When is a doping test positive?

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-landischat7mar07,1,6347094,full.story?coll=la-headlines-sports
:

"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."

On Mar 7, 12:32 pm, "Robert Chung" wrote:
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 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).

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

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 , "Robert Chung"
wrote:

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?

On Mar 7, 11:43 pm, "Robert Chung" wrote:
dbrower wrote:
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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
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 Kunich wrote:

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" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

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
link.net...
"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
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 ?