wrote:

For the purpose of discusion, I will accept everything you say. The
problem I have is that WADA/UCI have not produced a study of an
appropriate sized sample, say 100 or 1,000, which was tested blind.
In the study technicians would given samples of unknown content (to
them) and told to identify which of the samples had exogenous T and
which did not.. Of course many of the samples would have idential
composition, and be given to different individuals (from different
labs). Then the resulting data should be made known to the public so
it can be reveiwed and commented upon.

Said another way, describing a complex test does not answer the
question "does the test actually do what it is claimed to do." The
thrust of the machine manufacturer's comments is the answer is "no."

The process that you describe has parts that make some parts that
don't.
As far as getting a valid and reliable test. Of course! In fact for a
test to be considered valid and reliable a process much like what you
describe is what happens. A test is developed and the results are
published. If the publication is a peer reviewed journal then a panel
of experts reviews the study methodology and determines that there is
merit (not necessarily that is correct) to its publication. The
publication will include a detailed description of the methodology so
that others researchers in other labs can try to replicate the results.
Both positive and negative results will then be published and the
scientific community can judge the level of value of the test.

So, that pretty much is consistent with your desire for lots of folks
to perfomr the test and see how accurate (reliable/valid) it is.

But then you want the "public" to comment. On what would the public
comment? Of what value would it be? The discussion is about highly
technical and complex procedures. Of what use would my degree in
economics be in judging the worth of these studies. Yes, with a bit of
logic one can see summary results and make a dilletantish judgement but
not a really scientific judgement. I sure don't put much stock in a
chemist's opinion of my currency exchange rate prediction model. But a
lot of other economists have liked it.