| |
Main
Date: 23 May 2007 11:32:25
From: Sandy
Subject: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
Authoratative in is presentation, he didn't nibble away at the LNDD lab - he
did his best to savage it. At very least, he offered a position one could
take to discredit the results and physical procedures at that lab.
But there is something a little disturbing, which can be read two ways.
His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
see it.
First, that if the new instrumentation, software, procedures are all the
latest in the state of the art, and the older generation instruments are now
antiques, less reliable too, then the Test B protocol is no better than
informative, but not conclusive, even if properly performed. Everyone
agrees that Test A is unsatisfactory, as it will not identify certain doping
methods. Now, Test B is called into question in the overall scheme. As I
have posited before, both methodologies are suspect, there is variation
between WADA labs on the precise procedures which constitute good practice.
What's the panel to do????? Not an easy task, but one clear avenue is to
discard the entire set of findings on Landis, as the WADA and UCI rules of
finding a violation is not supported by a clear scientific consensus. The
more likely route is to allow this in as evidence of performance of the
proper tests, and more or less properly, but give it limited NOT irrebutable
weight in proof of doping.
What then ????? Then, one is left with the testimony of everyone _except_
the academics, and you have to look at Landis' _conduct_ to be
determinative. Conduct as he himself testified, as well as circumstantial
evidence from other lay witnesses. Also, the testimony of Joe Papp can be
given limited weight to show that doping is done, the kind of product in
question is in common use, and even Landis stated that he searched the
internet to learn about the effects of various doping products.
I think this has turned out to be a very hard case. Most of all, in my
mind, it will need to rest on what Landis proposed himself - you can believe
him or not. If anything, I see this arb as having arrived at exactly the
right issue to be resolved. If UCI loses, and appeals to TAS, and wins
reversal on the basis of all the technical testimony, then we know that WADA
is, unequivocally, an evil. But we already knew that.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 13:34:55
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
On May 24, 3:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article <46552f5d$0$16220$426a7...@news.free.fr>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> > Dans le message de
> >news:YOURhoward-E11FC6.22572823052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
> > Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=
=E9clar=E9 :
> > > In article <ptf8535g6jg1868d7vefo0p95uo4kn8...@4ax.com>,
> > > Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> > >>> His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
> > >>> manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
> > >>> Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
> > >>> participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
> > >>> appear, as I see it.
>
> > >> A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
> > >> shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
> > >> testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
> > >> lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
> > >> anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
> > >> for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
> > >> machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
> > >> effort and justify the risk.
>
> > > I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
> > > thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
> > > questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
> > > said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
> > > demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
> > > showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
> > > positive results than good results.
>
> > I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs f=
ail
> > to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
> > Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
> > detection ? =20
>
> Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion
> equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not
> looking for scapegoats.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Except they'd lose their Wada certification in a heartbeat and Pound
would be accusing them of enabling and assisting the dopers.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 13:38:00
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
In article <46540a2a$0$6795$426a74cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
> Authoratative in is presentation, he didn't nibble away at the LNDD lab - he
> did his best to savage it. At very least, he offered a position one could
> take to discredit the results and physical procedures at that lab.
>
> But there is something a little disturbing, which can be read two ways.
>
> His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
> manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
> Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
> participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
> see it.
>
> First, that if the new instrumentation, software, procedures are all the
> latest in the state of the art, and the older generation instruments are now
> antiques, less reliable too, then the Test B protocol is no better than
> informative, but not conclusive, even if properly performed. Everyone
> agrees that Test A is unsatisfactory, as it will not identify certain doping
> methods. Now, Test B is called into question in the overall scheme. As I
> have posited before, both methodologies are suspect, there is variation
> between WADA labs on the precise procedures which constitute good practice.
>
> What's the panel to do????? Not an easy task, but one clear avenue is to
> discard the entire set of findings on Landis, as the WADA and UCI rules of
> finding a violation is not supported by a clear scientific consensus. The
> more likely route is to allow this in as evidence of performance of the
> proper tests, and more or less properly, but give it limited NOT irrebutable
> weight in proof of doping.
>
> What then ????? Then, one is left with the testimony of everyone _except_
> the academics, and you have to look at Landis' _conduct_ to be
> determinative. Conduct as he himself testified, as well as circumstantial
> evidence from other lay witnesses. Also, the testimony of Joe Papp can be
> given limited weight to show that doping is done, the kind of product in
> question is in common use, and even Landis stated that he searched the
> internet to learn about the effects of various doping products.
>
> I think this has turned out to be a very hard case. Most of all, in my
> mind, it will need to rest on what Landis proposed himself - you can believe
> him or not. If anything, I see this arb as having arrived at exactly the
> right issue to be resolved. If UCI loses, and appeals to TAS, and wins
> reversal on the basis of all the technical testimony, then we know that WADA
> is, unequivocally, an evil. But we already knew that.
Apologies for this rather short question at the end of your long and
useful analysis, but isn't the big problem that if legitimate problems
with the testing are raised, that any attempt to convict from there on
out becomes a case of "fake, but accurate"?
Perhaps I don't understand the purview of this hearing, but I would have
assumed that their job was primarily to confirm that the testing was
done to protocol (I assume the protocols themselves, like it or not, are
essentially taken as having "judicial notice" barring extraordinary
evidence to the contrary).
As for the testimony of Joe Papp, well, is he any better as a witness of
the state of performance enhancement than the aspiring pro who posted
here about his kenacort problem? I know they just brought him in to
counter the "T is a useless drug for instant performance" assertion from
the Landis side, but while it's one thing if you've got Dr. Puffinstuff
declaring that he did a proper study with 10 athletes, and found out
that testosterone doping was like rocket fuel you could drink, but if
the most compelling evidence you can find is Joe Papp, nearly-pro rider,
who has apparently ridden in "multi-day stage races like the Tour de
France" (what, the Giro, the Vuelta, some other 21-day tour I haven't
heard about? RAAM?), then I begin to wonder if you don't have a very
good case on that point.
http://www.joepapp.com/index.php?page=detailsnews&element=219
Oh dear heavens. Papp is Kenacort Guy:
"During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping
under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States, Europe
and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO, HGH,
cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and amphetamines"
Aren't insulin and cortisone like the two-fer of drugs for dumb athletes?
Looking into the heart or soul of Landis would seem to be a bit outside
of the purview of this hearing, but I'm not a member of the AAA. or AA.
I'm an enemy of Bill W.
Also, and this has now gone from tangent to personal dissing, but can
anyone please explain the case of Joe Papp's missing wife? Like any
red-blooded American (note clever Joe Papp riding-the-Tour elision!) I
think Hugo Chavez is the devil, but if she was hiding in Venezuela, what
thing was preventing her from traveling to Europe, or the US, or for
that matter, just to Brazil? As far as I know, the country's borders are
still open, along with its airports.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 21:37:35
From: SandM
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis and Sr.Papp
|
I counter that Papp's testimony shows that Testoserone & al. really have a
limited effect. He clearly did not become a superstar because of superior
Pharms. Until they could show that he was a middling Cat II when he
discovered the chemically enhanced benefits would I believe he helped the
USADA.
> As for the testimony of Joe Papp, well, is he any better as a witness of
> the state of performance enhancement than the aspiring pro who posted
> here about his kenacort problem? I know they just brought him in to
> counter the "T is a useless drug for instant performance" assertion from
> the Landis side, but while it's one thing if you've got Dr. Puffinstuff
> declaring that he did a proper study with 10 athletes, and found out
> that testosterone doping was like rocket fuel you could drink, but if
> the most compelling evidence you can find is Joe Papp, nearly-pro rider,
> who has apparently ridden in "multi-day stage races like the Tour de
> France" (what, the Giro, the Vuelta, some other 21-day tour I haven't
> heard about? RAAM?), then I begin to wonder if you don't have a very
> good case on that point.
>
> http://www.joepapp.com/index.php?page=detailsnews&element=219
>
> Oh dear heavens. Papp is Kenacort Guy:
>
> "During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping
> under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States, Europe
> and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO, HGH,
> cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and amphetamines"
>
> Aren't insulin and cortisone like the two-fer of drugs for dumb athletes?
>
> Looking into the heart or soul of Landis would seem to be a bit outside
> of the purview of this hearing, but I'm not a member of the AAA. or AA.
> I'm an enemy of Bill W.
>
> Also, and this has now gone from tangent to personal dissing, but can
> anyone please explain the case of Joe Papp's missing wife? Like any
> red-blooded American (note clever Joe Papp riding-the-Tour elision!) I
> think Hugo Chavez is the devil, but if she was hiding in Venezuela, what
> thing was preventing her from traveling to Europe, or the US, or for
> that matter, just to Brazil? As far as I know, the country's borders are
> still open, along with its airports.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 15:55:39
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
Dans le message de news:rcousine-342851.06375923052007@news.telus.net,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> Apologies for this rather short question at the end of your long and
> useful analysis, but isn't the big problem that if legitimate problems
> with the testing are raised, that any attempt to convict from there on
> out becomes a case of "fake, but accurate"?
No evidence is foolproof. Findings of fact are seldom inescapable. But
when the process requires a decision, you can make the best out of the best
evidence. Fake evidence has not been presented, even if some of it is very
controversial as to accuracy and methodology.
> Perhaps I don't understand the purview of this hearing, but I would
> have assumed that their job was primarily to confirm that the testing
> was done to protocol (I assume the protocols themselves, like it or
> not, are essentially taken as having "judicial notice" barring
> extraordinary evidence to the contrary).
Judicial notice can be taken, for example, of the periodic chart of
elements. As to the protocols, they are "the law of the case", in part,
although not exclusively. Unless the parties demand, the panel could also
just issue a result without findings of fact or other logical basis. I
doubt that will happen. And they can decide that the law of the case is
unconscionable, thus not looking exclusively at scientific evidence. Just
because a panel does not follow the law is not a reason for discarding an
award. Really.
> As for the testimony of Joe Papp, well, is he any better as a witness
> of the state of performance enhancement than the aspiring pro who
> posted here about his kenacort problem? I know they just brought him
> in to counter the "T is a useless drug for instant performance"
> assertion from the Landis side, but while it's one thing if you've
> got Dr. Puffinstuff declaring that he did a proper study with 10
> athletes, and found out that testosterone doping was like rocket fuel
> you could drink, but if the most compelling evidence you can find is
> Joe Papp, nearly-pro rider, who has apparently ridden in "multi-day
> stage races like the Tour de France" (what, the Giro, the Vuelta,
> some other 21-day tour I haven't heard about? RAAM?), then I begin to
> wonder if you don't have a very good case on that point.
If there were a rule that stated that chewing bubble gum was a violation,
you would need nothing more than proof of it to issue a final ruling.
> http://www.joepapp.com/index.php?page=detailsnews&element=219
>
> Oh dear heavens. Papp is Kenacort Guy:
>
> "During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping
> under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States,
> Europe and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO,
> HGH, cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and
> amphetamines"
>
> Aren't insulin and cortisone like the two-fer of drugs for dumb
> athletes?
>
> Looking into the heart or soul of Landis would seem to be a bit
> outside of the purview of this hearing, but I'm not a member of the
> AAA. or AA. I'm an enemy of Bill W.
If the submission from USADA identifies the scope of review by the panel to
no more than confirming the scientific findings, then they should limit
their review to that. However, it makes so much more sense that a panel of
experts would do that. Except, of course, that there is a division of the
experts. So, the submission is more likely made on the overall grounds that
Landis used a PED in violation of UCI rules. That finding would lead to
discipline.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 09:24:08
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
>His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
>manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
>Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
>participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
>see it.
A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
justify the risk.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 22:57:28
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
In article <ptf8535g6jg1868d7vefo0p95uo4kn83nk@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> >His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
> >manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
> >Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
> >participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
> >see it.
>
> A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
> His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
> and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
> machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
> anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
> for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
> and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
> justify the risk.
I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the
test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one
for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false
positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results
than good results.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 09:52:56
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:28 -0700, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of the
>test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about that one
>for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests for false
>positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
>showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in positive results
>than good results.
Well, procedures do have to go through certification, of course. The
acceptable margin of error and the protocol for retesting varies based
on the possible consequences of positives, negatives, false positives
and false negatives. If you have a procedure to check to see if a
person is overly sensitive to Wayfarin, you tend to retest even at
high levels of confidence.
OTOH, since they do it before prescribing, most of your errors will go
away rather quickly...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:19:16
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
In article <dv5b539sik2gf74qmjfcjdcf7iug94b15h@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:28 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm thinking of
> > the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of questions raised about
> > that one for me when they guy who created it said that he didn't need to do tests
> > for false positives, let alone demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for
> > Pound, as it showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
> > positive results than good results.
>
> Well, procedures do have to go through certification, of course. The
> acceptable margin of error and the protocol for retesting varies based
> on the possible consequences of positives, negatives, false positives
> and false negatives. If you have a procedure to check to see if a
> person is overly sensitive to Wayfarin, you tend to retest even at
> high levels of confidence.
Yeah, I believe that's how it works in "real life" situations but it really didn't
seem to be the way I recall them (and the guy who is credited with being behind the
Aussie EPO blood test in particular) talking about that procedure. The way they did
it seemed less than optimal to me.
> OTOH, since they do it before prescribing, most of your errors will go
> away rather quickly...
Yeah, go away in a big way.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 08:23:24
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
Dans le message de
news:YOURhoward-E11FC6.22572823052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <ptf8535g6jg1868d7vefo0p95uo4kn83nk@4ax.com>,
> Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
>>> manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
>>> Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
>>> participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
>>> appear, as I see it.
>>
>> A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
>> shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
>> testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
>> lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
>> anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
>> for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
>> machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
>> effort and justify the risk.
>
> I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
> thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
> questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
> said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
> demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
> showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
> positive results than good results.
I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It
could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:21:17
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
In article <46552f5d$0$16220$426a74cc@news.free.fr >, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr>
wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:YOURhoward-E11FC6.22572823052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > In article <ptf8535g6jg1868d7vefo0p95uo4kn83nk@4ax.com>,
> > Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>> His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
> >>> manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
> >>> Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
> >>> participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
> >>> appear, as I see it.
> >>
> >> A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
> >> shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
> >> testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
> >> lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
> >> anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
> >> for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
> >> machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
> >> effort and justify the risk.
> >
> > I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
> > thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
> > questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
> > said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
> > demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
> > showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
> > positive results than good results.
>
> I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
> to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
> Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
> detection ? A certain GWB tried that approach in a different context. It
> could never be, in that scenario, that there was simply no doping going on.
I think that's about what Pound has been implying all along.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 19:32:00
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
In article <46552f5d$0$16220$426a74cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:YOURhoward-E11FC6.22572823052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > In article <ptf8535g6jg1868d7vefo0p95uo4kn83nk@4ax.com>,
> > Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>> His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
> >>> manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
> >>> Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
> >>> participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths
> >>> appear, as I see it.
> >>
> >> A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the
> >> shelf. His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo
> >> testing and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a
> >> lab machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
> >> anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
> >> for a test already being performed has to believe that the old
> >> machine and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the
> >> effort and justify the risk.
> >
> > I think that should appy to procedures as well as machines. I'm
> > thinking of the test that WADA is using for EPO. There were a lot of
> > questions raised about that one for me when they guy who created it
> > said that he didn't need to do tests for false positives, let alone
> > demonstrate how it worked. But that seemed fine for Pound, as it
> > showed the results that he wanted. He seems far more interested in
> > positive results than good results.
>
> I find it amusing to speculate what would ensue, should a lot of labs fail
> to find positive samples in any cases over a substantial period of time.
> Would WADA claim that the stuff is there, but deviously masked from
> detection ?
Yes, they would be correct, and were they to express the notion
equably they would attract sympathy from people who are not
looking for scapegoats.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 13:45:42
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
In article <ptf8535g6jg1868d7vefo0p95uo4kn83nk@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:32:25 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> >His testimony included the fact that he is currently designing,
> >manufacturing and selling a still better instrument. Just like Dr
> >Meier-Augenstein. There is a good deal of self-interest in their
> >participation in this arb. What can one conclude ? Two paths appear, as I
> >see it.
>
> A bit, but it isn't like cereal, make a claim and put it on the shelf.
> His machine will have to be demonstrably better, and undergo testing
> and certification. You don't put $ 50,000 or more out for a lab
> machine without proof. And I could easily take the position that
> anyone that sets about the effort and process of designing a machine
> for a test already being performed has to believe that the old machine
> and process is flawed and inaccurate enough to warrant the effort and
> justify the risk.
Is semi-quack engineering more or less common among medical guys than in
other enterprises?
But yeah, for all the reasons indicated in this case, I think that
automating any routine test is probably the way to go, as much as
possible. Process control and all that.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 11:11:14
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:45:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>Is semi-quack engineering more or less common among medical guys than in
>other enterprises?
It took two months and two visits for our last robot to be cleared for
use. At our end. Same for the one before that. The robots had to be
certified for the processes that we use them for; then we had to show
that we had the processes and personnel to run them. Doubt that a
certified lab has much room for quack engineering.
Now there are labs that have relationships that permit them to stray
later - like a local lab here in Baltimore that was a captive for a
hospital and didn't stay up to snuff. OTOH, if you are in the open
marketplace, you have to maintain marketplace recognized
certifications, and that doesn't really leave you a lot of room to run
quack engineering or quack processes. You and the machines get tested
regularly and you have to score in the upper fractions of the upper
percentile to keep the certs. Everyone does.
I'm always personally most suspicious of labs that have cozy
relationships as their predominant market. The less open the market,
IMO the less scrutiny and the more chance for drift.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 15:56:59
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:45:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Is semi-quack engineering more or less common among medical guys than in
> other enterprises?
More. As is their maths, just ask REChung.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 16:08:39
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: For Landis : Dr Davis
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:56:59 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> maths, just ask REChung.
Whose name, btw, is just one letter shy of maths (sort of) in German.
--
E. Dronkert
|
|
