No more B tests

CyclingBantam

What are your thoughts on the possible removal of B samples?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-head-proposes-eliminating-b-sample-in-doping-probes

Do you see it as an infringement of athletes rights, is it unfair or is it perfectly reasonable.

Like they have made the point, many criminal cases are decided on 1 sample.

Additionally, how often is it that the B sample is different to the A sample. It seems that it is very common that the 1st route for someone caught it to shout for the B sample to be tested, simply to buy more time. This then comes bag positive as well (seeing as it is exactly the same as what has already been tested) which has resulted in a lot of money beeing wasted for no reason.

Monty Dog

Given the 'absolute liability' requirement, then a positive sample is a positive sample - B samples only introduce uncertainty and the ability to manipulate the test protocols / introduce further errors.
Again, folks applying the wrong principles here - in sport, a positive test is guilty unless the athlete can demonstrate otherwise / mitigating circumstances

No_Ta_Doctor

Massively bad idea. We need to have 100% confidence in the testing, otherwise anyone caught and banned on one test alone will whine like f*** about possible procedural errors and some people out there will actually believe them.

overgeared

seems like an outrageous proposal made out of WADA´s self interest rather than any consideration of fairness. why should one lab be judge and jury, maintaining, testing and reporting on only one sample behind closed doors? various doping cases have raised hard-to-ignore concerns about some laboratories competence and ethics.

should not things be heading the other other way to increase faith in the system ... B samples stored and cared for by independent third parties, not any particular lab, and tested by an alternative lab chosen by the defending party.

RichN95.

CyclingBantam wrote:

Like they have made the point, many criminal cases are decided on 1 sample.

But it's a rubbish point. No-one ever gets convicted of a crime on the basis of a single test. There's either other evidence or other tests. The WADA bloke seems to thing that CSI is a documentary.

Pokerface

RichN95 wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

Like they have made the point, many criminal cases are decided on 1 sample.

But it's a rubbish point. No-one ever gets convicted of a crime on the basis of a single test.

No one. EVER? Are you sure?

RichN95.

Pokerface wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

Like they have made the point, many criminal cases are decided on 1 sample.

But it's a rubbish point. No-one ever gets convicted of a crime on the basis of a single test.

No one. EVER? Are you sure?

Give me an example, then, of someone being convicted the basis of a single test, with no recourse to a second test, and nothing else.

Maybe I should have said fairly convicted.

(Only EU countries please, and nothing that was subsequently appealed)

Pokerface

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... urder-case

P_Tucker

According to that article, the only benefit of this that WADA sees is saving money. So they do presumably tens of thousands of tests every year (across all sports), the positives number in the tens, and they claim to the worried about the cost of running additional tests on these tens of cases?

Sounds like a load of bolleaux to me.

No_Ta_Doctor

Pokerface wrote:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fingerprint-evidence-is-used-to-solve-a-british-murder-case

Fingerprints are a little different, as the fingerprint isn't used up when you match it. It remains on file and you can challenge the match.

The counter argument, I suppose, is the Birmingham 6, where the evidence against them was a flawed test for explosives and the fact that they were Irish. Challenged and won, but not until they'd done 26 years in jail.

I'm fairly sure there will be a lot of DNA match cases where any other evidence is at best circumstantial though.

No_Ta_Doctor

P_Tucker wrote:

According to that article, the only benefit of this that WADA sees is saving money. So they do presumably tens of thousands of tests every year (across all sports), the positives number in the tens, and they claim to the worried about the cost of running additional tests on these tens of cases?

Sounds like a load of bolleaux to me.

At a guess it's not the cost of the additional tests they're worried about (these could easily be passed on to an athlete failing both tests) but the costs of material, storage and transport of b samples.

P_Tucker

No tA Doctor wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

According to that article, the only benefit of this that WADA sees is saving money. So they do presumably tens of thousands of tests every year (across all sports), the positives number in the tens, and they claim to the worried about the cost of running additional tests on these tens of cases?

Sounds like a load of bolleaux to me.

At a guess it's not the cost of the additional tests they're worried about (these could easily be passed on to an athlete failing both tests) but the costs of material, storage and transport of b samples.

Could be. Or maybe WADA have a hidden agenda and are simply citing costs as a smokescreen.

Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat?

andyp

overgeared wrote:

seems like an outrageous proposal made out of WADA´s self interest rather than any consideration of fairness. why should one lab be judge and jury, maintaining, testing and reporting on only one sample behind closed doors? various doping cases have raised hard-to-ignore concerns about some laboratories competence and ethics.

should not things be heading the other other way to increase faith in the system ... B samples stored and cared for by independent third parties, not any particular lab, and tested by an alternative lab chosen by the defending party.

I partly agree, especially about having faith in the system, but in over 99.9% of cases, the B sample confirms the result from the A sample. This idea that there are rogue labs out there, determined to wreck the career of athletes doesn't stand up to scrutiny, rather it is used by those who've tested positive to try and attack the credibility of the system.

rick_chasey

You need to approach the dope test rules like you would the rule that "sprinters must hold their line when sprinting" or "riders may not receive water bottles with 20km to go unless there is special dispensation from the organisers".

It's just an arbitary rule riders must adhere to. In this case, you give a sample which tests positive for something in 1 test and you're banned.

SBezza

Very bad idea IMO, not just for pro's but for all those that maybe subjected to testing at an event, even National events.

Say something did contaminate one sample, either accidentally, or through malice, or a mistake is made at the lab testing the sample, you have no 2nd chance. It would open up massive legal challenges as to why that sample could have been tampered with etc.

Having a 2nd sample to be asked to be tested at least gives the authorities to chance send it to a different lab, and have it opened in front of the athlete and for them to see it hasn't been tampered with.

I can't see where saving money comes from, the only costs I see are the cost for the extra container, the storage of the sample, and the additional testing if requested by the athlete. Plus for cycling the teams pay for alot of this testing anyhow.