WADA chief calls for eliminating B sample testing

[Oldman]

you could have picked anyone and you went with Dr Quinn? i respect that but i would have gone in another direction...

I live near Seattle and can't stomach the show. Besides, after seeing Jane in Wedding Crashers I can appreciate the firm side of her doctorin'.

 

[Anonymous]

I think Cobblestones had probably the best idea, a few pages about, about retaining both tests, but adjusting the procedure for tests results. Hence, an admission after an A result resulting in a shorter suspension than a verified B sample.

Yea, I am in no way in favor of doing away with a B sample. Cobblestones makes a good compromise.

 

[Merckx index]

Well, what is the point of the money argument then?

I would like to know, too. CN had an updated version of that Howman article, in which Catlin said Howman's proposal would hurt the labs, which he said are already in a "crunch". What in the world did he mean by this? Surely he wasn't saying they need the extra work. In the first place, a B is only tested if the A is positive, and since most A samples are not positive, the number of Bs tested is a very small fraction of the As tested. In the second place, you surely don't make a decision like that based on the financial situation of the labs?

I think many here in this forum, and also Howman himself, are overlooking that first point. Eliminating the B sample saves a neglible amount of expense on testing, since so few B samples ever get tested. There may be added handling, transportation and storage costs, but it doesn't seem to me they would be much more. Assuming the sample is immediately split into A and B, you have twice the number of samples, but the same amount of actual urine or other bodily fluid, so the actual weight of what is shipped, which is generally what determines shipping costs, is not affected. Maybe you need more room at the lab for storing these samples, but since they each contain half the volume of the original sample, you could use smaller containers.

Someone who is more familiar than I with the nitty-gritty of sample processing might comment on this, but it seems to me that this proposal would save very little money. Maybe, as Python suggested, it would shorten the litigation process, but then the question for me is, assuming the B is also positive, which all of us agree is almost always the case, how much added expense does this involve? Usually the B is tested a few weeks after the A, I believe; is there really a lot of money being spent by anyone during this interim period? OK, so the national fed or WADA or whoever has to arrange to have an official present at the lab along with the rider and his rep, as the sample is opened, but does this really add a lot to WADA's costs? Remember, again, that the vast majority of A samples test negative, so we are only talking about a very small fraction of athletes going on to the B stage.

In the same updated article, Howman was quoted as saying WADA was in contact with Mexico and China about the extent of CB contamination of their meat. Good luck with that. Like these countries are going to tell the world that, yes, most of our meat is contaminated with CB?

 

[lean mean &green]

I think many here in this forum, and also Howman himself, are overlooking that first point. Eliminating the B sample saves a neglible amount of expense on testing, since so few B samples ever get tested. There may be added handling, transportation and storage costs, but it doesn't seem to me they would be much more. Assuming the sample is immediately split into A and B, you have twice the number of samples, but the same amount of actual urine or other bodily fluid, so the actual weight of what is shipped, which is generally what determines shipping costs, is not affected. Maybe you need more room at the lab for storing these samples, but since they each contain half the volume of the original sample, you could use smaller containers.

My guess is the labs charge per sample, the volume probably means little to them.

Storage fees might be underestimated. Blood especially, but urine also requires climate controlled storage. Refrigerated space is expensive.

Howman's shaking the tree with the only variable he can control. He has little or no influence on shipping or the actual costs of sample analysis. He'll either drive lab fees down or eliminate the B samples which are just a redundancy.

Not saying I agree with him but it seems obvious to me what he's getting at.

 

[D-Queued]

...

I'm a lawyer by training, so god knows I love a good argument - just to give some context to where his comments will be coming from ...

Here I thought I might know who you were. But, appreciate the newly revealed level of expertise. Identity not as important as contribution.

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

I think Cobblestones had probably the best idea, a few pages about, about retaining both tests, but adjusting the procedure for tests results. Hence, an admission after an A result resulting in a shorter suspension than a verified B sample.

Great idea. Again, if it doesn't become a quicker form of currency for opportunistically corrupt UCI officials it would help. Little initiatives that improve testing combined with the Rider's association signing on for harsher terms would be convincing.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am not convinced that any sort of change will be worth much either way until the UCI is completely removed from the doping enforcement process.

 

[python]

i am not sure that doing away with b-samples is the real, deep-down issue.

hardly deserving a tag of being a doping apologist, i’m concerned with the dangerous trend and losing the sight of a bigger picture. we humans tend to be very good at that.

in my no-nonsense approach to things, the anti-doping should be about balance…balance between clean and doped riders, balance between an athlete duties and rights, balance between ever present lab error and ruining lives…

zero tolerance>>>strict liability>>>mid-night testing>>>no b-samples…

i’m not comfortable if such trends are not balanced by the equally improving science, education and general understanding of our environment's influence on doping.

 

[Merckx index]

in my no-nonsense approach to things, the anti-doping should be about balance…balance between clean and doped riders, balance between an athlete duties and rights, balance between ever present lab error and ruining lives…

I'll drink to that. In moderation, of course.