>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time). > Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only >that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the >A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is >truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance >found was merely near the cut-off. > >For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her >B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared >negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those >numbers. > >The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that people can defend the testing process by saying that it is conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive, so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive, especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.
They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be wrong."
Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?
It's simple; even you ought to be able to follow along. Yeah, Bergaman confessed. So what? They set a standard and if the person tests above that limit, the second sample is to be tested to see if it backs up the results of the first test. If ihat test doesn't meet the standard, then the test is not deemed to be a positive. That's the rules, not this "one sample tested a little over the standard, so we don't need to bother with the other test 'cuz ought to match" thing you seem to believe is adequate. I think the second sample should be sent to a different lab.
But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time). Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance found was merely near the cut-off.
For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those numbers.
The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.
So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that people can defend the testing process by saying that it is conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive, so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive, especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway. That increases the number of dopers you can catch, at the price of making it look like the process has no integrity.
When the process looks bad, even people who really did get busted can use it for propaganda. Even your pal Ty-Ty gets mileage out of every time [censored] Pound shooots his mouth off.
Since the cut-off is determined by WADA/USADA to begin with, what real difference does it make if they decide to lower it?
How are the riders supposed to know how much EPO to take if WADA/USADA decide to change the threshold value. Do I have to explain everything?
Oh, and that is a butt-ugly hat you're wearing. Whoops! Sorry. But maybe you should get a haircut.
They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be wrong."
Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?
In article <[email hidden]>, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>MagillaGorilla wrote: > > >>But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time). >> Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only >>that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the >>A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is >>truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance >>found was merely near the cut-off. >> >>For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her >>B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared >>negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those >>numbers. >> >>The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO. > >So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that >people can defend the testing process by saying that it is >conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive >hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then >to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive, >so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive, >especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and >Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.
They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be wrong."
Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?
It's simple; even you ought to be able to follow along. Yeah, Bergaman confessed. So what? They set a standard and if the person tests above that limit, the second sample is to be tested to see if it backs up the results of the first test.
And they followed that standard. What's the problem?
If ihat
Quoted message said:
test doesn't meet the standard, then the test is not deemed to be a positive. That's the rules, not this "one sample tested a little over the standard, so we don't need to bother with the other test 'cuz ought to match" thing you seem to believe is adequate. I think the second sample should be sent to a different lab.
The rules don't state that the B-sample should go to a different lab. And given Bergman's confession we now know the EPO test was accurate.
They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be wrong."
Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?
He tested positive once, and sort-of-positive on the B sample.
Before that, it wasn't clear that "sort-of-positive" was a possible test result. After, it was clear, but it wasn't clear what counts as "sort-of." That is all.
