Quote:
Originally Posted by weiwentg
Hang on, I didn't assume that there were no advances at all in testing methods.
If you are telling me that you work in this field, and that there were recent revolutionary advances in testing, then sure. I wasn't assuming revolutions.
But, on the other hand, if you are saying that there have been revolutions in the technology, then you may be being entirely too credulous about how well that technology is deployed.
Case 1: a suspected case where a drug testing lab had serious quality issues.
http://sportsscientists.com/2016/10/...ality-control/
Case 2: regulatory failure. Inconsistent and non-transparent application of an exception for suspected contamination in several clenbuterol cases.
http://sportsscientists.com/2017/04/...e-credibility/
Bottom line: if you are asserting that there have been revolutionary advances in testing technology in the last 5 years (proof appreciated, FYI), then that's reassuring, but technology doesn't get used in a vacuum. The testers can fail - some labs may be under-resourced and they may not get the tech, or their personnel can fail (because it isn't easy to do good science). The regulators can also fail to act - remember that their incentives may be to minimize public relations disasters. |
Not only all of this, but there more than likely have been advances on the other side as well. It's not like sky has no money, or haven't hired doctors..... How many blood bags were there in Perto's lab, lots of money to cheat the system.