Hamilton Affair - Guilty by redefinition?

Clipped from Cycling News:

"Andy Rihs was quoted yesterday as saying that he doubted the validity of
the test as well as the inordinately long period (nearly a month) between
the Olympic test and Hamilton being informed of the result. However, the
head of the IOC's medical commission, Arne Ljungqvist was quoted by Reuters
as saying that Hamilton's test results were tagged "suspicious" when they
came back from the IOC-accredited laboratory, so they were submitted for a
review by a panel of experts. After the review "it was ruled as not just
suspicious but positive indeed", Ljungqvist said."

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

"Bestest Handsander" wrote in message
...
Clipped from Cycling News:

"Andy Rihs was quoted yesterday as saying that he doubted the validity of
the test as well as the inordinately long period (nearly a month) between
the Olympic test and Hamilton being informed of the result. However, the
head of the IOC's medical commission, Arne Ljungqvist was quoted by
Reuters
as saying that Hamilton's test results were tagged "suspicious" when they
came back from the IOC-accredited laboratory, so they were submitted for a
review by a panel of experts. After the review "it was ruled as not just
suspicious but positive indeed", Ljungqvist said."

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light
that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open
to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

Well, there's only been a single test. And as you say, this sort of testing
is open for interpretation. When they stated that homologous transfusions
would be detected but autologous couldn't your eyebrows should have perked
up. That means that they're using some very small differences in blood
composition to imply a positive.

I believe that this test will be successfully overthrown even if the second
results show the same.

Tom Kunich wrote:


Well, there's only been a single test.

3 tests, if accounts are to be believed: Romandie, Athens TT, Vuelta TT.

And as you say, this sort of testing
is open for interpretation. When they stated that homologous transfusions
would be detected but autologous couldn't your eyebrows should have perked
up. That means that they're using some very small differences in blood
composition to imply a positive.

I had a different thought on what "interpretation by the panel" meant.

What if the panel deliberations followed the current WADA model of
consideration of "non-analytical positive" rather than "interpreting the
results"? The current philosophy at WADA seems to be: a) Think like a
cheat and b) Patterns are more significant than single events. Hence,
when the panel convened, they would not necessarily be there to consider
one positive test, but all results related to the individual - remember
that while control samples are anonymized at collection and during
analysis, identity is known on positive control and notification by
governing body.

Examples:

- re-run the test with all known samples from same individual over
180-day window that would build up a profile that would exclude certain
factors due to timing. For example: a positive or suspicious result at
Romandie, but negative during the Tour, followed by a positive in Athens
would be harder to explain.

- review of medical disclosure (surgeries)

- surveillance of the individual (not necessarily PI stuff, but elites
need to continually disclose location for OOC testing), then call the
individual to account: (to paraphrase "Did you have surgery in Girona?"
"No" "Did you have surgery in Abilene, Texas?" "No" "Did you have
surgery in Chicago?" "I refuse to answer that question")

"The test has been used for a decade in hospitals to detect feto-maternal
haemorrhage - if they get it wrong, it is a life or death situation,"

This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light
that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open
to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:21 -0400, "Brenton James"
wrote:

"The test has been used for a decade in hospitals to detect feto-maternal
haemorrhage - if they get it wrong, it is a life or death situation,"

It will typically only detect a F-M bleed of 15ml of cells, or 30ml of
whole blood, and is supposed to be done within a few days (usually will be
detectable up to a week, in the mother). After a fair amt of time, say two
months, there may not be that much remaining in circulation, but it would
depend on the quantity of packed cells he received.

-B


This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light
that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open
to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote. I wonder how many of
the "experts" redid the test vs. how many just reexamined the questionable
results.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:44:14 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
wrote:


This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive. Guilty by committee vote.

Nice troll dude.

JT




****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Bestest Handsander" wrote in message ...
Clipped from Cycling News:


This is the dirty little secret of testing. There isn't a little light that
flashed red for positive and green for negative. Results are always open to
interpretation. Sounds like they couldn't decide what constituted a
positive, so they all met and kept reexamining his results until they
decided he was positive.

no **** dumbass, someone at some stage has to decide what constitutes
a positive test, and because of that even if the chance of a false
positve is miniscule athletes will exploit that, often in court.

why do you think they released both test results at once ? they
obviously had the athens result but sat on it until they had the
vuelta test because it would be much harder to dispute two positives.
like stewart says, it establishes a pattern.

....and what about the surgery ? he claimed surgical intervention in
initial reports. what happened to that explanation ?

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message news:Ulo4d.600

Well, there's only been a single test.

two, athens and vuelta

And as you say, this sort of testing
is open for interpretation. When they stated that homologous transfusions
would be detected but autologous couldn't your eyebrows should have perked
up. That means that they're using some very small differences in blood
composition to imply a positive.

???

Badger,
Your post would explain the Oly A test positive, B neg and Vuelta A
and B positive. Do you have a source for your post?
Best regards,
ND


It will typically only detect a F-M bleed of 15ml of cells, or 30ml of
whole blood, and is supposed to be done within a few days (usually will be
detectable up to a week, in the mother). After a fair amt of time, say two
months, there may not be that much remaining in circulation, but it would
depend on the quantity of packed cells he received.

On 23 Sep 2004 09:34:36 -0700, (Never_Doped) wrote:

Badger,
Your post would explain the Oly A test positive, B neg and Vuelta A
and B positive. Do you have a source for your post?
Best regards,
ND


It will typically only detect a F-M bleed of 15ml of cells, or 30ml of
whole blood, and is supposed to be done within a few days (usually will be
detectable up to a week, in the mother). After a fair amt of time, say two
months, there may not be that much remaining in circulation, but it would
depend on the quantity of packed cells he received.


You can research it on the 'Net by looking for 'rosette test', or Fetal
Bleed Screen. But I suspect that this may be a better more sensitive test
than that used in blood banks - perhaps a flow-cytometry test.

For detection of F-M hemorrhage, if the FBS is positive, a more 'sensitive'
test is done, called a Kleihauer test, in which the cells are stained and
examined microscopically. But since this only works with 'fetal cells'
(which lose their hemoglobin and show up as stained 'ghost cells') it
wouldn't work with adult blood.

I'm not sure how they could make the rosette test more sensitive - perhaps
the advance in technology is in making it a mass-production type of test
done by instruments, and not by an individual tech - although it only takes
about 15-30 minutes to do, and most of that is incubation.

You're better off following the links given - I don't know, since I haven't
had the inclination to read the abstracts.

-B
..