When is a doping test positive?

Robert Chung said:

I haven't been following the Landis thing very closely so I was kinda
surprised to learn that the standards for a positive test depend on the lab
doing the testing. From yesterday's on-line chat with Michael Hiltzik at
<http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-landischat7mar07,1,634709...>
:

"Landis asserts, and I've confirmed this, that the positivity criteria for
CIRMS at Paris and UCLA are different. Keeping in mind that testosterone
breaks down in the body into four metabolites, which can be measured and
their ratios compared to a control group of "clean" subjects (sorry for the
technical mumbo-jumbo), UCLA measures two of these ratios and requires that
both be positive to declare an athlete guilty. Paris measures all four and
requires any one to be positive to declare guilt. These are radically
different approaches. [...] Australia, I believe, also checks two
metabolites and requires both to be positive."

It certainly raises questions about the efficacy of WADAs
"harmonization" of standards.

Whether is swings the case is unclear. It may be that under the
current version of the rules, Labs have the discretion to use their
own criteria, with no need to justify or rationalize them against
other labs and studies. This goes with the view that "they are
accredited, and they are presumed correct". If an accredited lab
calls a result red that another lab would call green, the athlete may
be cooked, with no recourse, under the rules.

Taking that position would get WADA its "win", but it could cause some
serious questioning of the correctness and legitimacy of the process.

The information about the different positivity criteria has been shown
by Landis' team since November. Most people don't follow the case
closely enough to have noticed the shifting of the sands over time.

-dB

http://trustbut.blogspotcom for Landis news, research, and comment.

dbrower said:

Whether it swings the case is unclear.

Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is conclusive
it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the argument that these
tests appear to have modalities of failure that can make any single test
inconclusive).

However, conclusive test or not, I would think that whatever the standard it
should be clear and not arbitrary.

Quoted message said:

The information about the different positivity criteria has been shown
by Landis' team since November. Most people don't follow the case
closely enough to have noticed the shifting of the sands over time.

http://trustbut.blogspotcom for Landis news, research, and comment.

Yeah, I try not to follow it too closely. I've visited your site a few
times, though not regularly. I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago that
you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago that
you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.

The kiss of death.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung said:

dbrower said:

Whether it swings the case is unclear.

I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago that
you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.

Thanks for the heads up. That basically ensures I'll never go there.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago
that you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.

If he can find wisdom in the words of TK, then he'll LOVE this site:

http://members.aol.com/rem547/

Apologies to Bob Schwartz for posting the link he has shared here before.

NS
idea thief

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

Quoted message said:

dbrower said:

Whether it swings the case is unclear.

Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
make any single test inconclusive).

For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data you
somehow fall short of the mark when it requires a little actual knowledge of
the subject. Now there's a surprise.

Tom Kunich said:

you somehow fall short of the mark when it requires a little
actual knowledge of the subject. Now there's a surprise.

I'm sure comments like this would sting a bit more if they came from someone
who doesn't think Marco Polo sailed to the North Pole.

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

you somehow fall short of the mark when it requires a little
actual knowledge of the subject. Now there's a surprise.

I'm sure comments like this would sting a bit more if they came from
someone who doesn't think Marco Polo sailed to the North Pole.

And of course that might bother me if it didn't come from someone who thinks
that the Chinese were too stupid to b intelligent explorers or that their
maps were made up.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

dbrower said:

Whether it swings the case is unclear.

Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
make any single test inconclusive).

For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data you
somehow fall short of the mark when it requires a little actual knowledge

of

Quoted message said:

the subject. Now there's a surprise.

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

Charles said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

dbrower wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Whether it swings the case is unclear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
make any single test inconclusive).

Quoted message said:

For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data you
somehow fall short of the mark when it requires a little actual knowledge

of

Quoted message said:

the subject. Now there's a surprise.

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

Hey, that's even a better question than when I asked The Knower if,
per his expertise of all, if he'd ever _won_ a bike race ("sanctioned"
implied).

WELL????

(Not to mention the CV, and the Nobel guy's name, and the language he
spoke...)

"The river runs on..." --D-y

Charles said:

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

Ten years ago I hacked the NCNCA web site and inserted a race
result. Fatty Masters 45+, I didn't put him DFL but pretty
close. Its still there. Don't tell Casey.

http://www.ncnca.org/road/1997/LivermoreRR_Feb8.html

Bob Schwartz

On Mar 9, 6:53 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Charles said:

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

Ten years ago I hacked the NCNCA web site and inserted a race
result. Fatty Masters 45+, I didn't put him DFL but pretty
close. Its still there. Don't tell Casey.

http://www.ncnca.org/road/1997/LivermoreRR_Feb8.html

Bob Schwartz

It looks like I've done more racing in NorCal that Tom has and I live
in CO.

BTW, is the Livermore RR the same course as the Wente Vinyards RR?

Bret

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

dbrower wrote:

> Whether it swings the case is unclear.

Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
make any single test inconclusive).

For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data
you
somehow fall short of the mark when it requires a little actual knowledge
of
the subject. Now there's a surprise.

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now exactly
what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked lab data?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
exactly what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked
lab
data?

Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone pole.

I found that racing made you very much stronger than you ever thought you
could be. But that didn't mean that you could keep up with those who were
physically gifted. You'd see some 19 year old kid come out never having
ridden a race in his life and ride off the front as if it was the easiest
thing in the world. Of course that was the best place for the nitwit since
they were generally a horror in the pack since they hadn't a clue how to
behave around other people at speed.

That's why it offends me to see people here who could never have made it to
Cat 3 without "assistance" telling us about the drug usage of top flight
athletes. Dan Connelly is one fast climbing guy who holds, I think, the
Western Wheelers record up Old La Honda Rd at something like 17 and a half
minutes. I heard things like one of the Pros that was doing the Noon Ride
(Mike McCarthy???) made it up in something like 11 minutes.

Now think about that - Connelly is only a Cat 4 and although he blasted
everyone in every class, he was 60% slower than a Pro who wasn't even in
competition!

That ought to tell you that people who aren't in that class don't have a
very good idea what is possible and what isn't. Most of the talk about drugs
is by people who know absolutely nothing that they haven't read in some
story written by some journalist who doesn't even ride a bike or from
athletes who need some sort of excuses.

Millar said that he only used drugs a couple of times in extremis and yet he
set records all over the place - why is that if everyone is using drugs and
drugs make you so fast?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now

exactly

Quoted message said:

what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked lab data?

Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone pole.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?

I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
exactly what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked
lab
data?

Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone pole.

Quoted message said:

Now think about that - Connelly is only a Cat 4 and although he blasted
everyone in every class, he was 60% slower than a Pro who wasn't even in
competition!

That ought to tell you that people who aren't in that class don't have a
very good idea what is possible and what isn't. Most of the talk about drugs
is by people who know absolutely nothing that they haven't read in some
story written by some journalist who doesn't even ride a bike or from
athletes who need some sort of excuses.

Millar said that he only used drugs a couple of times in extremis and yet he
set records all over the place - why is that if everyone is using drugs and
drugs make you so fast?

This argument depends on the theory that Millar, a drug user caught
red-handed, was subsequently telling the truth about his drug use.

I'm sure David is a very nice boy and all, and I like him as much as any
TT specialist*, but I think once you're caught with vials of EPO in your
medicine chest, the verity of your statements on your own drug use ought
to be rather suspect.

Only on caffeine right now, but maybe Bailey's later,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

> > Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
>
> I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters
> to
> national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
> exactly what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell
> faked
> lab
> data?
>
Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone
pole.

Quoted message said:

Now think about that - Connelly is only a Cat 4 and although he blasted
everyone in every class, he was 60% slower than a Pro who wasn't even in
competition!

That ought to tell you that people who aren't in that class don't have a
very good idea what is possible and what isn't. Most of the talk about
drugs
is by people who know absolutely nothing that they haven't read in some
story written by some journalist who doesn't even ride a bike or from
athletes who need some sort of excuses.

Millar said that he only used drugs a couple of times in extremis and yet
he
set records all over the place - why is that if everyone is using drugs
and
drugs make you so fast?

This argument depends on the theory that Millar, a drug user caught
red-handed, was subsequently telling the truth about his drug use.

I'm sure David is a very nice boy and all, and I like him as much as any
TT specialist*, but I think once you're caught with vials of EPO in your
medicine chest, the verity of your statements on your own drug use ought
to be rather suspect.

Ahh, yes, the excuse that once caught no one can be honest thereafter. What
do you suppose Virenque was on when he won St Flour? After all, by your
judgement he must have been doping still. And what do you suppose Hincapie
was on when he won Pla d'Adet, the toughest stage of the 2005 Tour?

Oh, wait, according to you, anyone not on drugs could only win a short TT.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

testing positive on ONE metabilite is easier than testing on
two.

I suppose you're one of those guys who can't see the difference between a
bicycle and a tricycle.

How about being one of the guys who can't see the difference between a
"metabilite" and a metabolite?

Being the world's (or this ng's) foremost authority on everything
means spelling and word forms, too. IOW, yes you do too have to
bother.

The Nobel winner's name?
--D-y