-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article .com,
gds wrote:


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.


- - That validates the test, but not the lab. No matter how good
the science, the process needs to be validated. It's one thing to
perform a test on a few samples with a potential publication pumping up
your CV. It's a whole 'nother thing to do it on an industrial
basis day after day.

_ The lab in this case may be just fine, but real crime labs have
to do this kind of validation, why not the WADA labs? An open
process would have the results of this kind of testing publically
available. It would be a fairly simple matter to include a few quality
control samples in every batch.

_ It's important to remember that once a bureacracy is formed
it's primarly purpose is the continuation of the bureacracy.
Regardless of what it's supposed to do, getting next year's
funding is always job #1. WADA has a huge incentive to find
cheats and zero incentive have a fair process. Unless getting
next year's funding is dependent on passing such quality
controls, their results will always be suspect.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRNITDWTWTAjn5N/lAQEzSQP/eqJ4vqm/7RNII/4SYEkk7Lr5JS+4AuFP
k5uVw+GLM0J6t6LTLE4KxLZRk5pcSG1ynp9tqW4wj0bhgHVbag noZaDaf6dhKK2M
xebkvT/kcRrcyAsuBAmLhJ8WXhV//EhvnrtB4HZZXiIhJhbAUagqEhDi8APeDbj0
zFLYer7mqSQ=
=YmmY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----