UCLA WADA lab publically shamed

.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8268364

You may find this interesting. Athletes are guilty until proven innocent in doping cases and are denied due process. They are not allowed to have their sample tested by their chosen labs and any WADA lab is not allowed to contradict the findings of another WADA lab.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf

such bullc*p wrote:

You may find this interesting. Athletes are guilty until proven innocent in doping cases and are denied due process. They are not allowed to have their sample tested by their chosen labs and any WADA lab is not allowed to contradict the findings of another WADA lab.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf

This was 8 years ago. If WADA had gone for a criminal burden of proof, no doper would ever get banned. They could just argue "prove somebody didn't rub stuff on my shoulders without telling me..."

8 years ago and it still applies today, my friend. A preponderance of evidence needs to be used in these cases. As it stands, WADA is judge, jury, and executioner. And don't tell me "no doper would ever get banned." There are cases that have no defense and those would be found appropriately guilty. An athlete cannot challenge the results of the test and an athlete cannot cross-examine WADA witnesses. No lab can contradict the testimony of another. Funny how these may have been helpful in the case of the "infallible" UCLA lab, wouldn't you say?

eurodonkey wrote:

such bullc*p wrote:

You may find this interesting. Athletes are guilty until proven innocent in doping cases and are denied due process. They are not allowed to have their sample tested by their chosen labs and any WADA lab is not allowed to contradict the findings of another WADA lab.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf

This was 8 years ago. If WADA had gone for a criminal burden of proof, no doper would ever get banned. They could just argue "prove somebody didn't rub stuff on my shoulders without telling me..."

UCLA was chosen as a contractor by WADA since UCLA has the world's leading laboratory to catch PED cheats. But the contract does not include FBI Agents, Forensic Evidence Technicians, and lawyers. That would cost an astronomical amount of money. How would our sport ever afford the cost?

such bullc*p wrote:

You may find this interesting. Athletes are guilty until proven innocent in doping cases and are denied due process. They are not allowed to have their sample tested by their chosen labs and any WADA lab is not allowed to contradict the findings of another WADA lab.

LRC deleted us in the other thread. Why didn't you care about "due process" when the so-called "McLaren" evidence was used to ban Russians?

such bullc*p wrote:

8 years ago and it still applies today, my friend. A preponderance of evidence needs to be used in these cases. As it stands, WADA is judge, jury, and executioner.

Hmmm, the WADA process sounds the same as HR firing someone from a job.

such bullc*p wrote:

You may find this interesting. Athletes are guilty until proven innocent in doping cases and are denied due process. They are not allowed to have their sample tested by their chosen labs and any WADA lab is not allowed to contradict the findings of another WADA lab.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf

Interesting that a lab can't contradict another accredited lab yet now UCLA HAS to have another accredited lab verify their results?

Rojo, have you ever interviewed Don Catlin or his son?

4i cycle wrote:

such bullc*p wrote:

You may find this interesting. Athletes are guilty until proven innocent in doping cases and are denied due process. They are not allowed to have their sample tested by their chosen labs and any WADA lab is not allowed to contradict the findings of another WADA lab.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/dawer08.pdf

Interesting that a lab can't contradict another accredited lab yet now UCLA HAS to have another accredited lab verify their results?

Doesn't seem that the way WADA determined there was an issue was having another accredited lab contradict UCLA's results? How else could WADA know there was an issue?

such bullc*p wrote:

8 years ago and it still applies today, my friend. A preponderance of evidence needs to be used in these cases. As it stands, WADA is judge, jury, and executioner. And don't tell me "no doper would ever get banned." There are cases that have no defense and those would be found appropriately guilty.

An athlete cannot challenge the results of the test and an athlete cannot cross-examine WADA witnesses. No lab can contradict the testimony of another. Funny how these may have been helpful in the case of the "infallible" UCLA lab, wouldn't you say?

When you are done making stuff up, please let us know.

There is no judicial anything in sports federation sanctions. I won't bother unpacking the rest of your wrong assumptions..

You are correct sir; unfortunately reading comprehension is not your strong point. No need to unpack anything. There definitely is "no judicial anything" in sports federation sanctions. I am saying there should be. Athletes are entitled to due process. USADA does not operate under the assumptions of criminal law. They have claimed that they are "private" and are not required to afford athletes due process (they call themselves "quasi-criminal"), but by accepting federal funding and by being designated the official anti-doping agency that has the exclusive authority to sanction applicable United States athletes, USADA is exercising a right and privilege granted to it by Congress and the Constitution should apply to its actions.

[/quote]

When you are done making stuff up, please let us know.

There is no judicial anything in sports federation sanctions. I won't bother unpacking the rest of your wrong assumptions..[/quote]

I did care. I cared very much.

Protect your own, we know too wrote:

LRC deleted us in the other thread. Why didn't you care about "due process" when the so-called "McLaren" evidence was used to ban Russians?

MOSCOW, June 21. / TASS /. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) since June 14 for three months partially suspended the accreditation of the laboratory of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). This was reported by the press service of WADA.

The statement of the agency says that the laboratory's actions did not meet the "best standards". It is noted that this decision should not affect the work of the laboratory, but during the suspension of accreditation all the results of its tests should be certified by another accredited WADA laboratory. The UCLA center has three weeks to appeal this decision.

The UCLA website says that the University's anti-doping center is the largest WADA laboratory, it carries out 45 thousand urine tests annually.

I honestly can't figure out what you are arguing. You are stating that USADA should use the lowest possible standard of proof "a preponderance of the evidence." Is that the standard you want applied? It doesn't seem consistent with the ton of your argument.

such bullc*p wrote:

8 years ago and it still applies today, my friend. A preponderance of evidence needs to be used in these cases. As it stands, WADA is judge, jury, and executioner. And don't tell me "no doper would ever get banned." There are cases that have no defense and those would be found appropriately guilty.

An athlete cannot challenge the results of the test and an athlete cannot cross-examine WADA witnesses. No lab can contradict the testimony of another. Funny how these may have been helpful in the case of the "infallible" UCLA lab, wouldn't you say?

eurodonkey wrote:

This was 8 years ago. If WADA had gone for a criminal burden of proof, no doper would ever get banned. They could just argue "prove somebody didn't rub stuff on my shoulders without telling me..."

4i cycle wrote:

Interesting that a lab can't contradict another accredited lab yet now UCLA HAS to have another accredited lab verify their results?

Rojo, have you ever interviewed Don Catlin or his son?

Don Catlin and his lab were involved in helping the USOC pre Olympics testing and cover-up of 1984.

[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:

I honestly can't figure out what you are arguing. You are stating that USADA should use the lowest possible standard of proof "a preponderance of the evidence." Is that the standard you want applied? It doesn't seem consistent with the ton of your argument.

[quote]

OK, here we go. The arbitration process used by USADA vs. an athlete is tipped toward USADA in an enormous way. USADA limits the documents that are provided to the athlete for their defense, in fact USADA has maintained that they are under no obligation to provide anything. This eliminates pre-trial discovery which is a tool to uncover false claims and defenses. The process has no rules of evidence - hearsay is allowed and the athlete is not able to question or cross-examine those witnesses. Arbitrators are permitted to draw negative inferences against an athlete who exercises his Fifth Amendment rights. The process is not adversarial - the basis of adversarialism is to establish rules and proceedings so that the better evidenced argument will win. It enables the right to be heard.

If changed, the arbitration process does not necessarily have to use "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" as its new standard, but the current standard of proof is not well-defined. Right now it is called "comfortable satisfaction" which is vague and imprecise and enables the merits of the case to be influenced by the arbitrator's personal subjection.

You think that I am enabling dopers to get away with it. I am on the side that if you are depriving an athlete the economic right to earn a living in his chosen field, you must allow the athlete the means to defend himself as if in a court of law.

I am with you that it is OK (and beyond OK) to be concerned both about drug use and about the due process rights of athletes, so none of my commends are adversarial to you. I am just asking for clarification and I was unclear what you were advocating as a standard.

The public in the US is very familiar with the "Preponderance of evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" because they are the main standards used in US courts (in civil and criminal cases, respectively).

I'd suggest that the "comfortable satisfaction" is akin to a middle ground between those two that is widely used and usually referred to as "clear and convincing evidence." That's a standard that is applied both in the US and in many contexts internationally.

It is difficult to have a system that functions well internationally given the many many different systems and standards in place in different countries and the need to ensure a good bit of uniformity so that athletes in these many different contexts are treated equitably.

There is just no way to base an international system on the legal practices of a single country.

I do agree that the current rules of arbitration could be improved and clarified.