View Single Post
Old 08-13-06, 07:45 AM
  #73  
cyclintom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 2,900

Bikes: Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Basso Loto, Pinarello Stelvio, Redline Cyclocross

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Artmo
Since we've come to name-calling, pea brain, I never suggested that the US should give more. I was merely correcting a misapprehension held by many that the US is the most generous with foreign aid.
Then why did you fail to note the AMOUNTS given instead of the percentage? That was a purposeful deceit.

Originally Posted by Artmo
As for funding democracies, you might want to look back at how the US for example funded Iraq (Saddam) against Iran in the 80s and all the funding that went to S. American dictators when it was politically expedient. But the US is by no means alone in this kind of thing.
Well why don't you explain to us the best thing to do to have limited the expansion of Iranian extremism? Hindsight is always 20-20 especially from those who couldn't find their butts using both hands.

Originally Posted by Artmo
Isn't there enough corruption in the US government? After all, who runs Congress? Big business, the NRA, Jewish lobby etc etc.
Thanks for the demostration of antisemitism along with your complete ignorance of the real world. You can go back to your antiwar demonstations now.

Originally Posted by Artmo
Oh so you are a high resolution isotopic mass spectroscopist, too.
No, but I was on the design team for the first fixed and the first adjustable wavelength HPLC detectors for Altex Scientific/Beckman Instruments as well as working on the designs of HPLC high pressure pumps, system controllers, gel phoresis drivers and several other projects before moving on to artificial heart drivers, respiratory gas analyzers and the like.

Originally Posted by Artmo
Strange that they always seem to make mistakes with Americans' samples, innit?
Not nearly as strange as the fact that it was only the American results which were leaked.

Originally Posted by Artmo
Yes, there is always room for error in any analytical chemistry technique, (I am a lapsed analytical chemist) and the validity of a technique is based upon statistical studies over many analyses,
Then you won't feel put out explaining that. Exactly how does that relate to a modest sample which contains a tiny fraction of testosterone? Since I noted that the ratios of carbon overlap and WADA ASSUMES that the "calibration" test on cholesterol will contain the same ratio I would like to know why you failed to comment on that?

Originally Posted by Artmo
so presumably the IOC, UCI etc have been happy with the margins of error for high res MS for testosterone/epitestosterone, especially when a B sample also tests positive.
Ahh, yes, you have a tight grasp on how tests are approved for WADA and the UCI I see. Perhaps you'd like to relate the process by which tests are designed?

Originally Posted by Artmo
Do you really believe that someone doctored both samples or screwed up the analysis both times? Get real! It's more likely that Landis' himself was doctored either with or without his knowledge.
You claim to be a qualified analytical chemist and then say something like that? Exactly WHEN was it that you practiced analytical chemistry? When was it that you used HPLC, Gel Phoresis or GCMS?

1) Since BOTH A and B samples come out of the same urine cup all that would be necessary to "doctor" the sample would be to put a single drop of testosterone in the bottom of the sample cup. It would be completely invisible and both samples would then yield precisely the same E/T ratios and carbon ratios.

2) The lab that performed the analysis has had extremely questionable ethical violations. They released information on Armstrong and now the possibility of a leak (you can BET that the reality of it was that someone at the UCI was asked for comments on Landis positive test) had the UCI releasing information on Floyd BEFORE HE WAS EVEN INFORMED! That alone voids the results of any testing. If a lab doesn't have enough control of their personnel to guard the results WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC IN ANY EVENT, then their testing process cannot be any more secure.

3) WADA and the UCI have now chaged the T/E ratios for further testing from 6:1 to 4:1. 5% of those tested will have false positives with this ratio. When you look at the numbers of positives for testosterone, they are less than a percent. Explain that.
cyclintom is offline