NYT: Sosa Said to Test Positive in 2003

[Dutra]

If what's bolded in the quote is true, do you see how there's a little bit of credibility/integrity problem with the process agreed to by MLB and the MLBPA? The JDA clearly states the test were to be both confidential and anonymous. How can they develop a list of known names from anonymous list?

If I'm not mistaken, the MLBPA had the opportunity to destroy the testing results but chose not to....why I am not sure. In the interim, the Feds subpoenaed the results during their Bonds case and were granted access. I presume there is some sort of way to match up the sample to a particular player. The leaks have occurred presumably because the Feds have notified particular players that they may be interviewed and those players attorneys then have the results....which get leaked.

[CunnySewer]

If I'm not mistaken, the MLBPA had the opportunity to destroy the testing results but chose not to....why I am not sure. In the interim, the Feds subpoenaed the results during their Bonds case and were granted access. I presume there is some sort of way to match up the sample to a particular player. The leaks have occurred presumably because the Feds have notified particular players that they may be interviewed and those players attorneys then have the results....which get leaked.

Destroying the results were never part of the JDA from what I've read because the results were supposed to be confidential.

Any way to match a sample to the particular player negates anonymity, which also violates the terms of the JDA.

Another problem I'm having with this is that it was sold to the players with lesser safeguards built in because they promised the test would be anonymous -in addition to being confidential. Now there's no way to even verify the accuracy of any results. Plus the non-anonymous anonymous tests have chain of custody and storage issues. Are you opposed to athletes being given splits to test themselves?

[Dutra]

Destroying the results were never part of the JDA from what I've read because the results were supposed to be confidential.

Didn't the MLBPA have the option to destroy the testing results. I didn't know so I went to the source:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/ ... p&c_id=mlb

Another problem I'm having with this is that it was sold to the players with lesser safeguards built in because they promised the test would be anonymous -in addition to being confidential. Now there's no way to even verify the accuracy of any results. Plus the non-anonymous anonymous tests have chain of custody and storage issues. Are you opposed to athletes being given splits to test themselves?

Not at all. If the players want to dispute the results, it's within their rights to do so. So why haven't they?

[Daisy]

Certainly strange that they felt the need to build a list with real names. One can only assume that it was never on their radar that the players would ever be on a hit list.

There was never any agreement to destroy the results from what I've read. The results were just meant to confidential. The part I still have not be able to bridge is how they went from anonymous to knowing whose names are associated with each anonymous test.

Re: "how they went from anonymous to knowing" Actually, i still think the real question is why they felt there was a need to have a list with real names. As to how, isn't it obvious? They either did a double blind test or tested named samples.

Under the scope of their investigation there was no need to keep a key of the names in a double blind study. The only important thing was to ensure that duplicate samples could be resolved to be from the same sample.

Possibly the players actually did want to know the result of the tests for future reference. In that scenario there would then be a reason to keep a key of players names and the sample identification number.

[CunnySewer]

Didn't the MLBPA have the option to destroy the testing results. I didn't know so I went to the source:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/ ... p&c_id=mlb

... Are you opposed to athletes being given splits to test themselves?

Not at all. If the players want to dispute the results, it's within their rights to do so. So why haven't they?

Nothing in that letter answers how anonymous became non-anonymous. The fact that they had test results, knew whose test results corresponded to each known player, and still had possession of all the testing materials only illustrate the chain of custody and storage problems to which I alluded. It's too late to go back. The splits are something that needs to be implemented moving forward.

[CunnySewer]

...The part I still have not be able to bridge is how they went from anonymous to knowing whose names are associated with each anonymous test.

Re: "how they went from anonymous to knowing" Actually, i still think the real question is why they felt there was a need to have a list with real names. As to how, isn't it obvious? They either did a double blind test or tested named samples.

Under the scope of their investigation there was no need to keep a key of the names in a double blind study. The only important thing was to ensure that duplicate samples could be resolved to be from the same sample.

Possibly the players actually did want to know the result of the tests for future reference. In that scenario there would then be a reason to keep a key of players names and the sample identification number.

Well now then we have an admitted broken process -not blind, not double blind, no real controls, and no ability to properly verify accuracy of the results...curiouser and curiouser.

[Daisy]

...The part I still have not be able to bridge is how they went from anonymous to knowing whose names are associated with each anonymous test.

Re: "how they went from anonymous to knowing" Actually, i still think the real question is why they felt there was a need to have a list with real names. As to how, isn't it obvious? They either did a double blind test or tested named samples.

Possibly the players actually did want to know the result of the tests for future reference.

Well now then we have an admitted broken process -not blind, not double blind, no real controls, and no ability to properly verify accuracy of the results...curiouser and curiouser.

Re:"Admitted broken process"
Admitted? I was just offering up the full range of possabilities. If I had to guess I would go with the keyed double blind. Why keyed? I'm assuming the players wanted to know the results.

Why your fascination with it being a broken process?

[CunnySewer]

Re: "how they went from anonymous to knowing" Actually, i still think the real question is why they felt there was a need to have a list with real names. As to how, isn't it obvious? They either did a double blind test or tested named samples...

CunnySewer wrote:

Well now then we have an admitted broken process -not blind, not double blind, no real controls, and no ability to properly verify accuracy of the results...curiouser and curiouser.

Re:"Admitted broken process"
Admitted? I was just offering up the full range of possabilities. If I had to guess I would go with the keyed double blind. Why keyed? I'm assuming the players wanted to know the results.

Why your fascination with it being a broken process?

The term double blind doesn't really apply hear since the tests performed on the MLB players were meant to be blinded from the testers only: they were not supposed to know whose samples they were testing -ANONYMOUS. The tests were supposed to be blind (from the testers, the players knew what they were being tested for PEDs) + anonymous + confidential.

Regardless, there is no way of independently verifying the accuracy of the testing results, nor the integrity of the handling and storage of the samples -this is beyond absurd!

I began to question the drug testing procedures while following the Floyd Landis case. After reviewing the WADA Code, I was immediately appalled by the assumptions and lack of protections in that document. There is NO reason for any analytical testing procedures like those involved in drug testing to be cloaked in secrecy. Further, there is No reason why the accuracy of these testing methods should not be verifiable by independent accredited labs, and splits are must to ensure integrity of the storage and handling of the samples.

[Daisy]

There is NO reason for any analytical testing procedures like those involved in drug testing to be cloaked in secrecy.

Are the procedures secret? I would have thought they would be standardised since they are using common techniques. Obviously the EPO tests are more subjective, but even then the thresholds are such that most who are using EPO do not get caught, so a positive result is meaningful.

Further, there is No reason why the accuracy of these testing methods should not be verifiable by independent accredited labs, and splits are must to ensure integrity of the storage and handling of the samples.

Certainly testing in two different labs would be preferable but that would double the cost. It's hard to ignore the price tag.

[CunnySewer]

There is NO reason for any analytical testing procedures like those involved in drug testing to be cloaked in secrecy...

Are the procedures secret? I would have thought they would be standardised since they are using common techniques. Obviously the EPO tests are more subjective, but even then the thresholds are such that most who are using EPO do not get caught, so a positive result is meaningful.
...

Certainly testing in two different labs would be preferable but that would double the cost. It's hard to ignore the price tag.

Have you every thought, how come they don't youtube-it? How come I can't find any video clips of these WADA test being performed (GC/C/IRMS)? It's amazing to me what some people are willing to put up with as long as it's done to someone else and not them.

I think the costs just have to be factored in as a cost of doing business. It's much more important to verify the accuracy of the testing methods and procedures, but splits an athlete can send to his/her chosen accredited lab are needed also to ensure integrity of the handling and storage of these samples. Do you not agree with the need to do splits?

[Daisy]

Do you not agree with the need to do splits?

Certainly this would be preferable.

[CunnySewer]

Do you not agree with the need to do splits?

Certainly this would be preferable.

***Great***...but do see how tester bias, storage, and handling are now very real problems here? Once you realize two of the three keys to these tests, blinding from testers and anonymity of test samples, are immediately violated when the testers know the names of whose samples they're testing the integrity of the process is shot.

There's NO way of getting the integrity back into this particular set of tests because of the lack splits being given to the players from the start.