Has anyone been fired (testing labs)?

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?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article .com,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

A difference in mentality can be seen with their different approach to
jurisprudence. In France, once someone is charged with a crime, it is
up to the accused to prove his/her innocence. Here it is up to the
prosecutor to prove the accused is guilty.

We go over that one every now and then in RST so you must know that this
is not true. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in France too. The
main differences between the french an US systems are in the nature of
the system:
(1) a judge is in charge of the investigation,
(2) at the trial the judge's role is not to give points to
prosecution the defense in terms of who is doing the better job but to
"uncover the truth" (which in practice may makes it look like the judge
is taking sides)
(3) jurisprudence has nowhere near the same importance as in the USA
(it does not matter much what decision on a similar affair was reached
in some ******** 10 years earlier)

Another big difference is a perversion of the system:
(4) the objective of the investigation has become to obtain a
confession. If at any point during the investigation the accused makes
a confession, the case is pretty much in the bag, and yes in that case
it looks like the accused has to prove he's innocent at the trial.

jyh.

jean-yves herve wrote:
We go over that one every now and then in RST so you must know that this
is not true. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in France too. The
main differences between the french an US systems are in the nature of
the system:
(1) a judge is in charge of the investigation,
(2) at the trial the judge's role is not to give points to
prosecution the defense in terms of who is doing the better job but to
"uncover the truth" (which in practice may makes it look like the judge
is taking sides)
(3) jurisprudence has nowhere near the same importance as in the USA
(it does not matter much what decision on a similar affair was reached
in some ******** 10 years earlier)

Another big difference is a perversion of the system:
(4) the objective of the investigation has become to obtain a
confession. If at any point during the investigation the accused makes
a confession, the case is pretty much in the bag, and yes in that case
it looks like the accused has to prove he's innocent at the trial.

Perhaps you should get it added to the FAQ.

Michael Press 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. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
irrelevant.


Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
when divulged.


Can you give me any examples of when this actually happened? A positive
test is a positive test.

Thanks,

Magilla

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?

And If you're not saying that, then shut up and don't even bring it up
to begin with because all you're doing is making some ambiguous
implication that has never been shown to be true.

Can you give me any examples of this impartiality (in results, that is)?

You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
totally different things.


Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:

You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
totally different things.





Dumbass -


It has to do with credibility.

If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
| 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?
|
| #2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the
first
| time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
| lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
| number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The
plain
| & simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
| source of such leaks, they'd be fired. Few would question that such an act
| was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not
following
| the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule. But in France,
| perhaps it's much harder to fire someone? And thus, what *might* be seen a
| an almost-heroic (in some cases) act of disobedience in the US...
something
| that someone is willing to put their reputation on the line for... in
| France, perhaps it's nothing more than a personal vendetta. A way of
easily
| taking the law into ones own hands and not having to worry much about the
| downside to doing so.
|
| So with that, I wonder... has anyone been fired from one of the testing
labs
| (for improper procedures or leaking info to the press)? Have they even
| bothered to look very hard for those guilty, if in fact there's not much
| they can do about it anyway?
|
| --Mike Jacoubowsky
| Chain Reaction Bicycles
| www.ChainReaction.com
| Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
|

Mike,

It's no harder to fire somone in France for committing a professional error
than in it is in the US. For legal reasons it has to be well documented, but
that's the case in the States too. Also, since a couple of years ago, it's
also not really much harder to lay off people for economic reasons either.
(Now companies can lay off workers even when they're profitable). It is
however more ***expensive*** to fire folks for economic reasons.

-Tom

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press 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. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
irrelevant.


Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
when divulged.

Can you give me any examples of when this actually happened? A positive
test is a positive test.

No, it is not a positive test, the assay run on the
1999 samples five years after. There is no
scientifically established protocol that can draw a
conclusion from their data.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:


Michael Press 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. Therefore, the impartiality of the leaker is
irrelevant.


Are you a Jesuit? A corrupt agent in the laboratory can
pick and choose _which_ data to divulge. The data does
not even have to have scientific weight to be damaging
when divulged.

Can you give me any examples of when this actually happened? A positive
test is a positive test.


No, it is not a positive test, the assay run on the
1999 samples five years after. There is no
scientifically established protocol that can draw a
conclusion from their data.



You are confusing WADA protocol with scientific accuracy. When you get
AIDS tested by your doctor or your wife get her pussy smear analyzed,
neither one of those are done under WADA protocol either. Does that
mean the results are not accurate.

As for the 5 year lapse of time, so what. The samples were frozen.
They didn't degrade in the freezer.

Magilla

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
totally different things.






Dumbass -


It has to do with credibility.

If the lab doesn't follow the rules in one instance, then . . . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.



I disagree. The only person that matters is the guy who runs the test.
If some secretary in LNDD is leaking info to her brother at L'Equipe,
it don't mean Jack.



Magilla