> we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
>> >> Bill C
>> >>
>> > My understanding is that all of that information was provided to
>> > Tyler
>> > Hamilton's attorney prior to commencing the arbitration.
>> >
>>
>> I meant to say Bekke(sp?), assuming we're confining ourselves to the
>> EPO
>> test for the moment.
>>
>> >
>
> I'll have to do more digging. My understanding was that one of the
> reasons for the delays in Hamilton's appeal was that they had not
> provided the detailed, in-depth information needed to scientifically
> evaluate the testing system that Hamilton had requested. Everything
> I've seen says that they are refusing to give out the detailed info on
> the EPO test that would allow an independent agency totally unconnected
> to either wada or the UCI to evaluate it reasonably.

As to Hamilton, we discussed the discovery aspects of arbitration here
last
year. IIRC, WADA/USDA was required to provide the date several days
before
the beginning of the arbitration, which they apparently did. As to the
EPO,
it seems to me that there must be knowledge of the test spcifics
in-as-much-as Bekke was able to show that his body dumping protein under
endurance stress could mess up the test and that he was one of the rare
athletes to do that..

>Instead they trot
> out their experts, and say that THEY are further evaluating it or it
> has d to be done at a wada accredited lab. I am not willing to take
> anything as sole reliable evidence from a lab who's seriously
> financially and politically connected to the people being investigated
> who have a well known position. Can you say rubber stamp for cash? I
> don't believe the drug companies' labs, and that's been a good thing
> when their claims have been independently studied, same for Wada.

I think your cynicism is moving in the direction of paramoia. :-)
Remember,
we're talking about national labs and well respected university labs. Of
course you never know. Maybe Don Caitlin is on the take. ;-)

> If Wada had independent verification of their testing they'd be
> trumpeting it in response to all the questions being raised about the
> testing. Lord knows they shoot their mouths off on everything else with
> no regard for cases in process. Giving your bosses and money people
> results to keep the money coming in, even if the results are
> questionable isn't exactly unheard of. There have been plenty of things
> in science that didn't quite turn out to be what was claimed at first.
> That's why the open peer review system is so important and I have seen
> no evidence of them allowing that in any of the doping testing cases.
> If you can show me some cases of where they have farmed out studies on
> the testing to objective outside institutions with no Wada control I
> will give you the argument. I have no problem with Wada observers, as I
> have none with riders observers, but I do question research done under
> their control.
> Bill C
>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4533786.stm
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N62/fusion.00n.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1013&scid=64
http://www.usvetdsp.com/griffiths.htm
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007488.html
What was that about government and other "well respected" labs not
screwing up or covering it up? Not paranoia, just experience and a bias
towards the accused being innocent until proven otherwise beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Bill C

Houston is indeed a problem. The other cases you not are quite different.
As to Houston, the test itself is not in question. Clearly ,the people who
administered the test lacked qualification and oversight. Where is that
qualification and oversight missing in WADA certified labs? Where is there
any evidence of that.

Quoted message said:

How many questions have been raised about procedureal errors and chain
of custody issues in Wada labs?
My point with those was that no matter how eminent, accredited, and
lauded something, or someone is they can never be above serious
scrutiny because there have been plenty of those type of institutions
that have dropped the ball. The wada labs have on quite a few recent
occasions made mistakes and were reversed I so feel justified in asking
questions.
Then again I have no problem admitting that if God showed up,
surrounded by a choir of angels, and wanted into a facility that I was
on guard duty for they had better have proper identification issued by
the right people or they aren't getting in. I'm hard headed and
stubborn. Those old New Englanders were right more than wrong when they
refused to take anything at face value and made sure it had to be
repeatedly proven before they'd even begin to consider thinking about
believing it. I evaluate things first and foremost by building a worst
case scenario, then what I think is most likely to happen, then act in
between the two. Most times I'm pleasantly surprised instead of neck
deep in [censored]. I like it that way.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I think your cynicism is moving in the direction of paramoia. :-) Remember,
we're talking about national labs and well respected university labs. Of
course you never know. Maybe Don Caitlin is on the take. ;-)

Do you think just because it is a well known lab they never make mistakes?
The proper way to validate a test is to make it public so that your peers
can review the procedure and results. When this is not done, the test and
the results are suspect.
---------------
Alex

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I think your cynicism is moving in the direction of paramoia. :-)
Remember,
we're talking about national labs and well respected university labs. Of
course you never know. Maybe Don Caitlin is on the take. ;-)

Do you think just because it is a well known lab they never make mistakes?

No,

Quoted message said:

The proper way to validate a test is to make it public so that your peers
can review the procedure and results. When this is not done, the test and
the results are suspect.

Two very different issues. The test itself is one. The test as administered
by the lab and organization collecting and delivering the samples to the lab
is the other. Which are you referring to and specifically which tests and
labs?

Quoted message said:

---------------
Alex

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

Quoted message said:

That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways.

Quoted message said:

OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate the
test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
"Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where have
we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
Bill C

You want secret laws?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007745.php

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?