Testing reliability

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C


Key words; preliminary, field test

In article
et,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C


Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
et,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C


Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field
test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects
(guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot for
possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in
and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the
field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with
white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in
bulk. ;-)

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
et,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C


Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field
test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects
(guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot for
possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in
and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the
field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with
white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in
bulk. ;-)
Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation. The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
et,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825303.800

A standard test for cocaine fails to detect the drug in some
samples,
and can give positive results when none of the drug is present
SUSPICIONS that the internationally recognised field test for
cocaine
is unreliable have been confirmed by a lab investigation. Not only
does
the test fail to detect the drug in some samples, it can also
wrongly
give positive results when no cocaine is present.

The Scott test, introduced in 1973, is used by many police forces as
a
preliminary test on substances they suspect to be cocaine.

Let's see, in general use and accepted for 32 years. Yep those new
WADA
tests look better everyday after their limited evaluation and and
restricted peer review.
Bill C


Key words; preliminary, field test

And what is the protocol that field agents use?
If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say
`yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false
positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated
on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do
they print the false positive and false negative rate on
the packaging, along with references to journal articles
that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons
told the real reliability of the test?

--
Michael Press

The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field
test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects
(guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot
for
possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in
and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the
field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with
white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in
bulk. ;-)
Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation.

Because a test for one substance, and a field test for police no less, turns
out to have questionable accuracy, doesn not mean that an unrelated test
necessarily suffers from a defect. You're trying to say that the orange is
in this basket over here is rotten, therefore the apples in the basket over
there are probably rotten as well.

Question the EPO test but don't try to show unreliabilty by comparison to an
unrelated test in another field of endeavor.

The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"
Bill C

In article .com,
says...

Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation. The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not. That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
---------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
In article .com,
says...

Brian my point is very simple. This is a test that has been accepted
as totally accurate for at least 32 years. Yes there are other tests to
back this one up, there are no other tests to back up the EPO test
that I have heard of, just repeats of the basic test. If this one can
be found to be faulty after this long, it adds a lot more possible
credibility to the questions about the EPO test since that has not been
allowed to undergo rigorous outside evaluation. The connection seems
obvious to me, as a general comment on the need to seriously evaluate
ANY test that's used to form a punitive decision before penalizing lots
of people then having to go "sorry we wrecked your career and life
based on a bad test, have a nice life!"

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not. That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
---------------
Alex
Brian the point is that unless something is thoroughly and openly
tested and reviewed before declaring it accurate there's a good chance
people are going to get screwed badly. The cocaine test was accepted as
accurate for years, apparently, because it hadn't been subjected to
serious independent scrutiny. Luckily there was a backup for that test
so that it wasn't the only thing being used to convict people. With the
EPO test there is no second test to verify the first. It's totally
disingenuous to claim that the results form the EPO test are valid
because a few limited scientists connected to the people doing the
prosecution say it's accurate, despite all the questions raised by
other reliable scientists.
Blind faith, or a small scale evaluation does NOT make a test
accurate, unfortunately the coke test was accepted, and so is the epo
test being accepted.
Just because they can find some expert witnesses to say it's accurate
doesn't make it accurate, or for that matter inaccurate. Until it's
proven IMO it should be suspended.
I think Alex is right on the money in that they were desperate for a
tool to nail riders on EPO and they don't really give a **** about the
accuracy as long as they are able to get some results to crow about. I
totally disagree with you that it's perfectly OK to force the athlete
into endless guilty until proven innocent appeals based on this test.
Bill C
Bill C

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article .com,

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways. To get back to the initial field test on cocaine, it is not the test
that is used in court to meet the prosecution's burden of proof. The formal
lab test with evidentiary chain of custody intact must be used at trial.



---------------
Alex

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article .com,

The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the
test is accurate or not.

I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.

That forces the accused to try to prove their
innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they
have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.

Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging
authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may
then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible
ways.


OK ,so when the prosecuting office (WADA) is keeping all the details
of the test in house and won't let anyone but their people evaluate the
test, how is a defendent supposed to challenge the test?
"Your Honor, This is secret test, we need to keep the details secret
to protect the methods, but believe me he's guilty as hell!" Where have
we heard that line of reasoning from in another context recently?
Bill C