RMc
At 03:24 PM 10/27/2003 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how many drug tests you've ever had Richard, perhaps you could explain how COC is preserved AFTER the sample has been opened?
There's only one way that I can think of: that the athlete/representative be present during the opening (as is the option on the B sample) and, MOST IMPORTANT, the resealing and re-certification of the now open B sample.
Perhaps I missed something?
malmo
> From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/27 Mon PM 02:10:03 CST
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "T&FMail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: more or less cheating
>
> I think that's one of the issues to be addressed. Dick Pound claims that
> issue can be solved, but the question is whether physical preservation
> possible for extended periods.
>
> RMc
>
> At 12:14 PM 10/27/2003 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Good idea, BUT.... how is the chain of custody preserved once the samples
> >have been opened?
> >
> >malmo
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: 2003/10/27 Mon AM 10:59:44 CST
> > > To: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > CC: (T&FMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: more or less cheating
> > >
> > > At 04:39 PM 10/24/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote:
> > > >Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:08:41 -0600
> > > >From: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Subject: t-and-f: more or less cheating
> > > >
> > > >Okay I am a cynic, but does anyone else think that the current scandal
> > will
> > > >lead to MORE cheating, not less. Doesn't this raise the bar to the level
> > > >where those who use drugs will want a designer steroid.
> > >
> > > There was an article from the Denver Post, rerun in the Sacto Bee on
> > > Sunday, where there's a push lead by Frank Shorter to preserve urine and
> > > blood samples for several years, even "indefinitely," and to periodically
> > > retest these samples as new drugs are discovered. Medalists could then be
> > > stripped retroactively for violations out to a 3 to 8 year statute of
> > > limitations. The political support for this option is probably growing
> > > rapidly right now.
> > >
> > > Retroactive testing could be a huge deterrent for designer drugs,
> > > particularly since opposing coaches would know exactly who to target and
> > > expose ex post.
> > >
> > > Richard McCann
> > >
> > >
>
>
