Crap, someone tested positive...

From the New York Daily News: www.nydailynews.com/.../2008-07-26_swimmer_jessica_hardy_claims_doping_inno.html Excerpt: ...Laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, like the UCLA Olympic lab where Hardy's samples were apparently tested, have black-and-white criteria for positive and negative tests. Even abnormal samples must meet the strict criteria for a "positive" reading. Technicians are trained to think like lawyers when they read the tests, because they may just end up facing Jacobs down the line. On the other hand, samples that pass as clean but raise the suspicions of the scientists can trigger more targeted testing. The laboratories, which only see a number on the test tube, can suggest that sport authorities collect out-of-competition tests from the donor. And if they see something weird on one specific aspect of the test, they can go back to stored samples and take a closer look: In other words, "low positive" means positive because there are wide margins of error built into most testing protocols. That is the case for two of the most commonly discussed blood profiles in anti-doping science, hematocrit percentages (which often reflect endurance) and testosterone/epitestosterone ratios (which indicate steroid use). Just last week, an expose by the BBC explored how WADA-accredited laboratories had cleared a startling number of Olympic-sport athletes for competition even though their samples had suspicious scores on the test for erythropoietin, or EPO - a notorious banned endurance-booster. Reviewing lab documents for the BBC, prominent Danish doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard demonstrated that many athletes were probably using small doses of EPO - microdosing - gaining athletic benefit while technically beating the EPO test. Hardy told CBS on Friday that she was in "complete shock" when anti-doping officials called her with the results of her July 4 test. "In my heart I know I'm 100 percent clean," she said, claiming to have never heard of Clenbuterol. That may be true, but the WADA Code, now 10 years old, was built on a "strict liability" philosophy, wherein athletes are responsible for every molecule in their system, even if they have never heard ot it. Last year, the Code was tweaked to allow a tiny measure of flexibility in enforcement when an athlete can prove he or she took something inadvertently. WADA seemed to want to offer a little lenience in cases where second-hand marijuana and innocent cough medications put careers at risk (and cost WADA huge legal fees). But the new language hasn't been tested in a trial setting, and history indictates that WADA's definition of lenience is closer to reducing ban from two years to 18 months, rather than green-lighting a trip to the Olympics....

From the New York Daily News: www.nydailynews.com/.../2008-07-26_swimmer_jessica_hardy_claims_doping_inno.html Excerpt: ...Laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, like the UCLA Olympic lab where Hardy's samples were apparently tested, have black-and-white criteria for positive and negative tests. Even abnormal samples must meet the strict criteria for a "positive" reading. Technicians are trained to think like lawyers when they read the tests, because they may just end up facing Jacobs down the line. On the other hand, samples that pass as clean but raise the suspicions of the scientists can trigger more targeted testing. The laboratories, which only see a number on the test tube, can suggest that sport authorities collect out-of-competition tests from the donor. And if they see something weird on one specific aspect of the test, they can go back to stored samples and take a closer look: In other words, "low positive" means positive because there are wide margins of error built into most testing protocols. That is the case for two of the most commonly discussed blood profiles in anti-doping science, hematocrit percentages (which often reflect endurance) and testosterone/epitestosterone ratios (which indicate steroid use). Just last week, an expose by the BBC explored how WADA-accredited laboratories had cleared a startling number of Olympic-sport athletes for competition even though their samples had suspicious scores on the test for erythropoietin, or EPO - a notorious banned endurance-booster. Reviewing lab documents for the BBC, prominent Danish doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard demonstrated that many athletes were probably using small doses of EPO - microdosing - gaining athletic benefit while technically beating the EPO test. Hardy told CBS on Friday that she was in "complete shock" when anti-doping officials called her with the results of her July 4 test. "In my heart I know I'm 100 percent clean," she said, claiming to have never heard of Clenbuterol. That may be true, but the WADA Code, now 10 years old, was built on a "strict liability" philosophy, wherein athletes are responsible for every molecule in their system, even if they have never heard ot it. Last year, the Code was tweaked to allow a tiny measure of flexibility in enforcement when an athlete can prove he or she took something inadvertently. WADA seemed to want to offer a little lenience in cases where second-hand marijuana and innocent cough medications put careers at risk (and cost WADA huge legal fees). But the new language hasn't been tested in a trial setting, and history indictates that WADA's definition of lenience is closer to reducing ban from two years to 18 months, rather than green-lighting a trip to the Olympics....