rrrrrr wrote:
what about new drugs? How do we address those without much money?
So, if a person fails 'A' but passes 'B', everytime this happens it is due to contaminated sample and nothing else right? The test will only fail because it works too well, right (detects very small amounts)?
So Bernard had a contaminated sample, you are 100% sure of that result?
You are the first person I have heard that is very confident in the results of today's tests. Sounds great!
So your arguing that we raise more money to hand to university professors to study drugs determine the proper markers for a drug tests? I don't have a problem with this but I'll bet the rest of the crowd does. I have the feeling that they want more money for sexier things like splashy drug busts. Research is boring.
Secondly, I never said that negative b-samples are only due to containimation. You incorrect inferred this from my comments.
That said, it can happen this way in some cases. In fact Landis is arguing that his b-sample was containimated and should have ben disqulaified, and from what I've seen, it appears he has a pretty good case.
But b-samples can differ from a-samples for lots of reasons, not just contianimation. When the thresholds are as low as WADA sets them, contianination is a big issue. Up the thresholds and conainimation becomes less of an issue.