No B Sample Needed For Tyler

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping test
is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke. From CyclingNews today:

However, it may be that the Russian and Australian case won't rely on such a
precedent. "We are going to argue on different grounds," AOC media relations
manager Mike Tancred told Cyclingnews. "Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

ASDA's Winnette, while stressing that he was speculating, said that it may
be that there is no need for a B sample in the blood doping test. "With
urine [tests], an A and B sample is good to have because there can be
degradation that leads to a false positive," said Winnette. "But this new
test may only need one sample." Another historical reason for the use of two
samples is to prevent cases of mistaken identity, but a blood sample can be
DNA-tested to establish its bona fides, so again the need for a B sample to
establish a doping case may be lessened.


--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a child.--Judy
Garland

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...
It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test
is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke.

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

JF

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...
It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test
is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke.

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

JF

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...
It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test
is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke.

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

JF

You mean like God Is Dead and We Have Killed Him, Rev.? Or, God Is Within
You? I'll pass your comment on to CyclingNEWS.

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...
It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping
test
is relaible. More and more, it looks like Tyler and his attorney are
blowing a lot of smoke.

Susie Soap Opera --

Go find some real news, like in the National Enquirer or something.

JF

You mean like God Is Dead and We Have Killed Him, Rev.? Or, God Is Within
You? I'll pass your comment on to CyclingNEWS.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" a écrit dans le message de
:
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell

A fair and excellent point, Curtis ; the rules restrict the rider AND the
tester. UCI and WADA can simply read the regs, and follow them.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

"Curtis L. Russell" a écrit dans le message de
:
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:33 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

"Our in-house counsel, Simon Rofe,
has been speaking to medical experts to understand the scientific basis of
the test and if the B sample is actually necessary."

I thought the regs REQUIRED two tests, one to confirm. After all, it
isn't just the test itself that is being confirmed, but possible
issues with controls or contamination or singular events at the lab
(it was a pretty standard test at the hospital lab in Baltimore that
got messed up, over and over for a year, with lives on the line, so it
isn't just how reliably the test CAN be done - it is how well it WAS
done).

If the rules require it, then it is required, and thus necessary. What
is particularly hard about that?


Curtis L. Russell

A fair and excellent point, Curtis ; the rules restrict the rider AND the
tester. UCI and WADA can simply read the regs, and follow them.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

B. Lafferty wrote:

It appears that some people are quite certain that the new blood doping test
is relaible.

It appears that some people believe the earth is flat and aliens abduct
humans in spacecraft too.

What a great legal premise, Brian.

Magilla