Wednesday, October 13, 2010

I call Bullsh*t

In a previous post I speculated that Alberto Contador was screwed because of the new test for plasticizers. The inventor of the test and head of the Barcelona WADA-accredited lab, Dr. Segura, stated that the test was "robust" and "technically applicable" heavily implying it was scientifically validated and that the only reason it wasn't officially approved was administrative. Since he's a scientist and understands what scientific validation means I suggested this was highly suggestive that the test works and Alberto is done.

I did qualify this by stating that it's possible that the test is not scientifically validated yet but if that is the case then the inventor is a lying scum sucking piece of crap who is knowingly deceiving people.

Well guess what? Looks like he is an untrustworthy liar.
Rabin said that the test for plasticizers can be used as an indication of possible doping, but said it is not yet validated. "To validate a drug test, it must be confirmed by scientific literature and groups of experts, and it must be usable in all [WADA-accredited] laboratories," he said. "Extensive research is underway involving populations of athletes and samples from the general population, but we can not predict their outcome.

According to WADA the test has not been scientifically validated and the explicitly state what needs to be done. Contrast that with Dr. Jordi Segura's previous statement:

Segura said that although the test for di-phthalate plasticizers has yet to be formally sanctioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the method is valid.

"It's totally good and robust, and it's one of the most important anti-doping advances in recent years because it's the only way of knowing if somebody has undergone an autologous blood transfusion," Segura explained, before outlining how the test works.

"Plastic bags have components that we call plasticizers, which retain the properties of red blood cells during storage. As these residues are also found in common items, the sample must demonstrate a very high level of detection and quantity in order to be considered positive."

Segura admitted that the test may not be legally binding, given that it has yet to be formally validated. "That would be a question for WADA," he said. "In legal terms, you may need more tests to support it, as often happens with such discoveries. But in technical terms, I can say now that it's a categorical method that is perfectly applicable."

Let's be clear: Segura knows what Scientific Validation means. He implies it was scientifically validated by stating how robust it is and it's technical applicability, both of which are what the scientific validation process determines and by stating it isn't validated in the legal sense. At the time I noted that while he didn't explicitly state it had been scientifically validated if it wasn't he had to be intentionally misleading.

I understand the desire to catch the cheaters but it's not ok to plant evidence just because you think Contador is guilty.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home