Landis: It's the Lab

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

Cough. Damn, it's already starting to get smokey in here.

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

I thought he had Golden Retrievers...?

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

Also worthy of mention, in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
negative.

Interesting to note that he begins the investigation with the A-Sample
being his benchmark. I suppose the only flawed tests are the ones that
do not produce the results that Mr Pound desires.

Quoted message said:

in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

On 11-Sep-2006, smacked up and reeling, [email hidden] blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

Anyone else have trouble with the velo news web site? Half the time I cant
get in ("Cannot find server"😉.

steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

To me the interesting thing is the contrast between the one lab that has a
disagreement between the results of the A and B tests and simply reports them
and another lab whose director insists that the tests are perfect and there can
be no mistake. In a lab like that, what does a technician do when he has a
discrepancy? Can he report it? Does he dare?

Ron

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

RonSonic said:

To me the interesting thing is the contrast between the one lab that
has a disagreement between the results of the A and B tests and simply
reports them and another lab whose director insists that the tests are
perfect and there can be no mistake.

Weren't Jones' A & B samples tested at UCLA?

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
> calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
> negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

Perhaps that is how it is done where he's from. Or how he would prefer it to be
done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

Sure, that's fine by us, but what's [censored] pounding about then.

Ron

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
> calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
> negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

Brian that's ridiculous at best, but consistent with your position
that the process is fine.
The most important part of any process is anylizing any errors that
were made. Obviously there was a differnce in the tests. The only
responsible thing to do is find out WHY that happened so that it is
less likely in the future.
It is absolutely critical to make the process work better, rather than
just write it off. Especially when lives, or careers are on the line
then it's critical to do a critique of the unexpected result.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
negative.

So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

As I explained before, the tests are 100% reliable. Their
reader, Karnak the Magnificent, was on vacation and the
back up reader botched the job

--
Michael Press

The importance of [censored] Pound is directly propotional to the number of
positive tests.

Think about, if all riders were clean and all tests were negative, then the
[censored] and his staff wouldn't have a job. It is cheats that will give them
big $, fame and retirement fund. So more postives, more importance to feed
the ego and wallet.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
> > in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
> > calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
> > negative.
>
> So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

Perhaps that is how it is done where he's from. Or how he would prefer it
to be
done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

Sure, that's fine by us, but what's [censored] pounding about then.

Ron

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
> > in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
> > calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
> > negative.
>
> So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

Brian that's ridiculous at best, but consistent with your position
that the process is fine.

My point was that in relation to Jones, it's moot. I would think that Don
Catlin has looked at the results to check for errors, but it matters little
to Pound if the integrity of the test is not called into question.

Quoted message said:

The most important part of any process is anylizing any errors that
were made. Obviously there was a differnce in the tests. The only
responsible thing to do is find out WHY that happened so that it is
less likely in the future.
It is absolutely critical to make the process work better, rather than
just write it off. Especially when lives, or careers are on the line
then it's critical to do a critique of the unexpected result.

That will be looked at by Catlin, Ashedon and others in the drug testing
field. Pound matters very little to that validation process. I think you
give Pound credit for having more power than he does. He's the
mouthpiece/lightning rod for WADA and the IOC.

Quoted message said:

Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
> > in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
> > calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
> > negative.
>
> So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?

He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
the "B".

I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
proceedure would be noticed by another.

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

Brian that's ridiculous at best, but consistent with your position
that the process is fine.
The most important part of any process is anylizing any errors that
were made. Obviously there was a differnce in the tests. The only
responsible thing to do is find out WHY that happened so that it is
less likely in the future.
It is absolutely critical to make the process work better, rather than
just write it off. Especially when lives, or careers are on the line
then it's critical to do a critique of the unexpected result.
Bill C

I think that you guys are arguing about different things. From a penalty
perspective the process ended when the B sample was negative. From a lab
procedure viewpoint I hope that every lab is constantly reviewing their
protocols, not just when an aberration shows up.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Frank Drackman" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>> > in today's USA Today [censored] Pound was quoted as
>> > calling for an investigation into why Marion Jones' B-sample tested
>> > negative.
>>
>> So he's saying the test procedure isn't reliable?
>
> He made no mention of the test proceedure itself. He implies that the
> A-test was the more accurate one and wanted to know why they could not
> create the same result in the B-sample. As if the team messed-up on
> the "B".
>
> I would think that the "A" tests have the greater potential for
> slip-ups. They are more routine in nature and generally have less
> riding on them (assuming that almost all of them turn out negative).
> The B-sample is the test with everyone watching. Any error in
> proceedure would be noticed by another.
>

The issue is really moot. Once the b comes back negative there is no
violation, period.

Brian that's ridiculous at best, but consistent with your position
that the process is fine.
The most important part of any process is anylizing any errors that
were made. Obviously there was a differnce in the tests. The only
responsible thing to do is find out WHY that happened so that it is
less likely in the future.
It is absolutely critical to make the process work better, rather than
just write it off. Especially when lives, or careers are on the line
then it's critical to do a critique of the unexpected result.
Bill C

I think that you guys are arguing about different things. From a penalty
perspective the process ended when the B sample was negative. From a lab
procedure viewpoint I hope that every lab is constantly reviewing their
protocols, not just when an aberration shows up.

The problem I can see is that there will be pressure to ensure that the B test
matches the A. There are a lot of legitimate reasons why that might not happen
and we want to make damn sure that they aren't obscured by a technician covering
his ass.

Ron

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

Why did it take 5 or 6 weeks for Landis' legal team to get the results?

JessicaG said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

Why did it take 5 or 6 weeks for Landis' legal team to get the results?

From the article:

Quoted message said:

Landis, who is from nearby Lancaster, said his legal team had to wait until last Friday to obtain the results of the "B" sample that confirmed his positive result.

Dan Connelly said:

JessicaG said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10847.0.html

Why did it take 5 or 6 weeks for Landis' legal team to get the results?

From the article:

Quoted message said:

Landis, who is from nearby Lancaster, said his legal team had to wait until last Friday to obtain the results of the "B" sample that confirmed his positive result.

Traditional French vacations in August, and possibly fear of what was
going to happen when Landis could look at it.

This may be a proof case for "don't look for a conspiracy when
incompetence will explain it all."

Full coverage of Landis at http://trustbut.blogspot.com

-dB