Re: Dope Testing - An utter waste of time

In article
<23ad7280-e25f-4ff3-a046-4a896cbb3371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"dustoyevsky@xxxxxxx" <dustoyevsky@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 31, 1:10 am, jean-yves hervé <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, to return to my car analogy, if the speed limit is 50 mph and the
cops set their "1% false positive" radar at 65 mph, it's very possible
that some guys spotted above 65 were in fact driving below that speed,
but the odds that one of these guys was driving below the speed limit is
a lot lower than 1%.

You need to find another analogy.

One that "explains" (for instance) the 50% "false positive" rates for
employment-related drug screens.

1) do you have a link on that one?
2) even if it is true, "false positive" does not mean that the person
did not have any drugs in their system at all but they should not have
tested above the limit
3) I have a lot more doubts about the daily handling of thousands of
businesses samples vs. that of a handful of rider samples.
4) as I wrote in a previous post, even the best test *of anything* is
the result of a compromise between acceptable rates of misses and false
positives. If the goal is not to miss any real positive, and on top of
that you have a not very selective testing method, then I see nothing
surprising in a high false positive rate in business testing.

Or are you saying that others besides Ricco showed evidence of EPO
use, but just "not enough" to bust them? IOW, you can use some EPO,
but just not "too much"?

If your replace "others besides Ricco showed evidence" by "others
besides Ricco *may* have showed evidence" (because I don't know the
results of these tests) then the answer is: Of course!

Your "threshold" defense of testing is pretty disgusting, seen in the
light of day:

This is not my threshold defense. You simply don't understand how
testing works. Go educate yourself by taking a look at UCI's list of
forbidden products. You will see thresholds defined in ng/mL for all of
these products.

"Our testing protocols are, by design, leaky as an old
sieve, as everyone knows. Lots of offenders will escape, but we'll
"catch" a few in our crappy labs, known for sloppy work, lack of
confidentiality, and owned by "the mob", who actually might be guilty,
and punish the hell out of them in a useless attempt to intimidate
those following. Meanwhile driving sponsors out of the sport".

In your rant above only "known for sloppy work" has any relevance to the
discussion, and is your own interpretation of the situation. Leaking
results to the press, although definitely reprehensible (and something
that WADA should look into more carefully) does not affect test results
either way. Otherwise,
1. wtf does 'owned by "the mob"' mean?
2. Labs have no obligations toward sponsors of the sport.
3. What is made of the results of a test (sanctions and their possible
use as a deterrent) does not say anything about the validity of the test.

jyh.
.