Hamilton Affair - Guilty by redefinition?

"Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clipped from Cycling News:

"Andy Rihs was quoted yesterday as saying that he doubted the validity of
the test as well as the inordinately long period (nearly a month) between
the Olympic test and Hamilton being informed of the result. However, the
head of the IOC's medical commission, Arne Ljungqvist was quoted by

Reuters

Quoted message said:

as saying that Hamilton's test results were tagged "suspicious" when they
came back from the IOC-accredited laboratory, so they were submitted for a
review by a panel of experts. After the review "it was ruled as not just
suspicious but positive indeed", Ljungqvist said."

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light

that

Quoted message said:

flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open

to

Quoted message said:

interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

Well, there's only been a single test. And as you say, this sort of testing
is open for interpretation. When they stated that homologous transfusions
would be detected but autologous couldn't your eyebrows should have perked
up. That means that they're using some very small differences in blood
composition to imply a positive.

I believe that this test will be successfully overthrown even if the second
results show the same.

Tom Kunich said:

Well, there's only been a single test.

3 tests, if accounts are to be believed: Romandie, Athens TT, Vuelta TT.

And as you say, this sort of testing

Quoted message said:

is open for interpretation. When they stated that homologous transfusions
would be detected but autologous couldn't your eyebrows should have perked
up. That means that they're using some very small differences in blood
composition to imply a positive.

I had a different thought on what "interpretation by the panel" meant.

What if the panel deliberations followed the current WADA model of
consideration of "non-analytical positive" rather than "interpreting the
results"? The current philosophy at WADA seems to be: a) Think like a
cheat and b) Patterns are more significant than single events. Hence,
when the panel convened, they would not necessarily be there to consider
one positive test, but all results related to the individual - remember
that while control samples are anonymized at collection and during
analysis, identity is known on positive control and notification by
governing body.

Examples:

- re-run the test with all known samples from same individual over
180-day window that would build up a profile that would exclude certain
factors due to timing. For example: a positive or suspicious result at
Romandie, but negative during the Tour, followed by a positive in Athens
would be harder to explain.

- review of medical disclosure (surgeries)

- surveillance of the individual (not necessarily PI stuff, but elites
need to continually disclose location for OOC testing), then call the
individual to account: (to paraphrase "Did you have surgery in Girona?"
"No" "Did you have surgery in Abilene, Texas?" "No" "Did you have
surgery in Chicago?" "I refuse to answer that question"😉

"The test has been used for a decade in hospitals to detect feto-maternal
haemorrhage - if they get it wrong, it is a life or death situation,"

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light

that

Quoted message said:

flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open

to

Quoted message said:

interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:21 -0400, "Brenton James" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"The test has been used for a decade in hospitals to detect feto-maternal
haemorrhage - if they get it wrong, it is a life or death situation,"

It will typically only detect a F-M bleed of 15ml of cells, or 30ml of
whole blood, and is supposed to be done within a few days (usually will be
detectable up to a week, in the mother). After a fair amt of time, say two
months, there may not be that much remaining in circulation, but it would
depend on the quantity of packed cells he received.

-B

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light

that

Quoted message said:

flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open

to

Quoted message said:

interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:44:14 -0600, "Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote.

Nice troll dude.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Clipped from Cycling News:

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive.

no [censored] dumbass, someone at some stage has to decide what constitutes
a positive test, and because of that even if the chance of a false
positve is miniscule athletes will exploit that, often in court.

why do you think they released both test results at once ? they
obviously had the athens result but sat on it until they had the
vuelta test because it would be much harder to dispute two positives.
like stewart says, it establishes a pattern.

....and what about the surgery ? he claimed surgical intervention in
initial reports. what happened to that explanation ?

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Ulo4d.600

Quoted message said:

Well, there's only been a single test.

two, athens and vuelta

Quoted message said:

And as you say, this sort of testing
is open for interpretation. When they stated that homologous transfusions
would be detected but autologous couldn't your eyebrows should have perked
up. That means that they're using some very small differences in blood
composition to imply a positive.

???

Badger,
Your post would explain the Oly A test positive, B neg and Vuelta A
and B positive. Do you have a source for your post?
Best regards,
ND

Quoted message said:

It will typically only detect a F-M bleed of 15ml of cells, or 30ml of
whole blood, and is supposed to be done within a few days (usually will be
detectable up to a week, in the mother). After a fair amt of time, say two
months, there may not be that much remaining in circulation, but it would
depend on the quantity of packed cells he received.

(Never_Doped) said:

Badger,
Your post would explain the Oly A test positive, B neg and Vuelta A
and B positive. Do you have a source for your post?
Best regards,
ND

Quoted message said:

It will typically only detect a F-M bleed of 15ml of cells, or 30ml of
whole blood, and is supposed to be done within a few days (usually will be
detectable up to a week, in the mother). After a fair amt of time, say two
months, there may not be that much remaining in circulation, but it would
depend on the quantity of packed cells he received.

You can research it on the 'Net by looking for 'rosette test', or Fetal
Bleed Screen. But I suspect that this may be a better more sensitive test
than that used in blood banks - perhaps a flow-cytometry test.

For detection of F-M hemorrhage, if the FBS is positive, a more 'sensitive'
test is done, called a Kleihauer test, in which the cells are stained and
examined microscopically. But since this only works with 'fetal cells'
(which lose their hemoglobin and show up as stained 'ghost cells'😉 it
wouldn't work with adult blood.

I'm not sure how they could make the rosette test more sensitive - perhaps
the advance in technology is in making it a mass-production type of test
done by instruments, and not by an individual tech - although it only takes
about 15-30 minutes to do, and most of that is incubation.

You're better off following the links given - I don't know, since I haven't
had the inclination to read the abstracts.

-B
..

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

Quoted message said:

Clipped from Cycling News:
"Andy Rihs was quoted yesterday as saying that he doubted the validity of
the test as well as the inordinately long period (nearly a month) between
the Olympic test and Hamilton being informed of the result. However, the
head of the IOC's medical commission, Arne Ljungqvist was quoted by Reuters
as saying that Hamilton's test results were tagged "suspicious" when they
came back from the IOC-accredited laboratory, so they were submitted for a
review by a panel of experts. After the review "it was ruled as not just
suspicious but positive indeed", Ljungqvist said."

Something is wrong with the test if you need a panel of experts to review
the results to figure out if it is positive or not.

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

This alone is reason for this test to not be used to test for doping.
Until the test is refined to the point where the results are either
positive or negative, the test should be put on the shelf for further
refinement. I'm surprised no one in the UCI sees it that way. This is
something that could ruin someone's career.
-------------
Alex

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

Quoted message said:

"The test has been used for a decade in hospitals to detect feto-maternal
haemorrhage - if they get it wrong, it is a life or death situation,"

That's great. That means its great at detecting problems with pregnancies.
That doesn't mean it is any good at detecting someone who is cheating. I
would hope the folks at WADA were smart enough to figure that one out.
-------------
Alex

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:44:14 -0600, "Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light
that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open
to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote.

Nice troll dude.

What a meaningful advancement of the topic. Thanks for contributing your
deep insight and wit to the conversation.

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

Quoted message said:

"Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Clipped from Cycling News:

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light
that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open
to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive.

no [censored] dumbass, someone at some stage has to decide what constitutes
a positive test, and because of that even if the chance of a false
positve is miniscule athletes will exploit that, often in court.

Well, dipshit. That's the problem isn't it? Apparently no one had decided
what constituted a positive test. They took his result and debated it for a
month. And they still got it wrong. The B sample from the Olympics was
negative.

As another poster in the thread said... the test obviously isn't refined
enough if a panel of experts have to debate it for a month to reach a
decision. Get it right before endangering someone's reputation and career.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:51:49 -0600, "Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:44:14 -0600, "Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light
that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open
to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote.

Nice troll dude.

What a meaningful advancement of the topic. Thanks for contributing your
deep insight and wit to the conversation.

You're welcome.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bestest Handsander said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no [censored] dumbass, someone at some stage has to decide what constitutes
a positive test, and because of that even if the chance of a false
positve is miniscule athletes will exploit that, often in court.

Well, dipshit. That's the problem isn't it? Apparently no one had decided
what constituted a positive test. They took his result and debated it for a
month. And they still got it wrong. The B sample from the Olympics was
negative.

Well, not quite "negative". From Cyclingnews:
-----------------------
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced that Tyler
Hamilton's "B sample" taken during the Olympic Games in Athens has been
considered as "non-conclusive because of lack of enough intact red blood
cells"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/sep04/sep23news4

Quoted message said:

As another poster in the thread said... the test obviously isn't refined
enough if a panel of experts have to debate it for a month to reach a
decision. Get it right before endangering someone's reputation and career.

I'd agree with this. Perhaps they may have wanted to catch someone to
make a point and if they spent a bunch of time getting the test dialed in,
there was a chance that news of its existance might have leaked and blown
their surprise.

--
tanx,
Howard

A billion + 2 followups...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?