Bound4Glory wrote: I wonder if the Russians read the MRPL for TMZ and assumed that was the minimum detectable level? If so, we don't know the real minimum detectable level for that lab.
It's the EQUIPMENT, not the lab. You guys know nothing about equipment accuracy and test results data analysis.
this is utter nonsense.
testing capabilities are a mixture of equipment, operator and procedures.
Generally, labs will decide what they want to do, and then, if necessary, will apply iso 17025 or similar to prove they can do it. this includes operator competence, equipment capabilites and standards and procedures. competent operators with decent machines can operate outside the iso 17025 and standards boundaries with relative ease.
a sensible, intelligent customer will specify precisely what he wants tested and against what standards, and then use iso 17025 credited certification or similar to establish this, as well as personal visits etc dependng on his appetite for due diligence.
operators, no matter how good they are, working outside the estabilshed procedures and giving results outside the agreed standards are a complete nightmare and are completely out of place in the standards arena. In a research arena or similar, fine, but this needs to be understood by everyone.
yes, i send samples to labs all the time. yes, i negotiate with them the standards and their certification. and if they send me something outside of the agreement, then that is jolly interesting but it is going on the bin.
I repeat that the B sample does not have to report the concentration; so good luck for the defence on that one.
The B sample might not be required to report the exact concentration of a drug. But I wonder if someone on either side can request that the lab reports the exact concentration.
It's also not impossible that the lab comes back with no drug when they test the B sample. I once had a lab test done that had a very strange result which made no sense. I went back to get tested again and the result was normal. So labs do make mistakes sometimes.
Wada lab will say no to a quantitative b test result.
The B sample might not be required to report the exact concentration of a drug. But I wonder if someone on either side can request that the lab reports the exact concentration.
It's also not impossible that the lab comes back with no drug when they test the B sample. I once had a lab test done that had a very strange result which made no sense. I went back to get tested again and the result was normal. So labs do make mistakes sometimes.
Wada lab will say no to a quantitative b test result.
If it was tested and that was the result it means the same did not return any result the second time. Either a contaminated sampling system, OR an error in the data collected, meaning that the equipment was not capable of providing a usable result.
She's clean. I am sure they tested her like crazy during the whole Olympics. Found nothing - otherwise it would have "leaked".
They will not find more than now during worlds.
She may not compete again. The personal attacks by "adults" are more than any young person should be forced to bear, especially public attacks that gain news attention. Any person who has children knows that as teens that personal attacks can leave life-long scars.
Wada lab will say no to a quantitative b test result.
If it was tested and that was the result it means the same did not return any result the second time. Either a contaminated sampling system, OR an error in the data collected, meaning that the equipment was not capable of providing a usable result.
B sample only tested to establish the drug is there not the quantity ; that is the Wada rules.
The B sample might not be required to report the exact concentration of a drug. But I wonder if someone on either side can request that the lab reports the exact concentration.
It's also not impossible that the lab comes back with no drug when they test the B sample. I once had a lab test done that had a very strange result which made no sense. I went back to get tested again and the result was normal. So labs do make mistakes sometimes.
Wada lab will say no to a quantitative b test result.
presumably, the b sample is tested to the same standards as the a.
i havent seen any evidence that the b sample has been tested yet; presumably kamilas army will want their ducks in order before witnessing the b sample, which wont be overnight - and will certainly include sensitivity and calibration apsects with threshold values etc.
Personally, i think the b sample is going to come in below the detectable level, or she will get off with a reprimand.
alternatively, i would simply look at the historic tue's of all three amazing teenage athletes, and if any of the other three have any heart medicines, just disqualify the lot and throw the coach in jail. but thats just my personal feeling.
so you are saying that a lab just needs fancy machines but not skilled operators and procedures?
Geez. IT MEANS THAT all pieces of measuring equipment have error ranges. This science lab 101 common knowledge.
Refrain from the insults. Your post is being reported.
well, duh, obviously. But the overall errors etc depend on more than just the machine. They depend on a competent operator following proper procedures.
post reported? you wish to bring the fact that i asked you to examine your own credibility to the notice of the mods? good luck.
No. Houlihan was above the quantitative level. Kamila was well below the level. The media have a need to add that she takes supplements as well, as if this is to make her look dirty .
You are right about the manufactures but section 2 in the above has some application.
But I remind that the B sample evidence is hidden.
All measuring or testing equipment has an overall range of accuracy. GPS watches are one such device. There are people who do not grasp why their GPS watch does not measure 400m around a track accurately. They think the result should be 400.1m, and get angry they got a 390m result.
She may not compete again. The personal attacks by "adults" are more than any young person should be forced to bear, especially public attacks that gain news attention. Any person who has children knows that as teens that personal attacks can leave life-long scars.
Good. She is a drug cheat and shouldn’t compete again.
You are right about the manufactures but section 2 in the above has some application.
But I remind that the B sample evidence is hidden.
All measuring or testing equipment has an overall range of accuracy. GPS watches are one such device. There are people who do not grasp why their GPS watch does not measure 400m around a track accurately. They think the result should be 400.1m, and get angry they got a 390m result.
this is correct.
to be fair, i think we may be arguing at cross purposes.
if the point is that the machine has an inherent capability that is less than that required - such as a gps for measuring 400m track accurately, then we may be converging.
However, a machine's accuracy is normally stated within the manufacturers specified parameters (or that it can provide results against a standard), and are usually conservative - so if you can bring extra expertise or such to the machine, you may exceed its natural accuracy. But, again, this must be written in procedures, agreed, and be not only scientifically demonstrable but repeatable.
She may not compete again. The personal attacks by "adults" are more than any young person should be forced to bear, especially public attacks that gain news attention. Any person who has children knows that as teens that personal attacks can leave life-long scars.
Good. She is a drug cheat and shouldn’t compete again.
You really think she was part of a plot to take drugs?
If the CAS were to clear her name by then, there would still be a media frenzy, but most everyone (except Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir) would be on her side and sorry for what happened in Beijing. That would be an ideal situation for her to show the world who's the best.
If this happens, Tara & Johnny will jump right back on the bandwagon. And then they blame everyone else for hurting Kamila.
All measuring or testing equipment has an overall range of accuracy. GPS watches are one such device. There are people who do not grasp why their GPS watch does not measure 400m around a track accurately. They think the result should be 400.1m, and get angry they got a 390m result.
this is correct.
to be fair, i think we may be arguing at cross purposes.
if the point is that the machine has an inherent capability that is less than that required - such as a gps for measuring 400m track accurately, then we may be converging.
However, a machine's accuracy is normally stated within the manufacturers specified parameters (or that it can provide results against a standard), and are usually conservative - so if you can bring extra expertise or such to the machine, you may exceed its natural accuracy. But, again, this must be written in procedures, agreed, and be not only scientifically demonstrable but repeatable.
However, the is overall machine accuracy, and there is calibration accuracy. Equipment must be calibrated regularly to ensure results can be used. The calibration data is not used to override the published accuracy of the device.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.