WADA chief calls for eliminating B sample testing

[Kennf1]

Director David Howman points out the negligible number of contradicting B samples, and the fact that people can go to jail on the basis of one sample being collected. Why require two for sporting sanctions?

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=6289474

 

[D-Queued]

Director David Howman points out the negligible number of contradicting B samples, and the fact that people can go to jail on the basis of one sample being collected. Why require two for sporting sanctions?

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=6289474

Much discussed, long awaited. Reasoning is sound.

...will draw volumic protests from guilty parties and fanboys, particularly given the implications at, uh, ground zero of the big C cycling catastrophe.

Dave.

 

[Cobblestones]

I wouldn't eliminate it entirely. He's right that almost all B samples confirm the findings of the A sample, but still. Maybe there should be an incentive for athletes to not request B sample testing (say a reduced suspension of only 2 years), while a confirmed B sample would imply an automatic 4 year suspension?

These delays due to B samples, hearings, appeals etc. are as much a nuisance as the doping offenses themselves. Worst case Valverde's annulled results and whatever happens with Clentador.

 

[Polish]

With half as many tests as before, it will be virtually impossible for any athlete to EVER top HWMNBN on the list of All Time Most Tested Athlete in the World.

woohoo.
Record out of Reach

Although to be fair, maybe place an asterisk next to HWMNBN's* name?
*Riding during the "Witch Hunt Era"

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

With half as many tests as before, it will be virtually impossible for any athlete to EVER top HWMNBN on the list of All Time Most Tested Athlete in the World.

woohoo.
Record out of Reach

Although to be fair, maybe place an asterisk next to HWMNBN's* name?
*Riding during the "Witch Hunt Era"

I can't wait to see what you end up doing with your free time once HWMNBN ends up being removed from the social equation.

I hope you can keep up being funny. I've taken a bit of a shine to you...

 

[brianf7]

They require a B sample so the rider can if he wants get an independant test for himself.
If you have a drug test at work or a breathalised test and blood is taken you get a sample for your self if you want it so you can challenge the first test if you think it is wrong.

So David wants to save himself money but it wont happen if someone has a positive test on me I would want to know it was done properly.
trust no one. The more positive tests WADA get the more funding they get so David Howman can eat out at expencive Hotels.

One day we will have a hormone that grows brain cells in these people untill then its banned

 

[D-Queued]

They require a B sample so the rider can if he wants get an independant test for himself.
...

But neither they, nor you, get this option in a criminal proceeding - which is definitely a higher standard. The courts have long upheld comparable tests as having been done properly.

Feel free to take on the judicial system across multiple continents.

Dave.

 

[sometriguy]

But neither they, nor you, get this option in a criminal proceeding - which is definitely a higher standard. The courts have long upheld comparable tests as having been done properly.

Feel free to take on the judicial system across multiple continents.

Dave.

criminal preceding are also (usually) testing for significantly higher amounts, thus a much lower chance of a statistical error

For example, in Contador's case... I would wager that wouldn't hold in a criminal preceding

 

[M Sport]

WADA director general David Howman said Monday that doping cheats are getting an easier ride than common criminals because of their right to a second sample.

"People can go to jail on the basis of one bodily sample being collected, and sport really is on its own in collecting two samples," Howman said in an interview during an international sports and Olympic conference in London.

David is being ambiguous with the truth. Of course a criminal has the right to supply their own second sample, have it independently tested and provide that as evidence in court as a comparison to the prosecution DNA profile.

What I think he means is there may only be one crime scene piece of evidence. If that is what he means then again depending on your defense budget and which country you're going to court in you can also have these independently analysed.

The single piece of crime scene evidence is not really a good comparison, they only take one piece when only one is available. Otherwise they collect everything available and test it all. In cycling or sport why not take two? It's not like there is any valid reason to be restricted to one.

For my own opinion I just don't quite trust sports testing facilities enough. I prefer the athlete to have their own testing options.

 

[TERMINATOR]

They require a B sample so the rider can if he wants get an independant test for himself.

You are are aware that, under the WADA Code, the B-sample is not permitted to be independently tested by the athlete, as you claim. The B-sample is tested in the very same WADA lab. The athlete can only supervise it with his or her own expert.

And even arranging for that to happen seems to have problems.

 

[TERMINATOR]

criminal preceding are also (usually) testing for significantly higher amounts, thus a much lower chance of a statistical error

For example, in Contador's case... I would wager that wouldn't hold in a criminal preceding

First of all, it's proceeding, not preceding.

Second, courts have absolutely not done what you say because of what you say (i.e. significantly higher amounts). There is no evidence whatsoever that concentration has anything to do with a court's logic. You are simply transposing your own logic onto the court system.

Most court tests involving contested lab tests deal with DNA, not illegal drugs in someone's system. And throughout the United States, prosecutors have routinely been permitted to prevent the defense from even testing DNA unless the judge agrees with it, which they often don't because they're just as corrupt as the prosecutors. If you think the real criminal justice system is more honest than the WADA System and imposes a higher standard of proof on prosecutors than the WADA system, you are really out of the loop. But don't take my word for it, read about it here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prosecutor-misconduct-20110404,0,294467.story

 

[Ferminal]

How often does a B-Sample clear someone?

The most recent one I can remember is Miss Cobra last year.

The B-sample should be there in order to reduce the risk of genuine false positives. It is a lot murkier with thresholds and the like.

 

[GJB123]

But neither they, nor you, get this option in a criminal proceeding - which is definitely a higher standard. The courts have long upheld comparable tests as having been done properly.

Feel free to take on the judicial system across multiple continents.

Dave.

Will they be adhering to criminal law standards then in other parts of the doping procedure, for example who has the burden of proof and abolishing strict liability?

Regards
GJ

 

[Barrus]

Will they be adhering to criminal law standards then in other parts of the doping procedure, for example who has the burden of proof and abolishing strict liability?

Regards
GJ

Even in criminal law burden of proof can be reversed and strict liability does exist

 

[BullsFan22]

This should be interesting, if it goes through. The fact is, doping will always be prevelant in cycling and the top dogs that can afford hi-tech 'doping' will always try things and will always be a step ahead of whatever the UCI or WADA throw at them. If this becomes reality, I wouldn't mind seeing half of the field test positive for banned substances, I really wouldn't.

 

[GJB123]

Even in criminal law burden of proof can be reversed and strict liability does exist

Yes, it can but it is exception rather than rule as in this case. But by all means let's structure doping regulations as normal poenal law including all appeal possibilities that go with that.

Regards
GJ

 

[brianf7]

You are are aware that, under the WADA Code, the B-sample is not permitted to be independently tested by the athlete, as you claim. The B-sample is tested in the very same WADA lab. The athlete can only supervise it with his or her own expert.

And even arranging for that to happen seems to have problems.

We have to sign an agreement to have all the legal isues dealt with by CAS in order to get a licence so no mater what country we are in if they are part of the WADA agreement its heard by CAS not the Countrys legal system.
They want to be a law unto them selves

 

[TERMINATOR]

Will they be adhering to criminal law standards then in other parts of the doping procedure, for example who has the burden of proof and abolishing strict liability?

Regards
GJ

I hate to tell you but most states have presumptive guilty standards of proof in DUI cases where the suspect failed a breathalyzer (the WADA equivalent of a positive analytical test). DUI cases are strict liability...it doesn't matter if you were coming back from a wedding or a bar...or if you ate or not or if you don't "feel buzzed."

Most states also have identical standards for prescription drug use.

There's nothing wrong with the current WADA Code....at least nothing major.

 

[TERMINATOR]

We have to sign an agreement to have all the legal isues dealt with by CAS in order to get a licence so no mater what country we are in if they are part of the WADA agreement its heard by CAS not the Countrys legal system.
They want to be a law unto them selves

Correct. But there's nothing stopping cyclists and other athletes from wrestling control of their sport from their federations and changing their sport's respective compliance with the Code.

I have little sympathy for cyclists who claim Code is unfair. First of all, it's really not. And second, then do something about it. There's nobody putting a gun to the heads of teams and cyclists to pay money to Patty Cake McQualude. Dump the UCI and start your own league and then make up whatever rules you want.

 

[python]

howman's proposal is not new.

this issue has been around for years and the reason the seemingly simple idea is not resolved is because it is far ...from simple.

his reference to economic savings is misleading. since it's the athlete's choice to test the b sample, he/she normally pays for the testing. the savings may come from eliminating half of the handling and transportation costs but that also is not the big issue. the biggest difference may be in shortening the litigation process.

there are many reasons why life-long career anti-dopers like don cantlin object to it. i myself don't know where i stand.

 

[GJB123]

I hate to tell you but most states have presumptive guilty standards of proof in DUI cases where the suspect failed a breathalyzer (the WADA equivalent of a positive analytical test). DUI cases are strict liability...it doesn't matter if you were coming back from a wedding or a bar...or if you ate or not or if you don't "feel buzzed."

Most states also have identical standards for prescription drug use.

There's nothing wrong with the current WADA Code....at least nothing major.

Yes, nice comparison. First of all, the US legal system or systems you are referring to are not the be all and end all for legal systems. Believe it or not, there is civilized world outside the US that has their own legal standards and in many cases for at least as long in the US. So stop being pedantic and US-centric for a minute.

You are correct that most countries will have a strict liability for DUI's. However can one really compare this to strict liability cases where someone can inadvertently and unknowingly ingest a banned substance? Can one really get drunk any other way than knowingly drinking alcohol? Is there any banned substance under normal law that has a strict liability when one can ingest the substance unknowingly. Besides with a DUI it is not the alcohol per say that is the problem, it is the fact that you are driving a vehicle while drunk. So in that case it doesn't really matter how it got into your system but that it is in your system and you still chose to drive a car. Whole different ball game therefore.

Regards
GJ

 

[mikeNphilly]

400 people in Philly wish they had a B-sample DUI test done, since the machine was misscalibrated.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...in_Philly__Defendants_will_drink_to_that.html

I hate dopers, but mistakes can happen in a lab,(I work in a hospital, they happen..). If you were drug tested at work, and your sample came back positive, by no fault of yours, would you not want a second opinion. Usually these B samples come back postive as well, but I would still want the option as worker/rider.

 

[cyclequip]

Director David Howman points out the negligible number of contradicting B samples, and the fact that people can go to jail on the basis of one sample being collected. Why require two for sporting sanctions?

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=6289474

The other side of the coin is that there is a presumption of innocence in any criminal proceedings and the prosecutors need to prove guilt (including the commission of a crime as well as the criminal intent or mens rea) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
How does this stack up against the presumption of guilt and the onus of proof that kicks in against sportsmen once there is any adverse analytical finding emanating from a laboratory?

 

[Michael Brown]

If the B sample confirms the A sample in almost every case as the WADA chief claims...and the testing is requested by (and paid for) by the athlete...what's the problem? We all know that the cases do not drag on for months because of the B sample testing - they bog down simply because it is a legal proceeding, period. I don't see the B sample slowing down Contador's case - heck, all sides agree on the results of the testing.

His reasoning is not sound. Comparing it to criminal cases is not accurate. He may be right (and simply saying it wrong), and B sample testing may be unnecessary (but some people also think trials are unnecessary in some criminal cases)...regardless, B samples are not where the system is broken.

Agree with much of what GJB123 states. Good points.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, nice comparison. First of all, the US legal system or systems you are referring to are not the be all and end all for legal systems. Believe it or not, there is civilized world outside the US that has their own legal standards and in many cases for at least as long in the US. So stop being pedantic and US-centric for a minute.

You are correct that most countries will have a strict liability for DUI's. However can one really compare this to strict liability cases where someone can inadvertently and unknowingly ingest a banned substance? Can one really get drunk any other way than knowingly drinking alcohol? Is there any banned substance under normal law that has a strict liability when one can ingest the substance unknowingly. Besides with a DUI it is not the alcohol per say that is the problem, it is the fact that you are driving a vehicle while drunk. So in that case it doesn't really matter how it got into your system but that it is in your system and you still chose to drive a car, Whole different ball game therefore.

Regards
GJ

Regards
GJ

Firstly - many of us who reside outside the USA refer to "State" as a country. But with regards to State legal systems both US States and or countries apply - as strict liability applies to DUI's.

Some mouthwashes contain alcohol and can give readings that would fail a DUI test.

To the highlighted above - no DUI tests are not to see if you are "drunk", I can have a few beers and no-one would suggest I am drunk, however I certainly would be 'impaired' to drive.