Split the "B" to Create an "A" Sample

B. Lafferty said:

Fehlen einer zweiten Probe kein Hindernis

Juristisch vertritt Bach den Standpunkt, man solle sich auf den aktuellen
Antidoping-Code berufen, weil die Nachuntersuchung der 1999 von Armstrong
genommenen Probe erst 2004 vorgenommen worden sei und damit "jetzt geltendem
Recht" unterliege. Auch das Fehlen einer zweiten Probe sei kein Hindernis.
Im IOC lasse man in solchen Fällen die noch vorhandene B-Probe teilen: "Dann
hat man wieder eine A- und eine B-Probe."

Why not just write down the number from the first test
again and call it both the A and the B result? This logic
makes a mockery of the original reason for having A and B
samples. It's like what Chung said about people who claim
three related criteria are independent; only worse. Ideas
like this do not give cause for faith in the fairness of
the anti-doping bureaucracy. They could settle for convicting
him in the court of public opinion without trying to bend
their own rules to make a doping case, but that doesn't seem
to be WADA's style.

Armstrong quite possibly is guilty as sin. But even a
guilty man can be framed.

The a and B samples are to protect the athelete. When a urine sample
is taken, the athlete (or at least I had too) picks everything froma
huuge field of syringes, vials, water bottles, etc. This is to prevent
him/her from theposisbility of contamination or framing. If you picked
one vial out of 1000, how can you be framed? (I mean sure it's
possible, but....) A samples are typically tested completely, and if
a positive is found, the B sample is tested more thoroughly if the
athlete requests it and pays for the test.. read, your A sample is
tested for amphetamines, coke, steroids, blah blah blah. Then they
call you up, and sya there is an anomaly in the test, would YOU like ot
pay for a B test. Based ont he theory that the lab/process could have
contaminated the A test, the B sample is open (sometiems in presence of
coachs, etc) and tested for only what the positive in the A sample
indicated. By different lab personel. Then if both are positive you
are screwed. Numbers are used to protect against athletes being
framed. No one in the lab knows that Armstrong is #134295429482.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Fehlen einer zweiten Probe kein Hindernis

Juristisch vertritt Bach den Standpunkt, man solle sich auf den aktuellen
Antidoping-Code berufen, weil die Nachuntersuchung der 1999 von Armstrong
genommenen Probe erst 2004 vorgenommen worden sei und damit "jetzt geltendem
Recht" unterliege. Auch das Fehlen einer zweiten Probe sei kein Hindernis.
Im IOC lasse man in solchen Fällen die noch vorhandene B-Probe teilen: "Dann
hat man wieder eine A- und eine B-Probe."

Why not just write down the number from the first test
again and call it both the A and the B result? This logic
makes a mockery of the original reason for having A and B
samples. It's like what Chung said about people who claim
three related criteria are independent; only worse. Ideas
like this do not give cause for faith in the fairness of
the anti-doping bureaucracy. They could settle for convicting
him in the court of public opinion without trying to bend
their own rules to make a doping case, but that doesn't seem
to be WADA's style.

Lafferty doesn't give a [censored] about any of this. He only cares about
producing the appearance of guilt.

B. Lafferty said:

Apparently this has been done before. From Yahoo Germany:
http://de.sports.yahoo.com/050824/14/57if.html

Geht es nach IOC-Mitglied Thomas Bach

Auch das Fehlen einer zweiten
Probe sei kein Hindernis. Im IOC lasse man in solchen Fällen die noch
vorhandene B-Probe teilen: "Dann hat man wieder eine A- und eine
B-Probe."

Oh my. Oh my goodness my.

Are you sure he doesn't just enjoy tweaking the noses of the A group?

Quoted message said:

Armstrong quite possibly is guilty as sin. But even a
guilty man can be framed.

Irony for serfs otherwise known as serfic irony.

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

Assuming the chain of custody is ok, the rider would have the option to be
present at the testing of the remaing B now A sample. As long as the chain
of custody in intact, its all the same urine sample.

You don't get it. There is no more A sample. The basis of the tests
honesty relies on the presence of TWO distinctly differnet un
comtaminated samples of blood urine, whatever..

"bikeguy11968" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You don't get it. There is no more A sample. The basis of the tests
honesty relies on the presence of TWO distinctly differnet un
comtaminated samples of blood urine, whatever..

No, I think it's you who doesn't get it. The German Yahoo article note that
it has been done before. The only issue is chain of custody. The way the a
and b samples are initially obtained is from the original flask into which
the testee pisses. That is then split by the testee into a & b samples.
They are both sealed by the testee, coded and sent for testing/storage. The
a sample is then completely used in the first test. What is left is the
complete, intact b sample. If the chain of custody has been maintained, and
you split the b sample in half, you then have two samples from the original
urine flask. Effectively you have an a/b for testing.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:14:54 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"bikeguy11968" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You don't get it. There is no more A sample. The basis of the tests
honesty relies on the presence of TWO distinctly differnet un
comtaminated samples of blood urine, whatever..

No, I think it's you who doesn't get it. The German Yahoo article note that
it has been done before. The only issue is chain of custody. The way the a
and b samples are initially obtained is from the original flask into which
the testee pisses. That is then split by the testee into a & b samples.
They are both sealed by the testee, coded and sent for testing/storage. The
a sample is then completely used in the first test. What is left is the
complete, intact b sample. If the chain of custody has been maintained, and
you split the b sample in half, you then have two samples from the original
urine flask. Effectively you have an a/b for testing.

God damn you're dense.

If you have a B sample and it is somehow messed up, splitting into two
isn't going to "unmess" it.

The point of having an A and a B is in case the A is tainted. You
wouldn't want to retest that sample. Maybe the bottle was dirty, maybe
someone got to it, etc....

So splitting a sample, especially after it's been tested, goes
completely against the whole point.

The two samples need to be as completely independant as possible. Even
pissing into one container and splitting it into two samples is shakey
science.

Everyone here impressed that Lafferty can cut and paste an article in a
foreign language and pretend he knows what it says?

Imagine Lafferty telling someone else that THEY don't get it.

The funny thing here is that Lafferty ostensibly makes his living as a
lawyer and yet he is willing to open the whole process of drug testing
up to the highest forms of corruption.

I think that says a great deal about Lafferty. Certainly more than we
can explain away on indigestion.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:14:54 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"bikeguy11968" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You don't get it. There is no more A sample. The basis of the tests
honesty relies on the presence of TWO distinctly differnet un
comtaminated samples of blood urine, whatever..

No, I think it's you who doesn't get it. The German Yahoo article note
that
it has been done before. The only issue is chain of custody. The way the
a
and b samples are initially obtained is from the original flask into which
the testee pisses. That is then split by the testee into a & b samples.
They are both sealed by the testee, coded and sent for testing/storage.
The
a sample is then completely used in the first test. What is left is the
complete, intact b sample. If the chain of custody has been maintained,
and
you split the b sample in half, you then have two samples from the
original
urine flask. Effectively you have an a/b for testing.

God damn you're dense.

If you have a B sample and it is somehow messed up, splitting into two
isn't going to "unmess" it.

Go back and read the post again. If the chain of custody is intact (as it
was with the used "A" sample) you can't establish that there is a messed up
sample.

Quoted message said:

The point of having an A and a B is in case the A is tainted. You
wouldn't want to retest that sample. Maybe the bottle was dirty, maybe
someone got to it, etc....

So splitting a sample, especially after it's been tested, goes
completely against the whole point.

Not if the chain of custody was intact when the B was opened and tested,
handled and then resealed in accordance with proper protocall to prevent
contamination or tampering.

Quoted message said:

The two samples need to be as completely independant as possible. Even
pissing into one container and splitting it into two samples is shakey
science.

The original A and B samples come from the same flask, the same penis, the
same bladder and the same kidneys. If the B sample has an intact chain of
custody, there is no problem.

B. Lafferty said:

"D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The two samples need to be as completely independant as possible. Even
pissing into one container and splitting it into two samples is shakey
science.

The original A and B samples come from the same flask, the same penis, the
same bladder and the same kidneys. If the B sample has an intact chain of
custody, there is no problem.

You're presenting it as if there is no argument possible. That is just
not true. There is always an argument to be made. If you can't come
up with an argument, you're either not a lawyer or so biased that you
aren't thinking clearly enough to see the other side.

As a test, pretend that you are now representing Lance in this
situation. What argument would you make about a split sample? You'll
probably find out something about yourself from such an exercise. It's
always good to know where your blind spots are.

R

Quoted message said:

Are you sure he doesn't just enjoy tweaking the noses of the A group?

I'm pretty sure you're correct about that too. Thanks for pointing that
out.

On 25 Aug 2005 08:26:24 -0700, "RicodJour" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The two samples need to be as completely independant as possible. Even
pissing into one container and splitting it into two samples is shakey
science.

The original A and B samples come from the same flask, the same penis, the
same bladder and the same kidneys. If the B sample has an intact chain of
custody, there is no problem.

You're presenting it as if there is no argument possible. That is just
not true. There is always an argument to be made. If you can't come
up with an argument, you're either not a lawyer or so biased that you
aren't thinking clearly enough to see the other side.

As a test, pretend that you are now representing Lance in this
situation. What argument would you make about a split sample? You'll
probably find out something about yourself from such an exercise. It's
always good to know where your blind spots are.

R

Bravo.

-Jet

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The two samples need to be as completely independant as possible. Even
pissing into one container and splitting it into two samples is shakey
science.

The original A and B samples come from the same flask, the same penis,
the
same bladder and the same kidneys. If the B sample has an intact chain of
custody, there is no problem.

You're presenting it as if there is no argument possible. That is just
not true. There is always an argument to be made. If you can't come
up with an argument, you're either not a lawyer or so biased that you
aren't thinking clearly enough to see the other side.

No. I'm not saying there are no possible arguments . There are three basic
arguments in any dope testing case--chain of custody, validity of the test
and lab testing protocalls having been followed. Armstrong said yesterday
that the blood he gave and sealed in 1999 had no epo in it. His attorneys
will look at the chain of custody to see if tampering is a possibility (if
the chain is broken the case goes out the window). They will attack the
validy of the EPO test. They will obtain the lab protocals and question the
lab director and technicians who performed the test to determine if those
procedures were followed.

Quoted message said:

As a test, pretend that you are now representing Lance in this
situation. What argument would you make about a split sample? You'll
probably find out something about yourself from such an exercise. It's
always good to know where your blind spots are.

If the chain of custody is intact, how would you prove that the remaining B
sample was suspect?

Quoted message said:

R

Of all the things on earth that a lab coud potentially contaminate a
sample with, why, does that contamination ALWAYS end up being EPO or
Steroids?

Why are the many samples not contaminated with bacteria, dirt or a
cleaning compound... Why is that?

Because these labs are pretty clean places, staffed by professionals,
and it is probably very unlikely that they are screwing up.

Most of you are willing to put murder convicts to death using less lab
evidence than is being provided here, but none of you are ever willing
to believe that Captain America could possibly have a dark side.

How does the song go? "Your own, personal, Jesus. Someone to hear
your prayers. Someone who cares" yada yada.

12 samples tested positive. 6 of them belonged to Armstrong. He was
not alone, but with his 7 victories and virtual non-presence the entire
rest of the year, I believe the evidence now.

I think the real reason behind our not seeing much of Armstrong from
Feb-June and then August through January, is he keeps his program under
a very tight security blanket.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:53:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

> The two samples need to be as completely independant as possible. Even
> pissing into one container and splitting it into two samples is shakey
> science.

The original A and B samples come from the same flask, the same penis,
the
same bladder and the same kidneys. If the B sample has an intact chain of
custody, there is no problem.

You're presenting it as if there is no argument possible. That is just
not true. There is always an argument to be made. If you can't come
up with an argument, you're either not a lawyer or so biased that you
aren't thinking clearly enough to see the other side.

No. I'm not saying there are no possible arguments . There are three basic
arguments in any dope testing case--chain of custody, validity of the test
and lab testing protocalls having been followed. Armstrong said yesterday
that the blood he gave and sealed in 1999 had no epo in it. His attorneys
will look at the chain of custody to see if tampering is a possibility (if
the chain is broken the case goes out the window). They will attack the
validy of the EPO test. They will obtain the lab protocals and question the
lab director and technicians who performed the test to determine if those
procedures were followed.

Quoted message said:

As a test, pretend that you are now representing Lance in this
situation. What argument would you make about a split sample? You'll
probably find out something about yourself from such an exercise. It's
always good to know where your blind spots are.

If the chain of custody is intact, how would you prove that the remaining B
sample was suspect?

Quoted message said:

R

Dumbass-

If what you say is true then they could disqualify competitors from
just one sample. But that's not the case. Tney need a positive A and B
sample.

Argue with them.