Has anyone been fired (testing labs)?

Michael Press wrote:

In article


,

jean-yves hervé wrote:


In article ,
Michael Press wrote:


In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
disposed of quietly?

How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.


What reason did the UCI give for prematurely announcing
laboratory data?

That reaon was UCI speculation, not fact.



Why is it Landis could not continue
racing until the investigation and hearings were
completed?

He could. He chose not to. Don't you know the basic facts of the case?


Accusation is proof of guilt.

In WADA tests, a positive dope test ends up being proven true 99.9% of
the time. So if by accusation, you mean positive test, you are correct.

When your doctor tells you you tested positive for strep throat, do you
tell him,"Oh that's just your ****ing accusation."


I am
extrapolating from one known case of irregularities at
the laboratory that was never publicly resolved.

Well, share it with everyone. Don't hide it.

Magilla

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:


Michael Press wrote:


In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:



RonSonic wrote:



On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:




Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:



Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-

#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?

The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.


The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
what the question is about.

How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?


Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
disposed of quietly?


Both of these are incredibly stupid questions with obvious answers that
you should be able to come up with yourself.


You asked "How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?".
I do not. _That_ is the problem.

Sounds like Lance's problem, not your problem. If Lance and the
athletes don't care, why should we?

Magilla

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:


Howard Kveck wrote:


In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:



Howard Kveck wrote:



In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:




Kurgan Gringioni wrote:




MagillaGorilla wrote:




I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
negative tests?



Dumbass -

It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.


Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
person running the test.


How do you know that?



Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
the results based on this impartiality?


No. I'm saying that you've made a bold statement about who did or did not leak
the results but you haven't offered any sort of rational reason why you believe it
to be true.



Wrong. You guys are implying that leaking information equates to
falsifying it. The burden of proof lays with you, not me. If you can't
prove the lab work was falsified, then you failed to meet your burden.


The burden of proof is to show that an assay on five
year old samples is reliable. We have not seen the
false positive and false negative rates on fresh
samples. The WADA protocol is mostly kept secret.

The EPO testing protocol is not secret. It's been published for years.


Thanks,

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Dumbass -


The "access" example I gave of our Math Department was they had access
to change the results.

That is not acceptable.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



Nobody's changing lab results.



Dumbass -

How do you know?

The lab is already not following other protocol.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Dumbass -


The "access" example I gave of our Math Department was they had access
to change the results.

That is not acceptable.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



Nobody's changing lab results.




Dumbass -

How do you know?

The lab is already not following other protocol.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



Then how do they get the B-samples to match the A's sample results - the
B-samples are tested in front of expert witnesses selected by the athletes?

That's how I know.


Magilla

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:50:39 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article


,

jean-yves hervé wrote:


In article ,
Michael Press wrote:


In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
disposed of quietly?

How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.


What reason did the UCI give for prematurely announcing
laboratory data?

That reaon was UCI speculation, not fact.



Why is it Landis could not continue
racing until the investigation and hearings were
completed?

He could. He chose not to. Don't you know the basic facts of the case?


Accusation is proof of guilt.

In WADA tests, a positive dope test ends up being proven true 99.9% of
the time. So if by accusation, you mean positive test, you are correct.

When your doctor tells you you tested positive for strep throat, do you
tell him,"Oh that's just your ****ing accusation."

No, but if the kid down the street tells me you tested positive for chlamydea,
should I believe him?

Ron

I am
extrapolating from one known case of irregularities at
the laboratory that was never publicly resolved.

Well, share it with everyone. Don't hide it.

Magilla

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article

,
jean-yves hervé wrote:
How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.

What reason did the UCI give for prematurely announcing
laboratory data? Why is it Landis could not continue
racing until the investigation and hearings were
completed? Accusation is proof of guilt. I am
extrapolating from one known case of irregularities at
the laboratory that was never publicly resolved.

I don't give a damn what reasons the UCI had for doing what they did.
They received the results from the lab and then *they* decided to
announce them urbi et orbi. This has nothing to do with the lab. So,
contrary to your claim, there is only a single case (Armstrong) of
results improperly leaking out for the Chatenay Malabry lab. I don't if
you realize that you sound just like a member of the Landis PR team by
repeating stuff like that that is patently false just because you think
that it damages the image of the lab.

jyh.

In article

,
jean-yves hervé wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article

,
jean-yves hervé wrote:
How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.

What reason did the UCI give for prematurely announcing
laboratory data? Why is it Landis could not continue
racing until the investigation and hearings were
completed? Accusation is proof of guilt. I am
extrapolating from one known case of irregularities at
the laboratory that was never publicly resolved.

I don't give a damn what reasons the UCI had for doing what they did.
They received the results from the lab and then *they* decided to
announce them urbi et orbi. This has nothing to do with the lab. So,
contrary to your claim, there is only a single case (Armstrong) of
results improperly leaking out for the Chatenay Malabry lab. I don't if
you realize that you sound just like a member of the Landis PR team by
repeating stuff like that that is patently false just because you think
that it damages the image of the lab.

Answer to the first question is that the UCI
preemptively announced the result to prevent someone
else announcing it.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:


Firstly, I haven't said anything about "falsifying" tests. But why do
you think that a person who might come up with a result on a test being
used in a way that has never been run through any sort of trial would not
have any compunctions about leaking that result?



So you in fact ARE implying the results were falsified.

No, you in fact are reading more into what I wrote than is there. By doing so,
you evade the question. You stated that the person who did the test wouldn't be the
one who leaked it, yet you can't give any reason for that assertion.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?