"And I can see how to, but I'll leave that to those who know better, which is neither of us."
Jayson Blair couldn't have said it better. malmo -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard McCann Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: P.F.Talbot; T&FMail List Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: more or less cheating Take it up with Dick Pound. He seems to think the problem is solvable. (And I can see how to, but I'll leave that to those who know better, which is neither of us.) 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
