Originally posted by travestyny
View Post
Moron? I KEEP TELLING YOU that it is an INDIRECT TEST for ........ EPO!!!!
Get it? What will it take for you to understand!!!!
It doesn't matter if it is DIRECT or INDIRECT test for EPO testing .... it is still a test for ........ EPO TESTING
There are several ABP modules.
One is the ‘Haematological Module’ or ‘blood module’ which is the approach to EPO testing!!!!!
Here I say it AGAIN:
It is an INDIRECT test for EPO Testing that has multiple parameters that are checked by way of thresholds. In certain cases such as the one that I quoted, the thresholds of those parameters indicate that there is "strong evidence" that the athlete was using EPO. There was only a slight possibility that they are wrong according to the stats.
The athlete was found guilty by way of those ABP test results!!!
Similarly when they are doing DIRECT testing of EPO. There is uncertainty in their tests. Sometimes there is "strong evidence" and sometimes there is NOT!!!! Right?
Even with Threshold Substances there is Uncertainty and they are OK with a 95% probability factor !!!
A measurement of a Threshold Substance in a Sample shall be reported as an AAF when the value (expressed as a concentration, ratio or score of measured analytical values) exceeds, with an appropriate level of confidence (95%), the Threshold value (T) for that Prohibited Substance (or ratio or combination of substances or Markers) as defined by WADA.
has been exceeded with a statistical confidence of at least 95%, and hence that an AAF is justified.
has been exceeded with a statistical confidence of at least 95%, and hence that an AAF is justified.
So I gave you 3 examples where there is a slight chance that their findings were off but WADA is OK with all 3 of those examples in stating that the athlete is guilty of doping!!!!
.
Comment