"Known Leak"

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| "trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > It's the athlete who does the splitting. And he chooses from amongst
| > several sample containers.
|
| I suggest you find one of the relatively common demonstrations of slight
of
| hand or pick-pocketing. It is a relatively common skill. How do you
suppose
| there are gamblers that can cheat in front of the entire table without
being
| caught? That's why they have cameras on all the tables these days.
|

LOL.

Hypothesis 1) A cyclist doped and got caught.
Hypothesis 2) The DSO practiced slight of hand until he became so good at it
that he was able to switch the cups without even touching them.

5.8.5 From this point [selection of the collection vessel- trg], the sample
collection vessel shall be handled only by the Athlete unless the Athlete
authorizes the DCO/Chaperone or the Athlete Representative to handle the
vessel on his/her behalf. Such authorization must be documented.

We'll leave the motive of the DSO to the student as an exercise.

en.wikipedia.orgOccam's RazorOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - when you get a B sample back it's clear who it belongs
to.

So on the one hand we hear the argument that these tests have poor
reliability and some even imply poor validity.

But now you imply a new wrinkle. Of course if the sample have an ID
number the first test (A) will be blind but the secong (B) may not be.
While clearly someone has to go find the B sample by its ID number. But
if the lab does large number of tests in fact the technician may not
know who the samples belong to. Thye B sample can simply be one (or
several) in a much larger batch run.

But your implication is that not only does the technician know to whom
the sample belongs but he or someone else can sabotage the sample or
the process so that the results come out just the same as the A sample.
Pretty good with a test of questionalbe reliabiltiy. Or do they just
make up the results and skip the test?

At some point you guys just have to give it up. But clearly your are
not at that point. Is Elvis dead yet?

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one. In American the possibility
of an error is enough to nullify the government's case. In Europe only PROOF
of an exact error is enough to stop a case.

In the case of athletes which system do you prefer?

gds said:

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - when you get a B sample back it's clear who it belongs to.

So on the one hand we hear the argument that these tests have poor
reliability and some even imply poor validity.

But now you imply a new wrinkle. Of course if the sample have an ID
number the first test (A) will be blind but the secong (B) may not be.
While clearly someone has to go find the B sample by its ID number. But
if the lab does large number of tests in fact the technician may not
know who the samples belong to. Thye B sample can simply be one (or
several) in a much larger batch run.

They stayed late for this one, remember. Not much guessing required.

Ron

Quoted message said:

But your implication is that not only does the technician know to whom
the sample belongs but he or someone else can sabotage the sample or
the process so that the results come out just the same as the A sample.
Pretty good with a test of questionalbe reliabiltiy. Or do they just
make up the results and skip the test?

At some point you guys just have to give it up. But clearly your are
not at that point. Is Elvis dead yet?

in 521677 20060807 235554 'Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one.

Do you know how many countries (and therefore legal systems) there are in
Europe?
Such stupid generalisations do not help your credibility.

And as I've pointed out before, the American system came from Europe (Britain).

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At some point you guys just have to give it up. But clearly your are

not at that point. Is Elvis dead yet?

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one. In American the possibility
of an error is enough to nullify the government's case. In Europe only PROOF
of an exact error is enough to stop a case.

In the case of athletes which system do you prefer?

Tome that isn't the issue. The rules are well known by the athletes
BEFORE they compete. So, by competing they accept the rules.
Complaining that other rules or processes would be better after the
fact doesn't hold much sway with me.And the opportunity to make serious
mney as a cyclist is totally dependent on racing in Europe. So, the
Europeans are paying the bill -why is it unreasonable to play by their
rules?

So, if you want to argue that based on current events you would like to
see the rules changed going forward-fine. But to argue that the rules
were unfair retroactively doesn't work.

I remain cynical aobut doping and believe that massive numbers of top
atheltes in many sports- not just cycling- use PED's. The game is one
of using and having methods to avoid detection. Since my cynical belef
is that that the use of PED's is endemic and the evidence is that only
a relativly small number of athletes that actually get caught leads em
to believe that even under the sytem of rules you worry about that the
athletes hold the upper hand.

Tom Kunich said:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/tour_de_france_2003_en.pdf

That was a very interesting read, thanks. A description and critique of
the whole process by an independent observer team that monitored sample
collection, handling, and testing.

gds a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

> At some point you guys just have to give it up. But clearly your are
>
not at that point. Is Elvis dead yet?

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one. In American the possibility
of an error is enough to nullify the government's case. In Europe only PROOF
of an exact error is enough to stop a case.

In the case of athletes which system do you prefer?

Tome that isn't the issue. The rules are well known by the athletes
BEFORE they compete. So, by competing they accept the rules.
Complaining that other rules or processes would be better after the
fact doesn't hold much sway with me.And the opportunity to make serious
mney as a cyclist is totally dependent on racing in Europe. So, the
Europeans are paying the bill -why is it unreasonable to play by their
rules?

So, if you want to argue that based on current events you would like to
see the rules changed going forward-fine. But to argue that the rules
were unfair retroactively doesn't work.

I remain cynical aobut doping and believe that massive numbers of top
atheltes in many sports- not just cycling- use PED's. The game is one
of using and having methods to avoid detection. Since my cynical belef
is that that the use of PED's is endemic and the evidence is that only
a relativly small number of athletes that actually get caught leads em
to believe that even under the sytem of rules you worry about that the
athletes hold the upper hand.

Don't waste ink.
Learn this :
Tom is wrong about American law.
Tom is wrong about "European" law.
Tom, with entirely accidental exceptions, is wrong.
Take it to the bank.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
Mobilité et stabilité ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avançant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)

Bob Martin said:

in 521677 20060807 235554 'Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one.

Do you know how many countries (and therefore legal systems) there are in
Europe?
Such stupid generalisations do not help your credibility.

And as I've pointed out before, the American system came from Europe (Britain).

England, I would say, from where it was imposed on the rest of the UK
and its colonies.It is imprecise to the point of being erroneous to say
the US system came from Europe.

It's a matter of perspective, but when someone refers to a European
system of justice, I would not consider them to be including the
British system. When I read Kunich's statement, given its context, I
knew he wasn't talking about the British system. His generalization is
"generally" correct in its context.

Sandy said:

--
Mobilité et stabilité ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avançant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)

But obviously never watched track racing.

-ilan

[email hidden] a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Bob Martin said:

in 521677 20060807 235554 'Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one.

Do you know how many countries (and therefore legal systems) there are in
Europe?
Such stupid generalisations do not help your credibility.

And as I've pointed out before, the American system came from Europe (Britain).

England, I would say, from where it was imposed on the rest of the UK
and its colonies.It is imprecise to the point of being erroneous to say
the US system came from Europe.

It's a matter of perspective, but when someone refers to a European
system of justice, I would not consider them to be including the
British system. When I read Kunich's statement, given its context, I
knew he wasn't talking about the British system. His generalization is
"generally" correct in its context.

Wow, you want to be wrong !
Simply put, the adjudicative systems of England and the US have gross
similarities, while the procedural niceties have been implemented
entirely separately, with recent trends being rather divergent.
Next, English law (Magna Carta, and progeny) is Norman law, although
developed in a different culture.
Next, the "British" system would not include Scotland, where the system
is more closely aligned with a civil law approach (Justinian, Napoleon)
than the loose ramblings of inebriated justice declarers (dusty old
judges) in England.
European law is not Napoleonic, especially, although it is wise to
address Justinian and Roman law to appreciate its roots. And while the
UK (4 parts) is in Europe, it is opaque to this writer how they really
wish to remain integrated whilst their legislation constantly enables
anti-European systems. (For this, see particularly the FSA as relates to
trans-European investment, insurance and banking matters.)
Let's have a truce on legal subjects here, in RBR, shall we ? It will
keep me very quiet, which is of untold positive value for the forum.
I did have the magret tonight, with the specified viticultural
accompaniment, and I am just pleasantly passing my time being an
aggravating legal nerd.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Geraard Spergen said:

And trickiest of all would be to doctor the actual samples in such a way
that the seals appear to be unbroken and the results would be identical.

Does anyone know what the seals are like? I hope they are more than
just pressure-sensitive adhesives on plain paper labels. I spent 11
years developing such adhesives and have little respect for them as a
solitary security seal. Heat and/or solvents make mincemeat of them.

John
Aspen Research, - www.aspenresearch.com
"Turning Questions into Answers"

Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.

Quoted message said:

Geraard Spergen said:

And trickiest of all would be to doctor the actual samples in such a way
that the seals appear to be unbroken and the results would be identical.

Does anyone know what the seals are like? I hope they are more than
just pressure-sensitive adhesives on plain paper labels. I spent 11
years developing such adhesives and have little respect for them as a
solitary security seal. Heat and/or solvents make mincemeat of them.

John
Aspen Research, - www.aspenresearch.com
"Turning Questions into Answers"

Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.

Heat and/or solvets make mincemeat out of plastic sample jars, so
tampering would be obvious.

Sandy said:

Wow, you want to be wrong !
Simply put, the adjudicative systems of England and the US have gross
similarities, while the procedural niceties have been implemented
entirely separately, with recent trends being rather divergent.

So what? I agree with you. You might have also noticed that the US has
not been an English colony for 230 years; divergence does mean there
was never any influence.

Quoted message said:

Next, English law (Magna Carta, and progeny) is Norman law, although
developed in a different culture.

So what? Is Norman law now similar to English? No, it's French. Making
the statement that English law is derived from Norman law is misleading
and you know it.

The fact that English law may be derived from 11th century Norman law
doesn't invalidate my point that British and US law was influenced by
English law.

Quoted message said:

Next, the "British" system would not include Scotland, where the system
is more closely aligned with a civil law approach (Justinian, Napoleon)
than the loose ramblings of inebriated justice declarers (dusty old
judges) in England.

Hence my drawing of the distinction between the UK and England.
However, it is undeniable that English common law has influenced the
legal system of Scotland- it is also correct to say that the legal
system of Scotland is much more closely aligned with the system of
English common law than are the legal systems of the continent.

Regardless, it was obvious that Kunich was not talking about Scotish
law, either.

Quoted message said:

European law is not Napoleonic,

I didn't say it was.

Quoted message said:

especially, although it is wise to
address Justinian and Roman law to appreciate its roots.

Quoted message said:

And while the
UK (4 parts) is in Europe, it is opaque to this writer how they really
wish to remain integrated whilst their legislation constantly enables
anti-European systems.

I agree, generally, but I would say that the UK's inclusion in Europe
has always been more of a cartographic arrangement than cultural, and
although it still trails the continent, it is probably more integrated
now than it has been, probably in its history.

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

Quoted message said:

Let's have a truce on legal subjects here, in RBR, shall we ? It will
keep me very quiet, which is of untold positive value for the forum.
I did have the magret tonight, with the specified viticultural
accompaniment, and I am just pleasantly passing my time being an
aggravating legal nerd.

Who wishes you to be especially quiet Sandy? I for one look forward to your
entries which are universally thoughtful and usually insightful as well.
Even if you are a French turd.

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

> At some point you guys just have to give it up. But clearly your are
not at that point. Is Elvis dead yet?

You seem to be missing the point - there's a basic difference between the
American system of justice and the European one. In American the
possibility
of an error is enough to nullify the government's case. In Europe only
PROOF
of an exact error is enough to stop a case.

In the case of athletes which system do you prefer?

Tome that isn't the issue. The rules are well known by the athletes
BEFORE they compete.

Excuse me, the athletes are forced to compete under a system that they had
no real input. The doping rules most especially of late have become
increasingly dictatorial. Now we even know that the testosterone regulations
will in fact show 5% of those being tested as false positives and yet that's
acceptable?

I'm all for preventing doping in cycling. But not at the cost of falsely
accusing people of using dope. The leaks about Armstrong when there was
absolutely no way he could clear his name and now Floyd's tests made public
completely against the writen regulations is simply too much. This isn't
someone trying to stop doping, it is a group of jackasses trying to destroy
the reputation of someone without allowing him the chance to clear his name.
It is disgraceful and anyone that supports them is equally disgraceful.

Kyle Legate said:

Heat and/or solvets make mincemeat out of plastic sample jars, so
tampering would be obvious.

Not in the least. The cups that my physician uses are polyethylene,
which melts at 140 C or so, more than enough to set the sample boiling.
And you have to get it that hot in order to even get a solvent (xylene
for instance) to touch it.

I am serious about this. Give me a cup with a paper-backed PSA and I'm
in, out and nobody would be the wiser. I certainly hope that they have
higher security than this, but I doubt it.

By the way, I am not arguing this to defend Floyd, but to strengthen a
shoddy system. I still repeat my original question: what kind of seal
is actually used?

John
Aspen Research, - www.aspenresearch.com
"Turning Questions into Answers"

Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Kyle Legate said:

Heat and/or solvets make mincemeat out of plastic sample jars, so
tampering would be obvious.

Not in the least. The cups that my physician uses are polyethylene,
which melts at 140 C or so, more than enough to set the sample boiling.
And you have to get it that hot in order to even get a solvent (xylene
for instance) to touch it.

I am serious about this. Give me a cup with a paper-backed PSA and I'm
in, out and nobody would be the wiser. I certainly hope that they have
higher security than this, but I doubt it.

By the way, I am not arguing this to defend Floyd, but to strengthen a
shoddy system. I still repeat my original question: what kind of seal
is actually used?

I do not know what is used. I would specify something very
brittle that can only be removed by fracturing it.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

I do not know what is used. I would specify something very
brittle that can only be removed by fracturing it.

I would completely agree.

I just thought that with all the EXPERTS that grace this newsgroup with
the presence, someone would know what is used.

John
Aspen Research, - www.aspenresearch.com
"Turning Questions into Answers"

Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

I do not know what is used. I would specify something very
brittle that can only be removed by fracturing it.

I would completely agree.

I just thought that with all the EXPERTS that grace this newsgroup with
the presence, someone would know what is used.

Paper seals.