Catlin's lab's reputation in tatters !


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Catlin's lab's reputation in tatters !

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:17 pm

i got have a laugh now !

i remeber that nonsense of him never ever having had a false +ve for epo from his lab

now he's had one

i assume his big mouth has been shut up once & for all

catlin looks finished to me
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:00 pm

San Jose Mercury News wrote:But Jones' lawyer, Howard Jacobs, said the result of the A test -- analyzed at the UCLA Olympic laboratory -- was borderline. He said other drug-testing facilities might have determined it was negative.


Remember that erring on the side of caution statement... that so many "positives" walk?

Who is to say, eldrick, the "B" sample was not also consistent with the "A" sample, but that the law dudes used some ratio analysis which "proved" her borderline case should have been given the benefit of the doubt? Neither you nor I know the ratio used in this case, and I can imagine Catlin didn:t throw his career out the door to "prosecute" Jones - as he had no idea her specimen tested positive to begin with.

Jones stated, "I am pleased that a scientific process has now demonstrated that fact."

This scientific process was ridiculed by her attorneys, yet that same scientific process is praised as having worked, according to Jones.

Which is it?

If one errs on the side of caution, one protects the integrity of the test, rather than expose its weaknesses. If Catlin errs on the side of caution, he regards the specimen number corresponding to Marion Jones name as negative, and lets that one slip on by. There was a reason they claimed the "A"-sample test as being positive.

Seems the attorneys found a way to make that positive a negative without ever telling us how borderline the "B"-analysis was - or how far off the mark it was from the "A" test.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:13 pm

EPelle wrote:
San Jose Mercury News wrote:But Jones' lawyer, Howard Jacobs, said the result of the A test -- analyzed at the UCLA Olympic laboratory -- was borderline. He said other drug-testing facilities might have determined it was negative.


Remember that erring on the side of caution statement... that so many "positives" walk?

Who is to say, eldrick, the "B" sample was not also consistent with the "A" sample, but that the law dudes used some ratio analysis which "proved" her borderline case should have been given the benefit of the doubt? Neither you nor I know the ratio used in this case, and I can imagine Catlin didn:t throw his career out the door to "prosecute" Jones - as he had no idea her specimen tested positive to begin with.

Jones stated, "I am pleased that a scientific process has now demonstrated that fact."

This scientific process was ridiculed by her attorneys, yet that same scientific process is praised as having worked, according to Jones.

Which is it?

If one errs on the side of caution, one protects the integrity of the test, rather than expose its weaknesses. If Catlin errs on the side of caution, he regards the specimen number corresponding to Marion Jones name as negative, and lets that one slip on by. There was a reason they claimed the "A"-sample test as being positive.

Seems the attorneys found a way to make that positive a negative without ever telling us how borderline the "B"-analysis was - or how far off the mark it was from the "A" test.

Nice try; but a negative B-sample is a negative B-sample. It pretty much speaks for itself. If the lab is not up to snuff, that's their problem, not Marion's!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:35 pm

CookyMonzta wrote:Nice try; but a negative B-sample is a negative B-sample. It pretty much speaks for itself. If the lab is not up to snuff, that's their problem, not Marion's!

No, it doesn:t speak for itself. The "B"-sample could have been as conclusive as the "A"-sample, but interpreted by an outside source as being questionable. Will we ever learn how "borderline" that "A"-test was, and how near to "borderline" the "B"-sample was? No.

What does "borderline" suggest to you? Does it imply anything?

Her law dudes - given to fair word play - used "borderline", as to state that Marion Jones "A"-sample landed in an indefinite area intermediate between positive and negative, and infer, with that word, that Marion Jones exhibited typical - but not completely conclusive - symptoms of drugs usage.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:48 pm

EPelle wrote:Remember that erring on the side of caution statement... that so many "positives" walk?


& i also remember his boast of never any wrong epo tests

proud boast of when erring on side of caution, he never gets a wrong test has been shot to pieces

Who is to say, eldrick, the "B" sample was not also consistent with the "A" sample, but that the law dudes used some ratio analysis which "proved" her borderline case should have been given the benefit of the doubt?


as gh stated, the b test is more, rigorously approached by the head honcho rather than the anonymous batch testing of the a sample

what is this "ratio analysis" ?

the test parameters have been etched in stone since test was finalised years ago - you don't go changing the goalposts now, & certainly not on a lawyer's say-so

Neither you nor I know the ratio used in this case


see above

Jones stated, "I am pleased that a scientific process has now demonstrated that fact."

This scientific process was ridiculed by her attorneys, yet that same scientific process is praised as having worked, according to Jones.

Which is it?


the scientific process when applied rigorously, scrupulously to the b test by one of the top lab officials is worthy of praise, not the anonymous batch tested protocol followed by a lowly lab rat in the a test

If one errs on the side of caution, one protects the integrity of the test, rather than expose its weaknesses. If Catlin errs on the side of caution, he regards the specimen number corresponding to Marion Jones name as negative, and lets that one slip on by. There was a reason they claimed the "A"-sample test as being positive


i'm not sure what this polemic is about ?

all this "integrity", "caution", etc is already pre-incorporated in his previous boast of "no wrong epo tests ever by his lab"

"lets one slip buy" ?

"a reason they claimed the "A"-sample test as being positive " ?

how on earth does that configure with his previously boasted 1.000 batting average ???

Seems the attorneys found a way to make that positive a negative without ever telling us how borderline the "B"-analysis was - or how far off the mark it was from the "A" test.


who's attorneys ?

marion's ???

her attorneys are there to observe & ensure protocol is followed strictly

since when did an athlete's attorneys make the final decision on what wada are going to declare as the result ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:04 am

Ok, eldrick since we off to the pick-apart-my-words-and-I:ll-pick-apart-yours, I:ll stop right now and state:

You:re the doc. You know everything, and I have no humble opinion. I don:t contest your convential wisdom, I am out to get Marion, and I want to burn her to the ground - one hair strand at a time.

Now that we:ve gracefully (?) gotten that out of the way, read between the lines, eldrick. You:ve rarely taken what I:ve stated at full cost, so why did you begin with the Jones discovery? Take this at face-value and consider if there is another side to this. That:s it.

And, I:ve never suggested law dudes can determine what goes on in WADA:s house. This statement should literally read as such: the "A"-positive became a "B"-negative without any of us ever knowing how closely the numbers faired in conjunction with one another.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:06 am

EPelle wrote:
CookyMonzta wrote:Nice try; but a negative B-sample is a negative B-sample. It pretty much speaks for itself. If the lab is not up to snuff, that's their problem, not Marion's!

No, it doesn:t speak for itself. The "B"-sample could have been as conclusive as the "A"-sample, but interpreted by an outside source as being questionable. Will we ever learn how "borderline" that "A"-test was, and how near to "borderline" the "B"-sample was? No.

What does "borderline" suggest to you? Does it imply anything?

Her law dudes - given to fair word play - used "borderline", as to state that Marion Jones "A"-sample landed in an indefinite area intermediate between positive and negative, and infer, with that word, that Marion Jones exhibited typical - but not completely conclusive - symptoms of drugs usage.

Your argument is irrelevant. Could have, should have and would have are also irrelevant. What is relevant is what is! The fact that neither sample was consistent with the other is relevant to exonerate her.

Your attempt to use her attorneys' statements to support your argument is just as irrelevant. In fact, those statements of theirs also support the contrary. Suppose if the lab were up to snuff, what then? That 'borderline' statement would have become completely nonexistent. Did you ever think to consider the possibility of both samples coming up negative?

The fact that her attorney has quoted that the second sample is negative implies that he has information we don't. I'm prepared to take his word for it, until the lab itself says differently.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:45 am

See "borderine" explanation used on another thread.

Yes, I:ve given thought to the first test being negative. However, I:m not taking gh word as being accurate, just as he stated he was in no position to offer an authoritative viewpoint on the testing procedures.

Consider what you are stating: That some slipshod work was done at the height of the season - when batches from the United States of America Track & Field Championships began streaming in - and some dork drinking coffee over-valued the results provided from the test corresponding to Marion Jones name. Moreover, another bigger dork cross-checked that adverse finding, and is also stupid and incompetent for using wisdom + logic + understanding + history + cross-checks to make his decision - "A"-positive - on the matter. This, from a lab up-to-snuff on every occasion when it was challenged in CAS trials. Every CAS trial. Verified by independent sources with no relation to the lab, nor anything to win/lose by their findings.

Suddenly, in the corresponding number-to-name Marion Jones case, someone just happened to fall asleep at the wheel, no?

The best defense by the Jones side is that the numbers to begin with were "not up to snuff" as you like to say. They waited for the value of the "B"-test to either confirm or deny the adverse findings initially discovered, and state that the initial tests were borderline, anyway -- no one should have really given them any credence.

This is getting more ludicrous by the minute.

Edit: to those in favour of the bad-testing idea, USA Today adds the following:

"(The expert) told me the 'A' looked significantly different than the 'B,' so I can't say I was shocked by the non-confirming 'B' result."
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:21 am

as gh stated, he's not in a position to confirm lab proceedings on both tests, but he outlines a highly plausible scenario from someone who's taken higher chemistry ( & as an individual who has also taken such, i concur )

the rest of your argument is not consistent with the previous 1.000 batting average

or are we to believe that after 5y of "perfect" test results ( & probably 5,000 - 10,000 epo tests ), the first one to mess up just happens to be marion's ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:14 am

Is this in reference to the "A"-sample, or the "B"-sample?

"The scientific part of the testing protocols worked, but it is unfortunate that because of the leak of the `A' sample results, Marion was wrongfully accused of a doping violation and her reputation was unfairly questioned," said Howard Jacobs, one of Jones' attorneys.


Again:

While a non-confirming "B" test is rare in doping cases, it occurs more frequently in those involving EPO, because the reading of the results leaves significant room for interpretation. Jacobs said the decision to report Jones' "A" sample as positive was a "close call."


If the "A" sample was a "close call" - with the tie not going to the runner, who is to say that, based on the "B"-test analysis, the same "close call" argument was not put into question? That, given the hostility toward the "A"-test, anything remotely similar to it lacking convincing evidence would be cause for dismissal?

Honesly, if she was on the bubble, and her outside representative (Dr. Andy W. Murray, Ph.D., former Professor Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology Harvard University Cambridge, MA and now a scientist in San Diego) questioned that interpretation before the results of the "B"-test were announced - and stated he would concur the subsequent test was a positive one if it exceeded the "A"-level reading, why is it difficult to believe that the "A" and "B" extracts could not, in principle, be similar? Why the need for Jones camp to proclaim to us - who have nothing to do with this whatsoever - that the first, initial test, was a "close call" for Marion Jones?

Do they not know what they are inferring by that statement?

Quote source: Chicago Tribune
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mrbowie » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:21 am

Catlin has tons of credibility for his past work and is to be admired.

But this has to be considered somewhat of a setback, just because of the build up and final result.

Testing for some of these exotic substances is not easily accomplished.

This is why the cheats have an inherent edge over the cops.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:35 am

If you assume she's clean, this whole thing is outrageously cruel.

If you assume she's dirty, this testing is totally incompetent.

In other words the whole thing stinks! Plus its taken attention away from my corn dog thread.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:51 am

Have we all forgotten one thing here: WADA has insisted a second laboratory review the data that the testing lab reported as showing a positive result. That was done in Jones case according to the Chicago Tribune - which first published word of the leaked the Jones "A"-sample positive. They have independently corroborated the declared adverse findings listed as evidence by the first team of experts – a team which has never proclaimed an initial drugs screening test of any kind a false “positive”.

Are two groups of teams now incompetent? More sets of eyes fell asleep on the first test, no?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:17 am

CookyMonzta wrote:It makes you wonder, was her A-sample really positive?? Or did some so-called source scream bloody murder the minute someone in the lab shouted, "We have a problem," and that problem turned out to be related to one of the samples, and that sample just so happened to have turned out to be Marion's?? I wouldn't be surprised if the A-sample had other problems, not related to a positive test (EPO or otherwise), that required the B-sample to be tested.


And then there is this, courtesy of GH:
http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... hp?t=22157

QED. I rest my case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
Last edited by CookyMonzta on Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:27 am

EPelle wrote:Is this in reference to the "A"-sample, or the "B"-sample?

"The scientific part of the testing protocols worked, but it is unfortunate that because of the leak of the `A' sample results, Marion was wrongfully accused of a doping violation and her reputation was unfairly questioned," said Howard Jacobs, one of Jones' attorneys.


Again:

While a non-confirming "B" test is rare in doping cases, it occurs more frequently in those involving EPO, because the reading of the results leaves significant room for interpretation. Jacobs said the decision to report Jones' "A" sample as positive was a "close call."


If the "A" sample was a "close call" - with the tie not going to the runner, who is to say that, based on the "B"-test analysis, the same "close call" argument was not put into question? That, given the hostility toward the "A"-test, anything remotely similar to it lacking convincing evidence would be cause for dismissal?

Honesly, if she was on the bubble, and her outside representative (Dr. Andy W. Murray, Ph.D., former Professor Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology Harvard University Cambridge, MA and now a scientist in San Diego) questioned that interpretation before the results of the "B"-test were announced - and stated he would concur the subsequent test was a positive one if it exceeded the "A"-level reading, why is it difficult to believe that the "A" and "B" extracts could not, in principle, be similar? Why the need for Jones camp to proclaim to us - who have nothing to do with this whatsoever - that the first, initial test, was a "close call" for Marion Jones?

Do they not know what they are inferring by that statement?

Quote source: Chicago Tribune


your not getting this

catlin boasted his lab never got an epo +ve wrong

this means that any "borderline" or "close call" a tests according to him were no such thing - his lab never got it wrong

i'm asking you just one question which you have so far not come any
where close to answering :

how do "borderline" tests reconcile them with absolute infallibility ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:28 am

There is nothing spinning here.

Check your facts, please, before telling me I am attempting to bend the attorney words in after-the-fact statements. I dove in from the get-go regarding all Jones statements - and those of her attorneys. They are often ambiguous instead of direct. They choose carefully planned statements which can be interpreted several ways - instead of being direct, to-the-point, and cut-throat, as to silence all in one attempt.

Has been this way for three years. Or was that six years? I:m losing track.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:30 am

I posted this response on another thread, but it's also apropos here. Is Catlin's lab at fault?

<<
26mi235 wrote:
There are a couple of issues here. ....3) Does WADA "look the same" as it did 24 hours ago.


This is a fascinating question that goes to "where does the buck stop?"

Let's assume that the technician bungled the A-test. In that case, culpability is certainly his/hers. But how far up the line do you go after that? To the supervisor? To Catlin for it being his lab, so he shoudl be in control of everything that happens? To USADA, for using the lab and/or being the sample-takers in the first place? To WADA,which certifies USADA and, ultimately I believe, the accredited labs? Or, to WADA for certifying an apparently tough-to-get-right test in the first place? To the scientist(s) who sold WADA on the test in the first place? To the IOC, which provides such a big chunk of WADA funding?

This is a tough donkey to pin the tail on.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:36 am

eldrick, what I am not "getting" is your failure to look at the big picture. Do we know - and will we ever know - which lab had the higher probability of that test being adverse?

Do recall, eldrick, that there were two laboratories which tested this "A" EPO sample, and both labs - independent of each other - concluded the same. Your trying to knock Catlin and the UCLA centre for a suspect test which they may not have been responsible.

Please show me where Jones lawyers were able to review both samples - something they have so very well been mute to discuss - and see which centre had the higher probability of the test actually being adverse? Or did USADA show them one test?

He who knows, step forward and enlighten us.

All of this is moot, nevertheless, as the "B" sample screwed up the no-hitter in the first inning of this game.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:41 am

eh ?

2 different labs did the a & b test ?

this is news to me !

i assumed catlin's lab is the only accredited epo testing facility in US

where was the a test analysed ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:48 am

eldrick - two labs were involved in the "A"-sample test. The name and disclosure of the 2:nd laboratory - a WADA-approved one - has been withheld or not mentioned in the story.

Chicago Tribune, 2006-08-20 wrote:To improve the reliability of the urine-based EPO test, first used at the Olympics in 2000, WADA has insisted a second laboratory review the data that the testing lab reported as showing a positive result. That was done in Jones' case.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:54 am

EPelle wrote:eldrick - two labs were involved in the "A"-sample test. The name and disclosure of the 2:nd laboratory - a WADA-approved one - has been withheld or not mentioned in the story.

Chicago Tribune, 2006-08-20 wrote:To improve the reliability of the urine-based EPO test, first used at the Olympics in 2000, WADA has insisted a second laboratory review the data that the testing lab reported as showing a positive result. That was done in Jones' case.


no

that quote says "review" data that the testing lab reported as being +ve

that means to me, looking & analysing printouts NOT asking them to do the b test

it also doesn't state the conclusion of the data review
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:23 am

the list of wada accredited labs :

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2? ... ory.id=333

at the bottom are the US ones

surprise, surprise there is only 1 !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby JRM » Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:35 am

eldrick wrote:it also doesn't state the conclusion of the data review


My guess is that if the review contradicted the positive conclusion, we'd have heard about it from the Jones camp long ago (if they were privy to such information, that is).
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby OJ » Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:42 am

eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:I
your not getting this

catlin boasted his lab never got an epo +ve wrong


When did Catlin "boast" about anything? The only thing I could come up with was a paragraph by writer Brian Alexander for an Outside Magazine article on USADA's lab, but he never quoted Catlin. In fact, Catlin comes off as very reserved and professional.
OJ
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:47 am

eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:eldrick - two labs were involved in the "A"-sample test. The name and disclosure of the 2:nd laboratory - a WADA-approved one - has been withheld or not mentioned in the story.

Chicago Tribune, 2006-08-20 wrote:To improve the reliability of the urine-based EPO test, first used at the Olympics in 2000, WADA has insisted a second laboratory review the data that the testing lab reported as showing a positive result. That was done in Jones' case.


no

that quote says "review" data that the testing lab reported as being +ve

that means to me, looking & analysing printouts NOT asking them to do the b test

it also doesn't state the conclusion of the data review


eldrick, I have never introduced the "B"-testing here -- you have.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:04 am

JRM wrote:
eldrick wrote:it also doesn't state the conclusion of the data review


My guess is that if the review contradicted the positive conclusion, we'd have heard about it from the Jones camp long ago (if they were privy to such information, that is).


And it may well be that the review process has nothing to do with the conclusion, just the methodology.

As in, theoretically, if the protocol says "start with 5ml of urine at 20 degrees C" and the report says, "drew 4.9ml of urine at 18 degrees...." then they reviewer would question what went down. But I'm guessing (GUESSING, as are we all) that if the protocol is followed, then the reviewer has nothing to say.

It then falls on the tester of the B sample to duplicate the same protocol and see if the result is the same. And in this case it wasn't.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:17 am

gh wrote:
JRM wrote:
eldrick wrote:it also doesn't state the conclusion of the data review


My guess is that if the review contradicted the positive conclusion, we'd have heard about it from the Jones camp long ago (if they were privy to such information, that is).


And it may well be that the review process has nothing to do with the conclusion, just the methodology.

As in, theoretically, if the protocol says "start with 5ml of urine at 20 degrees C" and the report says, "drew 4.9ml of urine at 18 degrees...." then they reviewer would question what went down. But I'm guessing (GUESSING, as are we all) that if the protocol is followed, then the reviewer has nothing to say.

It then falls on the tester of the B sample to duplicate the same protocol and see if the result is the same. And in this case it wasn't.


I do not concur with your inference/guess. The quote is about reviewing the data:

review the data that the testing lab reported as showing a positive result.

"Reviewing the data" does not sound like the narrative of the testing process but the output of that process, or at least includes the output of that process.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby dsrunner » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:42 am

Yes ironic that Jones would suggest this is somehow confirmation she's been clean all along, for everything and anything. Not terribly logical.

The problem w/ the EPO test is statistical. Catlin needs to get a biostats team working this one out. Those confidence intervals must be huge and that is where the improvement in precision needs to come. Tighten the error of the estimate. Until then, better to clear a guilty athlete, than ban an innocent one.
dsrunner
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: California, US

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:27 pm

EPelle wrote:
eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:eldrick - two labs were involved in the "A"-sample test. The name and disclosure of the 2:nd laboratory - a WADA-approved one - has been withheld or not mentioned in the story.

Chicago Tribune, 2006-08-20 wrote:To improve the reliability of the urine-based EPO test, first used at the Olympics in 2000, WADA has insisted a second laboratory review the data that the testing lab reported as showing a positive result. That was done in Jones' case.


no

that quote says "review" data that the testing lab reported as being +ve

that means to me, looking & analysing printouts NOT asking them to do the b test

it also doesn't state the conclusion of the data review


eldrick, I have never introduced the "B"-testing here -- you have.


clarification :

you are originally implying that another lab other than ucla did the a test

the subsequent info showing ucla is the only accredited lab in US, makes that assertion nonsense

so, my original question to you stands :

how do "borderline" tests reconcile themselves with infallibility ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Snation » Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:25 pm

It is ludicrous to ever say Don Catlin's lab is in tatters. Do a lit search on him and you will find tons of publications in the most well respected journals.

Further I don't think he is known to have a big mouth. From what I know of the man, he is tired of the mess, and looking for retirement some day.

Who among us knows more about testing than Catlin. Who among us can withstand the insults form people who don't know him, nor have 1% of the accomplishments he does?
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby eldrick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:33 pm

yawn

his retirement "one day" is increasingly going to look like :

today
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby gh » Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:38 pm

Relevant question, to which I don't know the answer: did the (Cologne?) lab which turned in the false positive on Lagat go belly up? I'm guessing not.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby JRM » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:12 pm

eldrick wrote:yawn

his retirement "one day" is increasingly going to look like :

today


Eldrick, please -- you're over-dramatizing this situation, and it's getting tiresome. Again, why the witch hunt against Catlin?
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby Snation » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:27 pm

Lagat's first test was positive at Tubingen, Germany (not WADA certified). The B test was at Cologne.
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:53 pm

Today:s (Friday) New York Times:

Laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency conducted about 183,000 drug tests last year. Of 3,909 positive A sample results, only three or four backup tests failed to confirm the initial finding, Dr. Olivier Rabin, science director for the antidoping agency, said in a telephone interview.


Antidoping experts say there could be many reasons, aside from a lab error, why the backup analysis of Jones’s urine sample did not match the first result. The sample could have been collected incorrectly, packaged poorly or manipulated. The backup test could also have revealed such a slight margin between a negative and a positive that scientists could not confirm the initial finding.


Both samples were tested under the direction of Donald H. Catlin, who runs the lab and is considered one of the world’s top antidoping scientists. In a telephone interview, Catlin said he had full confidence in the accuracy of the EPO test. He said he could not comment further about what could have gone wrong with Jones’s B sample, however, because his lab had conducted the procedure.


Still, Rabin said he and other WADA officials had faith in the EPO test. He added that the U.C.L.A. laboratory had passed the rigid WADA tests for accreditation and was competent to do the EPO test.

He would not comment specifically on Jones’s case, but in three of the cases that failed to confirm the A sample result last year, he said, two involved urine samples that had naturally degraded. That made it difficult or impossible to determine if EPO had been present.

The third analysis that did not confirm the initial result “could have been related to the conditions of conservation of the sample,” he said. If the sample was not frozen quickly enough, for example, substances could have broken down.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:54 pm

Then a devil's advocate question is in order: should non-certified labs be allowed to generate positive (or for that matter, negative) tests?
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:10 pm

Absolutely not, due to the highly complex nature of both performing the test and analysing the results.

Good lead-in for this, from yesterday:s (Thursday night) Chicago Tribune:

Murray said Jones' "A" sample showed "obvious loss of [analyzable] EPO material" when compared to the "B." Because it was impossible to know whether the EPO lost was natural or synthetic, he said, the results were invalid.

Murray, president of Glycozyme, a scientific research and development company, admits to a vested interest because he has unsuccessfully sought approval from international sports authorities for an EPO test he developed.


I posit that the two samples were nearer each other than one may imagine or care to believe, and that, due to the first sample:s interpretation (that of the Jones defense, that is) being "borderline", and the 2:nd one:s demonstration showing like qualities yet to a similar or lesser degree, the tests were both deemed inconclusive. Recall, if you will, that 2,25 months went by between the "A"-sample testing and the "B"-sample testing. What is the maximum time believed to be accepted in the medical field as to the "A"-sample and "B"-sample tests keeping like and similar, non-reduced characteristics?

There is defense of the testing and defense of the inconclusiveness of it built up on both sides of the professional fence.

"This test is so complex it's possible something could go wrong, as it did in this case." Jones representative stated.

"The EPO test is fine," Catlin said.

Sports Illustrated, 2006-09-08 wrote:Ljungqvist defended the EPO testing system.

"The science of the method as such has been validated and confirmed as absolutely safe and OK, but it's not unusual in the life of a laboratory that incidents may occur," he said. "The test does have some pitfalls as respect to the interpretation."

It remains unclear which test -- the "A" or "B" -- ultimately is accurate.

"We certainly know there are situations where the A and B may not necessarily look the same," Ljungqvist said. "One doesn't know if the A is the correct analysis and the B is incorrect, or vice versa. That's the open question."

Before you wish to state the obvious, eldrick, think about how this test taken in the United States - no matter what - has not failed on procedures or anything else in a court of appeals. A foreign (i.e.: European) test has failed one athlete unjustly in this sport - and one is enough. I could have ducked and run from the opposing arguments, but I:ve introduced them for you instead.

More for you and your opposition:

Washington Post, Friday, 2006-09-08 wrote:Pound said WADA could challenge the results if it were dissatisfied with the lab analysis. Though cases in which the B sample does not support the A are extremely rare, there can be several explanations when they occur.

Pound and several anti-doping experts said the EPO test, which was pioneered by French scientists and implemented at the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney, was more susceptible to variations in the A and B sample analyses because the test is highly complex and interpretive. Jones's lawyer, Howard Jacobs, said he thought even the A sample was suspect because it appeared to be just above the threshold for being positive.

Jordi Segura, an EPO testing expert and the WADA lab director in Barcelona, said the EPO test consists of 170 steps that take three days to perform. Segura, who had no connection to Jones's case, said any minor mistake along the way can affect the quality of the result, making it effectively too "blurry" to fit into the criteria necessary for a positive result, particularly if the sample is right at the threshold.

Segura said mistakes can be circumvented if there is enough urine for retesting. However, he said, the EPO test requires a lot of urine -- about 20 milliliters per test. If there is not enough to produce a clean test result, then the sample has to be called negative.

"It does not mean the sample is negative," he said, "but the result is considered negative."

Why am I feeding you this? Because there are other factors to consider than slipshod work produced at the site; more to believe than the testing being invalid due to non-conclusive "A"- and "B"-sample results and the inability to differentiate between which is the true result; and I am not biased toward the UCLA centre - which I am defending due to your insistance that they are incompetent.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:27 am

i'm not sure how you're helping your case with these links ?

all i see are words/phrases like "complexity", "borderline", "subject to interpretation", etc

how do these phrases reconcile themselves with previous claim of infallibity ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:29 am

You missed my point - as you have been.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:40 am

i'm afraid you haven't got one...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest