USADA and Drug Agency Labs: Leaking and then No Comment

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.

USADA and Drug Agency Labs: Leaking and then No Comment

Postby WalkandJog » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:10 am

This all too common leaking of the A results before the B sample is tested is making the drug testing process into a travesty of a witch hunt. Hurts any credibility of USADA that they are sincerely protecting the interests of the athletes when this wanton leaking occurs. As I mentioned in another thread, there should be penalties to the agency when this leaking happens because it severely and perhaps irreparably damages the reputation of the athlete. Perhaps a rule can be enacted where the positive test result is thrown out if it is leaked before the B sample is tested. That would help keep their big mouths shut.

I mean, let's get real here -- how difficult can it be for these idiots to keep the information confidential between the time it takes to test two urine samples, spanning a very short time period, and why aren't the two samples tested more quickly? You have to be a special kind of stupid to allow this type of leaking to occur, under these circumstances. And yes, I'm referring to you, DICK Pound.

Funny how these drug testing agencies leak like crazy about confidential positive A test information and then cannot be reached for comment . They did this to Mary Slaney, Landis and most recently to Jones. Now that Jones' B sample is negative for EPO: "Calls and requests for comments to the lab were not returned." They sure know how to shut up when it reflects badly on themselves. They should use the same discretion when it concerns the destruction of an athlete's reputation, dontcha think?
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Who said the leak came from the laboratory?

There is another agency which begins with the first three letters of the agency to which you are referring - one which should not be overlooked. They were under the gun in the summer for failing to report information. Coincidentally, after an agreement is reached to disclose information to the larger agency on future drugs testing results (surrounding another athlete:s drugs test results), the adverse finding of Jones "A"-sample test is leaked.

A theory.
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:05 am


Your sentiments are in the right place. All of this leaking stuff should stop. My guess is that certain people in high places do not want this, however. I like your idea of automatically spiking any tests results if the A test is leaked, but the problem there is you just have to have one pro-PED guy in the loop to start leaking results left and right.

But on the surface it does not seem that they are working very hard to prevent leaks.
bad hammy
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:33 am

While I do not hold out much hope, possibly a civil suit against the organizations that have the information could have an effect. If the leaks come fromeither WADA or USADA I think that it is a very serious matter because it calls into question their ability to act in a manner consistent with their responsibility. If it is from the lab, WADA has to at least put the lab on "parole" any more leaks and they are decertified and fees paid them in any cases related to the leaks must be returned.

As I recall, in Landis's case, the UCI (cysling organization) stated that the information was released by them because they knew it would be leaked soon by someone else. I do not know if "knew it would be leaked" was because they knew of a leak "in progress" or they were quite certain that those that had the information were not going to hold it in confidence as they are required to do. If the orgainizations involved with dope testing cannot do the job they are required to do, they should not be involved.

In my mind, WADA is losing credibility and it is not because the A and B samples provided different "decisions" (per se) but all the information that is becoming more visible as a result of the attention this case is receiving.
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:39 am

Notice, if you will, the IAAF will ask member federations to watch out for leaks at an anti-doping symposium in Lausanne - this following on the heels of the latest leak, Marion Jones.

Perhaps it is a preventative measure being taken. However, on the other hand, it may be a reactive measure. ... 0077.shtml
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest