[Jimmy]

That's a good question, actually. I think Jimmy is satisfied that the B wasn't contaminated, while Bora may be holding out for more info.

. . . .

My own two cents on this is that the B is contaminated issue will not decide the case, and I don't think it should. It has been shown in other studies that the level of free E that Floyd's team is referring to does not indicate contamination, and that even if it did, it does not significantly affect the T/E measurement. If Floyd were cleared on this basis, I would definitely regard him as getting off on a technicality.

My own position is that the 'free' E concentration doesn't indicate contamination. 1. because I think they boosted its concentration by using an innapropriate calibration curve (so 'free' E : E should have been 3.5%) and 2) because the concentration is so low that the value isn't reliable anyway. I'm certainly open to other indicators such as what Duckstrap and RJbora have been looking at over in power-point analysis though - it is just that the indicators at have not indicated that the sample is not OK.

I did think of an analogy regarding the wording of the WADA document we were discussing over in PPA. Let's say that WADA said. "Your car is required to be green". They are not requiring you to have a car - but if you do it must be green. But what if they said "You are required to have a green car". Then you would be required to have a car and it would have to be green.

What WADA say in this case is:

"To report an Adverse Analytical Finding of an elevated T/E value, testosterone or epitestosterone concentration or any other endogenous steroid parameters, the concentration of free testosterone and/or epitestosterone in the specimen is not to exceed 5% of the respective glucuroconjugates. WADA Technical Document TD2004EAAS"

which is like the first statement. Again that is my reading and may not be correct - there is more on why I think this is the case in the PPAnalysis thread.

[shag]

I did think of an analogy regarding the wording of the WADA document we were discussing over in PPA. Let's say that WADA said. "Your car is required to be green". They are not requiring you to have a car - but if you do it must be green. But what if they said "You are required to have a green car". Then you would be required to have a car and it would have to be green.
. . .
which is like the first statement. Again that is my reading and may not be correct - there is more on why I think this is the case in the PPAnalysis thread.

It's amazing how two intelligent people (let me qualify that; I'm sure of your intelligence, mine may be open to debate) can read this so differently. I like your analogy but I think it supports my position: "You are not required to check for contamination, but if you report an AAF you have to check for contamination." OR "You are not required to report an AAF, but if you do you had better confirm that the sample is not contaminated."

EDIT: after looking at the title of this thread I realize we're starting to stray off topic here - sorry.

This post has been edited by shag: 20 October 2006 - 01:34 PM

[dbrower]

It's amazing how two intelligent people (let me qualify that; I'm sure of your intelligence, mine may be open to debate) can read this so differently. I like your analogy but I think it supports my position: "You are not required to check for contamination, but if you report and AAF you have to check for contamination." OR "You are not required to report an AAF, but if you do you had better confirm that the sample is not contaminated."

Actually, I think the analogy is more, "if you check for contamination, it shouldn't be contaminated. If you don't check for contamination, then it is Landis' problem. This is an IQ test."

-dB

[Jimmy]

It's amazing how two intelligent people (let me qualify that; I'm sure of your intelligence, mine may be open to debate) can read this so differently. I like your analogy but I think it supports my position: "You are not required to check for contamination, but if you report and AAF you have to check for contamination." OR "You are not required to report an AAF, but if you do you had better confirm that the sample is not contaminated."

EDIT: after looking at the title of this thread I realize we're starting to stray off topic here - sorry.

I don't know but you read pretty smart to me
Yeah I agree (about the topic) - but having said that I'll post this here - perhaps the difference between our readings comes from what I (and you) understand report to mean. LNDD measured the 'free' E (or rather attempted to) but cannot report what the concentration is because it was too low. Just because they make a measurement and calculate a value does not mean that they have a value to report - the value they calculate must be above the detection limit - which is different to the detector limit - and is related to signal-to-noise and hence accuracy for a finite number of measurements. I think some of us expressed surprise that there isn't a different methodology used to make a better measurement of this - but this seems to be standard procedure for them.

[duckstrap]

I don't know but you read pretty smart to me
Yeah I agree (about the topic) - but having said that I'll post this here - perhaps the difference between our readings comes from what I (and you) understand report to mean. LNDD measured the 'free' E (or rather attempted to) but cannot report what the concentration is because it was too low. Just because they make a measurement and calculate a value does not mean that they have a value to report - the value they calculate must be above the detection limit - which is different to the detector limit - and is related to signal-to-noise and hence accuracy for a finite number of measurements. I think some of us expressed surprise that there isn't a different methodology used to make a better measurement of this - but this seems to be standard procedure for them.

I am making my reply to this regarding differences between the limits of detection and quantitation over on the Powerpoint analysis thread