Hell, now I don't trust Lance nor WADA

This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.

Ken

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" wrote:

This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.

Ken

So whom do you like, Ken

a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.

-or-

a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?

I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
irony, however, is ...

-jet

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:05:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" wrote:

This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.

Ken

So whom do you like, Ken

a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.

-or-

a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?

I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
irony, however, is ...

-jet


I'm sorta with Ken on this one. It's not a matter of "like". It's a
matter of trust.

The "Testing for EPO" thread I started yesterday brought Robert Chung
linking the EPO testing procedure outline at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/d...2004epo_en.pdf

After reading it I pretty much don't trust any labs either. There is
WAY too much room for not only error but sabatoge.

It wouldn't change anything for me to find out he did "play the game".
But then again I'm a big Pantani fan so my expectations are probably
lower than most.

I spent many years in Nuclear Power where I dealt on a daily basis with
some of the most sophisticated labs known. I was dealing with metals
analysis as well as chemical stuff. Incorrect results were fairly common
when done by persons on a regularly scheduled certification program. All
were good people, trained under very strict standards but still the mistakes
came. Most were caused by human error in handling samples. Minute
contamination caused most incorrect results. Labs always denied any
procedural errors but submitting dual samples often proved otherwise. Not
saying anything went wrong here but just that results can be wrong, either
through mistake or tainting. As I said before, I will believe in the
accused until proven with a doubt.

Ken
"D. Ferguson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:05:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" wrote:

This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up
and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.

Ken

So whom do you like, Ken

a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.

-or-

a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?

I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
irony, however, is ...

-jet


I'm sorta with Ken on this one. It's not a matter of "like". It's a
matter of trust.

The "Testing for EPO" thread I started yesterday brought Robert Chung
linking the EPO testing procedure outline at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/d...2004epo_en.pdf

After reading it I pretty much don't trust any labs either. There is
WAY too much room for not only error but sabatoge.

It wouldn't change anything for me to find out he did "play the game".
But then again I'm a big Pantani fan so my expectations are probably
lower than most.

You not only use two samples, but send the two samples to 3 different
labs, then compare results.

The 3 labs always come back with different results from each other...




IMKen wrote:
I spent many years in Nuclear Power where I dealt on a daily basis with
some of the most sophisticated labs known. I was dealing with metals
analysis as well as chemical stuff. Incorrect results were fairly common
when done by persons on a regularly scheduled certification program. All
were good people, trained under very strict standards but still the mistakes
came. Most were caused by human error in handling samples. Minute
contamination caused most incorrect results. Labs always denied any
procedural errors but submitting dual samples often proved otherwise. Not
saying anything went wrong here but just that results can be wrong, either
through mistake or tainting. As I said before, I will believe in the
accused until proven with a doubt.

Ken
"D. Ferguson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:05:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:58 GMT, "IMKen" wrote:

This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up
and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.

Ken

So whom do you like, Ken

a definitely evil Corporation which would harm hundreds of riders without
just cause, which definitely harmed accused athletes who turned out to be
innocent and did not make them whole afterwards.

-or-

a possibly untruthful individual who could potentially cheat three other
potentially cheating riders out of their placings in a bicycle race?

I kid in that there's no good justification for immoral behavior. The
irony, however, is ...

-jet


I'm sorta with Ken on this one. It's not a matter of "like". It's a
matter of trust.

The "Testing for EPO" thread I started yesterday brought Robert Chung
linking the EPO testing procedure outline at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/d...2004epo_en.pdf

After reading it I pretty much don't trust any labs either. There is
WAY too much room for not only error but sabatoge.

It wouldn't change anything for me to find out he did "play the game".
But then again I'm a big Pantani fan so my expectations are probably
lower than most.

IMKen wrote:
I spent many years in Nuclear Power where I dealt on a daily basis with
some of the most sophisticated labs known. I was dealing with metals
analysis as well as chemical stuff. Incorrect results were fairly common
when done by persons on a regularly scheduled certification program. All
were good people, trained under very strict standards but still the mistakes
came. Most were caused by human error in handling samples. Minute
contamination caused most incorrect results. Labs always denied any
procedural errors but submitting dual samples often proved otherwise. Not
saying anything went wrong here but just that results can be wrong, either
through mistake or tainting. As I said before, I will believe in the
accused until proven with a doubt.


I've worked in pathology labs for about 10 years and lo and behold I've
witnessed many errors.

Errors in procedures, software, machines, calibration, reagants,
cross-contaminations, sabotage, interpretation, human judgement,
oversight, ... so it's not a simple case of 1+1=2.

Let's put it this way, I would not have my kidney removed on the basis
of just one test! And I would not label any athlete a cheat based on
one lab's test either.

Armstrong has passed over 300 tests but apparently fails one based on
1999 samples, this makes that lab look extremely dodgy.

Also that lab did not follow the proper protocol and procedures, they
are suppose to obtain the permission of atheletes to test the B
samples. They should then report the results to the appropriate
governing bodies not to the tabloids! This behavior is no small breach
of conduct, its a major deviation of the correct medico-legal
procedures.

And I would have thought the WADA should get their pathology results
directly from the lab, not via the newspapers.

Anyway the bottom line for me is would you guys let someone chop your
kidney's out based on tests done on frozen 1999 urine samples? Nope
didn't think so.

Cheers.

IMKen wrote:
This entire doping thing has demonstrated that the system is screwed up and
need re work. I no longer trust WADA or Lance.

It seems that WADA was great while those dirty French riders tested
positive, but their testing methods have suddenly become much more suspect
now that Hamilton and Armstrong are in trouble.

Alvin Ryder wrote:
IMKen wrote:

snip

Also that lab did not follow the proper protocol and procedures, they
are suppose to obtain the permission of atheletes to test the B
samples. They should then report the results to the appropriate
governing bodies not to the tabloids! This behavior is no small breach
of conduct, its a major deviation of the correct medico-legal
procedures.

And I would have thought the WADA should get their pathology results
directly from the lab, not via the newspapers.

Anyway the bottom line for me is would you guys let someone chop your
kidney's out based on tests done on frozen 1999 urine samples? Nope
didn't think so.

Cheers.



Hey Chipmunk,

The lab did follow the correct procedure for doing RESEARCH. It was the
newspaper who made the link between the RESEARCH result and the athlete,
not the WADA lab. And the WADA lab doesn't need the permission of the
athlete to test the B sample. Once they have the sample, the athlete
already gave consent to test it.

Magilla

So, Dave, what was it you do for a living again?

As I stated before, listening in on conversations between a high level
separation science analytical chemist and even managers from very well
respected laboratories I got the idea that this is a great deal more
art than science.

Most certainly analytical chemistry is a hard science but it doesn't
follow rules that are simple. This means that there are relatively few
people who do understand the science and MANY who follow directions
without knowing why. In too many cases, these people really don't know
what they're doing and yet are given complete confidence.