Any experts here who can explain how come there's such a long wait between testing the A Sample and the B sample? Are these legal or scientific requisites?
It's getting hard to hold off celebrating Ramzi's departure from our sport. And the beers are getting warm.
(Serious question though, really)
Baharain is trying to arrange the back channel shipments of enough oil to pay the bribe.
Free Ramzi! wrote:
Any experts here who can explain how come there's such a long wait between testing the A Sample and the B sample? Are these legal or scientific requisites?
It's getting hard to hold off celebrating Ramzi's departure from our sport. And the beers are getting warm.
(Serious question though, really)
My understanding is that it is both, but for different reasons.
From a legal perspective the IAAF Rules give Ramzi the opportunity to be present for the testing of the B-sample, and for matters to hold up before the CAS there is a need to inform him of that right and provide him with with an equitable opportunity to afford himself legal and scientific representation at the test. This requires time.
Additionally, there are relatively few laboratories around the world which WADA have accredited, therefore leaving them a rather large work load. For proper scrutiny of the scientific method to take place the premise that the tester be oblivious to any prior knowledge of the case history is required i.e. it is not proper to fast track a test by saying "we've already caught this guy with the first test, just hurry up and do the second one."
From anyone who has done anything beyond Chemistry 101 you'll know that the type of tests that are part of a drug test can take up to 3 or 4 hours per sample. This is the main reason WADA randomly sample athletes for in competition tests - if it was straight forward at their end they would just test everyone.
Free Ramzi! wrote:
Any experts here who can explain how come there's such a long wait between testing the A Sample and the B sample? Are these legal or scientific requisites?
It straightforward: it allows the athlete or his representative(s) to be present for chain of custody verification and to witness the procedure.
Essentially the A sample is the qualifying round, the B sample is the final. The only result that matters is the B sample.
malmo wrote:
It straightforward: it allows the athlete or his representative(s) to be present for chain of custody verification and to witness the procedure.
Essentially the A sample is the qualifying round, the B sample is the final. The only result that matters is the B sample.
This is stupid. They shouldn't announce A sample results then. That said, they should just get rid of B sampling, and just go with one strike you're out. Allowing an athlete or his representative(s) to be present? Stupid. Just gives time to bribe people or tamper with the B sample.
No need for Bs wrote:
This is stupid. They shouldn't announce A sample results then. That said, they should just get rid of B sampling, and just go with one strike you're out. Allowing an athlete or his representative(s) to be present? Stupid. Just gives time to bribe people or tamper with the B sample.
Ummm..... ever heard of false positives?
First, the announcement of Ramzi's A-sample positive was NOT supposed to have happened. It was supposed to be completely confidential between WADA, the Lab, the athlete and the Bahrain governing body of athletics.
Something VERY fishy might be going on behind the scenes.
Also keep in mind that it's in Ramzi's best interest to wait until the very last possible hour to test the sample, since the molecules that could convict him break down over time.
We have about a week to wait, and I am very skeptical about this process. I think that it's about 50/50 at this point.
Jason
No need for Bs wrote:
This is stupid. They shouldn't announce A sample results then. That said, they should just get rid of B sampling, and just go with one strike you're out. Allowing an athlete or his representative(s) to be present? Stupid. Just gives time to bribe people or tamper with the B sample.
No because A samples are not given much scrutiny.
If someone is in the range or even close to the range then they will get a positive reading.
The tests are very subjective, with quite a bit of overlap.
I hate leaked A-samples. Every f***ing time. Why can't the authorities stick to the rules.
Sheesh!
You could have been the prosecutor (or better yet,handwriting expert) at the Alfred Dreyfus trial.
I reckon the B comes back positive also
No need for Bs wrote:
This is stupid. They shouldn't announce A sample results then. That said, they should just get rid of B sampling, and just go with one strike you're out. Allowing an athlete or his representative(s) to be present? Stupid. Just gives time to bribe people or tamper with the B sample.
No, your response was stupid.
MAYEROFF wrote:
First, the announcement of Ramzi's A-sample positive was NOT supposed to have happened. It was supposed to be completely confidential between WADA, the Lab, the athlete and the Bahrain governing body of athletics.
Something VERY fishy might be going on behind the scenes.
Jason, stick to something you know about, like 14 year old Vietnamese whores. No testing lab knows whose sample they're testing. EVER. There is no guarantee of confidentiality at all. The Bahrain federation did the right thing when they announced Ramzi's positive result. The USATF should adopt a fresh-air policy as well, IMHO.
Interpol has been informed that Mayerhoff likes little boys. But other than that, Mayerhoff is right, now every clerk, handler, and testing lab knows whose samples are whose. The system has beeb corrupted by big money from Nike World HQ in Beijing. WADA and USADA have to institutionalize drug testing on a global scale, and have only college degreed and sworn career law enforcement officers administer the collection and handling of the samples from the track meet to the internal operation of the labs. The lab technicians and clerks must also be certified. If this is not done, cheats like Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong will continue to skate by.