Testing labs now perfect, no B samples needed!

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

From CyclingNews: "Pound also said that the current testing procedure of
having both an A and a B sample was being discussed, possibly resulting in
the suppression of the counter-analysis. "There is a body of thought amongst
our stakeholders that the A (sample) should be enough; and there is another
body of thought amongst others that the B provides a protection in the very
few cases where the A might be improperly analysed," he said."

Yikes! At the very least, the B sample should be used to rule out gross
negligence by the original lab (by having it sent someplace else). Hard to
believe that people's livelihoods would be determined entirely by one lab,
at one point in time, with no means of further analysis.

But it certainly takes any doubt out of the process if you essentially state
mistakes are no longer possible, thus we won't look for them. Guess it takes
a lot of pressure off the lab techs.

Wonder how long before the labs get paid a bounty for each "positive" test
they produce?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Bill C]

On Nov 17, 12:47 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:

>
> Wonder how long before the labs get paid a bounty for each "positive" test
> they produce?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Better question Mike.
How long before they eliminate testing altogether and Pound just tells
us who's guilty with no review or appeal possible?
Bill C

[Geraard Spergen]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> From CyclingNews: "There is a body of thought amongst
> our stakeholders that the A (sample) should be enough;

Hmmm, then LANCE! would never have had his recent disupte with LLND.

Unless the B sample would only be used in the "very few cases" where the
A sample of a suspected doper comes up negative.

[Fred Pan]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
m...
> From CyclingNews: "Pound also said that the current testing procedure of
> having both an A and a B sample was being discussed, possibly resulting in
> the suppression of the counter-analysis. "There is a body of thought
> amongst our stakeholders that the A (sample) should be enough; and there
> is another body of thought amongst others that the B provides a protection
> in the very few cases where the A might be improperly analysed," he said."
>
> Yikes! At the very least, the B sample should be used to rule out gross
> negligence by the original lab (by having it sent someplace else). Hard to
> believe that people's livelihoods would be determined entirely by one lab,
> at one point in time, with no means of further analysis.
>


That sure would have helped out in the Marion Jones case just, there's no
way possible the B test could have been different then the A test right?
That's the probably the whole reason he wants to eliminate the B test, you
don't want to run into embarrassing situations like that do you? Get rid of
the B test and all your worries are over.

-Fred

[MagillaGorilla]

Fred Pan wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>From CyclingNews: "Pound also said that the current testing procedure of
>>having both an A and a B sample was being discussed, possibly resulting in
>>the suppression of the counter-analysis. "There is a body of thought
>>amongst our stakeholders that the A (sample) should be enough; and there
>>is another body of thought amongst others that the B provides a protection
>>in the very few cases where the A might be improperly analysed," he said."
>>
>>Yikes! At the very least, the B sample should be used to rule out gross
>>negligence by the original lab (by having it sent someplace else). Hard to
>>believe that people's livelihoods would be determined entirely by one lab,
>>at one point in time, with no means of further analysis.
>>
>
>
>
> That sure would have helped out in the Marion Jones case just, there's no
> way possible the B test could have been different then the A test right?
> That's the probably the whole reason he wants to eliminate the B test, you
> don't want to run into embarrassing situations like that do you? Get rid of
> the B test and all your worries are over.
>
> -Fred


Listen up all you K-Feds,

Marion Jones' A-sample was positive (over the 80% BAP). Her B-sample
was probably around 78% give or take. Since the threshold for positive
is 80%, they had to declare it negative. But the reality is everyone at
USADA believes Jones took EPO, and her B-sample was only a technical
negative.

If in fact she were not taking EPO, it would probably have been much lower.

And though her B-sample wasn't a technical positive, it was in the range
that says there was a 99.9% chance she was positive for EPO.

So don't confuse a conservative cut-off as being tantamount to a
negative test or an "incorrect" A-sample result.


Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> From CyclingNews: "Pound also said that the current testing procedure of
> having both an A and a B sample was being discussed, possibly resulting in
> the suppression of the counter-analysis. "There is a body of thought amongst
> our stakeholders that the A (sample) should be enough; and there is another
> body of thought amongst others that the B provides a protection in the very
> few cases where the A might be improperly analysed," he said."
>
> Yikes! At the very least, the B sample should be used to rule out gross
> negligence by the original lab (by having it sent someplace else). Hard to
> believe that people's livelihoods would be determined entirely by one lab,
> at one point in time, with no means of further analysis.
>

<snip>

> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Mikey,

So when a prosecutor charges someone with a capital crime, do you think
the defense re-tests the DNA results?

Do you think the prosecutor's expert even does a B-sample test?

Why should sports be any different?


Take care,

Magilla

[Bill C]

On Nov 17, 6:37 pm, MagillaGorilla > wrote:
>
> So when a prosecutor charges someone with a capital crime, do you think
> the defense re-tests the DNA results?
>
> Do you think the prosecutor's expert even does a B-sample test?
>
> Why should sports be any different?
>
> Take care,
>
> Magilla

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/3566513.html

Jan. 5, 2006, 1:38AM
HPD LAB PROBE DETAILS MORE LAPSES
Revelations show 2 divisions' troubles amount to a 'near-total
breakdown'


By STEVE MCVICKER and ROMA KHANNA
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW

RESOURCES
CRIME LAB UNDER FIRE

In the three years since problems with DNA analyses by the Houston
Police Department crime lab first surfaced, concerns about the accuracy
of the lab's work have spread to four other divisions and cast doubt on
thousands of cases:
· December 2002: The DNA division is closed after an audit uncovers
widespread problems with personnel, procedures and facilities there.

· January 2003: Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal plans
to retest DNA evidence from hundreds of cases.

· March 2003: Josiah Sutton, convicted on the basis of faulty DNA
tests by the HPD lab, is released from prison after serving more than
four years for a rape he did not commit. Also, HPD's ballistics work is
questioned for the first time.

· April 2003: Harris County's 22 criminal district judges call on
Rosenthal to step aside and allow an independent probe. He refuses.

· June 2003: Seven HPD employees are disciplined over crime lab
problems, and two retire to avoid disciplinary action. A memo shows
then-Police Chief C.O. Bradford met with DNA analysts in 1999 regarding
lab problems.

· October 2003: After its head fails a proficiency test, the
toxicology division is shut down.

· August 2004: HPD discovers misplaced boxes of evidence from
thousands of cases. New Police Chief Harold Hurtt announces plans for
an independent probe.

· October 2004: George Rodriguez, who has served 17 years in prison
on a rape conviction, is released after the discovery of errors in the
work of a fourth crime lab division: serology.

· March 2005: Independent investigator Michael Bromwich, a former
U.S. Justice Department official, opens his inquiry.

· May 2005: HPD analysts in a fifth division, controlled substances,
fabricated results in some drug tests, Bromwich reports.

· Summer 2005: The independent investigation stalls for two months
while HPD and the City Council weigh whether to continue funding it.

· December 2005: A panel of experts who reviewed 13 serology cases
for the Houston Chronicle finds problems in more than half of them.

· January 2006: Bromwich uncovers problems in one-third of the cases
from the serology and DNA divisions that his team has reviewed. He also
reports finding instances in which crime lab analysts withheld
exculpatory evidence. Three analysts are suspended while HPD
investigates their work.

· Future: Bromwich's team will continue its review of 2,700 crime lab
cases, including an expanded sampling from the serology division.
Analysts in two divisions of the Houston crime lab failed to report
evidence that might have helped criminal suspects, and they made errors
in almost one-third of the cases reviewed in a test sample, an
independent investigator reported Wednesday.

The problems in the Houston Police Department lab amounted to "a
near-total breakdown" in the DNA and serology divisions over a 15-year
period, Michael Bromwich said.

Damned glad those labs are infallible and don't need any independent
oversight.
Bill C

[nobody]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:33:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla >
wrote:

>Fred Pan wrote:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>>From CyclingNews: "Pound also said that the current testing procedure of
>>>having both an A and a B sample was being discussed, possibly resulting in
>>>the suppression of the counter-analysis. "There is a body of thought
>>>amongst our stakeholders that the A (sample) should be enough; and there
>>>is another body of thought amongst others that the B provides a protection
>>>in the very few cases where the A might be improperly analysed," he said."
>>>
>>>Yikes! At the very least, the B sample should be used to rule out gross
>>>negligence by the original lab (by having it sent someplace else). Hard to
>>>believe that people's livelihoods would be determined entirely by one lab,
>>>at one point in time, with no means of further analysis.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That sure would have helped out in the Marion Jones case just, there's no
>> way possible the B test could have been different then the A test right?
>> That's the probably the whole reason he wants to eliminate the B test, you
>> don't want to run into embarrassing situations like that do you? Get rid of
>> the B test and all your worries are over.
>>
>> -Fred
>
>
>Listen up all you K-Feds,
>
>Marion Jones' A-sample was positive (over the 80% BAP). Her B-sample
>was probably around 78% give or take. Since the threshold for positive
>is 80%, they had to declare it negative. But the reality is everyone at
>USADA believes Jones took EPO, and her B-sample was only a technical
>negative.
>
>If in fact she were not taking EPO, it would probably have been much lower.
>
>And though her B-sample wasn't a technical positive, it was in the range
>that says there was a 99.9% chance she was positive for EPO.
>
>So don't confuse a conservative cut-off as being tantamount to a
>negative test or an "incorrect" A-sample result.
>
>
>Magilla

Got it, Mr 99% monkey DNA.

[[email protected]]

Bill C wrote:

> · January 2006: Bromwich uncovers problems in one-third of the cases
> from the serology and DNA divisions that his team has reviewed. He also
> reports finding instances in which crime lab analysts withheld
> exculpatory evidence. Three analysts are suspended while HPD
> investigates their work.

One link I provided earlier mentioned "false testimony". Which would
seem to be lying under oath.

Well, if you know the son of a bitch is guilty... (see Magilla post,
above)

> Damned glad those labs are infallible and don't need any independent
> oversight.

What are we gonna do when the newspapers all go under?

Yo. Let God sort 'em out! --D-y

[Bruce Gilbert]

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


On Nov 17, 6:37 pm, MagillaGorilla > wrote:
>
> So when a prosecutor charges someone with a capital crime, do you think
> the defense re-tests the DNA results?
>
> Do you think the prosecutor's expert even does a B-sample test?
>
> Why should sports be any different?
>
> Take care,
>
> Magilla

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/3566513.html

Jan. 5, 2006, 1:38AM
HPD LAB PROBE DETAILS MORE LAPSES
Revelations show 2 divisions' troubles amount to a 'near-total
breakdown'


By STEVE MCVICKER and ROMA KHANNA
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW

RESOURCES
CRIME LAB UNDER FIRE

In the three years since problems with DNA analyses by the Houston
Police Department crime lab first surfaced, concerns about the accuracy
of the lab's work have spread to four other divisions and cast doubt on
thousands of cases:
· December 2002: The DNA division is closed after an audit uncovers
widespread problems with personnel, procedures and facilities there.

· January 2003: Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal plans
to retest DNA evidence from hundreds of cases.

· March 2003: Josiah Sutton, convicted on the basis of faulty DNA
tests by the HPD lab, is released from prison after serving more than
four years for a rape he did not commit. Also, HPD's ballistics work is
questioned for the first time.

· April 2003: Harris County's 22 criminal district judges call on
Rosenthal to step aside and allow an independent probe. He refuses.

· June 2003: Seven HPD employees are disciplined over crime lab
problems, and two retire to avoid disciplinary action. A memo shows
then-Police Chief C.O. Bradford met with DNA analysts in 1999 regarding
lab problems.

· October 2003: After its head fails a proficiency test, the
toxicology division is shut down.

· August 2004: HPD discovers misplaced boxes of evidence from
thousands of cases. New Police Chief Harold Hurtt announces plans for
an independent probe.

· October 2004: George Rodriguez, who has served 17 years in prison
on a rape conviction, is released after the discovery of errors in the
work of a fourth crime lab division: serology.

· March 2005: Independent investigator Michael Bromwich, a former
U.S. Justice Department official, opens his inquiry.

· May 2005: HPD analysts in a fifth division, controlled substances,
fabricated results in some drug tests, Bromwich reports.

· Summer 2005: The independent investigation stalls for two months
while HPD and the City Council weigh whether to continue funding it.

· December 2005: A panel of experts who reviewed 13 serology cases
for the Houston Chronicle finds problems in more than half of them.

· January 2006: Bromwich uncovers problems in one-third of the cases
from the serology and DNA divisions that his team has reviewed. He also
reports finding instances in which crime lab analysts withheld
exculpatory evidence. Three analysts are suspended while HPD
investigates their work.

· Future: Bromwich's team will continue its review of 2,700 crime lab
cases, including an expanded sampling from the serology division.
Analysts in two divisions of the Houston crime lab failed to report
evidence that might have helped criminal suspects, and they made errors
in almost one-third of the cases reviewed in a test sample, an
independent investigator reported Wednesday.

The problems in the Houston Police Department lab amounted to "a
near-total breakdown" in the DNA and serology divisions over a 15-year
period, Michael Bromwich said.

Damned glad those labs are infallible and don't need any independent
oversight.
Bill C



Hey, Houston is my town. We are damed proud of our law enforcing lab. It
gives us the right data, no matter what the obstacles.

I bet we could slip a parcel of francs under the table a few times and get
the anti doping contract set up for a mobile HPD lab, right there at the
race finish, pretty as you please.

That way, we could just get rid of those no-count French wimps in the fist
stage or two and then get the real man's event rocking.

Seriously though, here is a scenario about Landis that I heard a couple of
doctors discussing. What would have been the possibility of a race fan on a
tight mountain pass, with a wad of testosterone topical in his hand,
touching Landis and patting him on the back to drive the compound into the
wet jersey material? That is quite a lot to think over!

Bruce

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article . net>,
"Bruce Gilbert" > wrote:

> Seriously though, here is a scenario about Landis that I heard a couple of
> doctors discussing. What would have been the possibility of a race fan on a
> tight mountain pass, with a wad of testosterone topical in his hand,
> touching Landis and patting him on the back to drive the compound into the
> wet jersey material? That is quite a lot to think over!
>
> Bruce

The traditional means of sabotage is not this (frankly bizarre) secret-T
scenario: it's a kidney punch.

Choose a different defence,

--
Ryan Cousineau 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

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:28:40 GMT, "Bruce Gilbert"
> wrote:

>Damned glad those labs are infallible and don't need any independent
>oversight.

Forensic labs have two of the toughest independent oversight bodies
out there - three if you do business with New York State. If you
aren't a captive lab for a large police department and you expect to
do much forensic work in the U.S., you need at least one and
preferably two of the above to make a living.

No comment about labs outside the U.S. Not our problem, not our
competition. FWIW, we expect to have all three by the end of the
summer.

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