[one-mint-julich]

please don't oversimplify...bone fragments offer much more evidence than simply the carbon that's in them...i'm sure you know this though. i suppose you're refering to carbon-dating...a little different isn't it? carbon dating doesn't tell you that it's carbon from a hominid...only how old the sample is...the fact that it's from a hominid is determined by other methods(anthropology), not the carbon-dating...what other methods are used in irms testing to tell us that the carbon in question comes from syntyhetic T, and not somewhere else?

i really am interested if you've got the patience...

I suggest you look through some past threads, if they're still around. This was discussed very thoroughly after Floyd's positive was announced around the end of July, 06, and particularly after his documents became available online, I think in October of that year. Also Don Catlin's 2001 article on using IRMS for this purpose, try a search with his name, testosterone and doping.

Carbon ratios don't tell you it's carbon from a T-metabolite, either, that's determined by chromatographic elution profiles, together with mass spectometry. Again, this is discussed exhaustively in some of the old threads.

[Ali]

Ok, the toys are back in the pram.

I'll leave this for those with a conscience:

If an athlete now registers an IRMS positive of -4 at LNDD, what should they do ...

If they bother to appeal it, I would refer them to Floyd's body of evidence that LNDD can't achieve their claimed accuracies. In fact, they may be several points away from the truth. That's what LNDD have demonstrated. That's what "gold standard" means, apparently. A shoddy test which even the implementers have no idea what the accuracy is ... class. Perfect for the false scientists on this forum ... they don't really care becsuse they are like minded to the corrupt. Hey ho !

[diknutz]

I suggest you look through some past threads, if they're still around. This was discussed very thoroughly after Floyd's positive was announced around the end of July, 06, and particularly after his documents became available online, I think in October of that year. Also Don Catlin's 2001 article on using IRMS for this purpose, try a search with his name, testosterone and doping.

Carbon ratios don't tell you it's carbon from a T-metabolite, either, that's determined by chromatographic elution profiles, together with mass spectometry. Again, this is discussed exhaustively in some of the old threads.

i've read catlin's interview in usa today where he "explains" irms...he says that it is the screening test that alerts them that there are abnoral t levels...they know that synth. t produces different carbon isotopes than natural t...the irms test verifies that indeed the carbon isotopes produced by synth. t are present...nowhere does he say that those carbon isotopes are only produced by synth t (probably because they aren't, right?)...

i've also followed some of the other threads...which have shown that the isotopes/ratios were not the result of the corticosteroids that fl was taking...i'll look farther back in the archives as you suggest as well.

so essentially, the tests tell us that some of the "parts" that make up synth. t are present...and hopefully, they've done enough of these tests to know that it is highly unlikely that those isotopes would show up unless synth. t were present...an educated guess...a hypothesis...a theory?

how long has irms testing been around? how many combinations of different people's urine with different combinations of substances in it have been tested...seems like they'd have to have a huge book of all those possibilities to be sure...or do we assume that the isotopes/ratios are almost unique to a particular substance?

[ZigZagged]

deleted by Zig 'cause he's tired of it

This post has been edited by ZigZagged: 06 July 2008 - 04:07 PM

[diknutz]

Ok, the toys are back in the pram.

I'll leave this for those with a conscience:

If an athlete now registers an IRMS positive of -4 at LNDD, what should they do ...

If they bother to appeal it, I would refer them to Floyd's body of evidence that LNDD can't achieve their claimed accuracies. In fact, they may be several points away from the truth. That's what LNDD have demonstrated. That's what "gold standard" means, apparently. A shoddy test which even the implementers have no idea what the accuracy is ... class. Perfect for the false scientists on this forum ... they don't really care becsuse they are like minded to the corrupt. Hey ho !

hey now! i'm not accusing anyone of shoddy science...or corruption. i honestly just wanted a concise answer to the question: how do they know that the carbon isotopes they're looking at come from synth. T?

i probably chose the wrong time to ask that question.

[OAR]

guilty