Total Members Voted: 21
Voting closed: Sep 30, 2006, 10:36 AM
So, given at least, the fact that the rules state what they do, we *must* test, regularly and rigorously and punish accordingly, but the tests must be reliable and unimpeachable and the procedures must be foolproof and fully transparent in order to completely prevent false positives, which unfortunately do and have happened. These must be devastating to the athletes involved.
So, I am concerned that, as tests become more sensitive, they don't find people guilty of taking drugs, when perhaps the tests simply find microtraces of things present in foods, supplements etc. It is easy to state that the athlete is responsible for what they ingest, and I know WADA among others does offer something of a list of safe things to take, but there's much more work to be done here to give athletes confidence if nothing else.
Quote from: "Danny"So, given at least, the fact that the rules state what they do, we *must* test, regularly and rigorously and punish accordingly, but the tests must be reliable and unimpeachable and the procedures must be foolproof and fully transparent in order to completely prevent false positives, which unfortunately do and have happened. These must be devastating to the athletes involved. Danny, other then hearing it from popped athletes that claimed they were innocent and gave excuses, what evidence are you basing the existence of false positives on? I know of no evidence that there have been false positives.
Diane Modahl comes immediately to mind. She was unequivocally exonerated. There's someone else in my mind, whose name I can't place, so I started to websearch a bit. Other names I came across while doing so show Dougie Walker, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Bernard Lagat. There are other cases which are more complicated by the looks of it, and you don't have to look far around the web to see how entangled the whole drugs issue is.
Yes, Diane Modahl was exonerated but not for any technical failure of the testing process, but a failue of the lab in Portugal to follow the proper chain of command procedures. This is in fact protection built in to the testing system and is a success of the system, not a failure.
As far as I can tell, Dougie Walker was busted and was never exonerated. There appears to be no evidence of his innocence beyond his own assertions.
Marion Jones never failed a drug test so clearly she is not a case where there was a false positive. Bernard Lagat was exonerated after testing positive on his A sample. But, it was the official B sample which cleared him, another built-in protection within the doping system.
Lance Armstrong, likewise, never failed a drug test. EPO may be more problematic to test accurately, but this case is another example of the success of the system.
Still, there is no evidence of false positives, even in mind with Bernard Lagat since it was the normal process of testing for him to have the B sample retested. And, that is what cleared him.
Yes, WADA is not going to certify any supplements to be safe since the moment they did so, the company could intenionally taint their product. This would be smart business since the product would then work better and sell more. Once they got a spike in sales, they could reduce again before the next inspection. It could also simply get accidently tainted from another product since they are often made in the same vats. These things are extremely common and there is a study outling such problems which is referenced here: http://weightliftingexchange.com/smf/index.php?topic=2436.0
Only she's had to spend a fortune - either million pounds or dollars was quoted in one article - to defend herself. That the lab in Portugal can fail to follow the procedures is most human, but that's the problem
He was in part exonerated - not by the IAAF, but was by UK Athletics. I've seen other cases where the country organisation and the international one disagree on how to handle a given athlete.
Quote from: "Danny"Only she's had to spend a fortune - either million pounds or dollars was quoted in one article - to defend herself. That the lab in Portugal can fail to follow the procedures is most human, but that's the problem Thats a fair point, but it shouldn't have cost her millions to have the B sample retested and even attend the testing of the B sample, which one is allowed to do under the rules. Whether it did or why would be interesting to hear. The procedures are layed out and if there is a mistake, the results are thrown out. I dont see the problem there.
I dont see anything anywhere saying that Lance Armstrong or Marion Jones ever failed a test, even just an A sample.
But, although I agree it does raise an eyebrow for an A sample to fail and a B sample to pass, it is a built in protection of the system. In cases where this happened, I tend to think the A sample was right and the B sample wrong. We have a problem with false negatives, not false positives in my opinion. So, while an athlete might test positive at 9AM, they may fail at 9:10AM on the same day. Different samples could fail to produce adequate indicators.
I don't see why you don't see it. She didn't get exonerated by the procedures, she got exonerated by the fact that she stood up for herself when the procedures had failed. If she hadn't had a million to defend herself, she would have been wrongly convicted because of a false positive test. She wasn't re-instated because the B sample contradicted the A sample.
Danny,I think we just disagree, and thats not a big deal. But, I will offer one last round of comments.Quote from: "Danny"I don't see why you don't see it. She didn't get exonerated by the procedures, she got exonerated by the fact that she stood up for herself when the procedures had failed. If she hadn't had a million to defend herself, she would have been wrongly convicted because of a false positive test. She wasn't re-instated because the B sample contradicted the A sample. The procedures didn't fail in my opinion. She was exonerated by the B sample, which is built in protection of the system. I don't know why it cost her millions for something she is entitled to for free except for attending the testing. I would be curious to hear why it cost her so much as I said. But, I dont see how her spending the money saved her. She was exonerated because she passed the B test, not because she spent millions of dollars. Still, I do think you have a point that it could cost a lot of money to pursue every avenue of defense under the system. Thats life.
As to Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones, I am familiar with those situations and did some searching and found nothing mentioning any positive tests of any kind. There are other reasons they have raised suspicions, but I can't find anything about a positive test. Could you please provide a link?
As to supplements, I do think we simply disagree. I am not in favour of having the IWF or WADA or USADA or any organization which is responsible for policing our sport certifying supplements. I believe it would be a very, very bad idea as I have in part explained above. I don't think there is any reason to take supplements. I think an elite athlete should protect themself by avoiding them since they could easily be contaminated. If they work, they are probably illegal in my opinion. Otherwise, they are a waste of money and time, and contrary in spirit to what I love about sports. I am sure this could be discussed further, but I just want to say thanks for the discussion so far. I have enjoyed it.
Page created in 1.331 seconds with 37 queries.