-
-
THE SAMPLE SCREENED POSITIVE FOR CANNABINOIDS!
AFTER SCREENING POSITIVE FOR CANNABINOIDS, THEY HAD TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY FOR CARBOXY-THC. THEY QUANTIFIED IT AND IT WAS BELOW THE THRESHOLD.Eichner said the lab then looks for every known prohibited substance and metabolite, which he called "quite a vast and extensive screening process."
If anything is detected during the initial screen, that triggers more work.
"If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a confirmation process," Eichner said. "We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite."
LMAOOOO. DUDE. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
THE SCREEN BEING POSITIVE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. IF QUEST'S SCREEN WAS POSITIVE, WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON LIKELY EVERY SAMPLE HE GAVE, YET IF HE PASSED THE QUEST CONFIRMATION TEST, IT WOULD BE REPORTED AS NEGATIVE.
THE SCREEN BEING POSITIVE DOES NOT CAUSE ANY TYPE OF REACTION BESIDES CONFIRMATION TESTING. ONCE CONFIRMATION TESTING IS COMPLETED, THEN THE POSITIVE RESULT BECOMES A BIG DEAL.
You can't even understand that???Last edited by travestyny; 02-25-2017, 04:29 AM.Comment
-
WHat??????????????????????????????????????
1) So you think they would have just missed that point for SMRTLs but not QUESTs?
You are funny! 
2) Even NSAC mentioned that QUEST performed both test but SMRLT didn't .....
#2 above concluded that SMRLT just did the Screening .....
Comment
-
wrong. Nsac was actually trying to say that quest did a screen and confirmation, while smrtl just did a confirmation.what??????????????????????????????????????
1) so you think they would have just missed that point for smrtls but not quests? You are funny!
2) even nsac mentioned that quest performed both test but smrlt didn't .....
#2 above concluded that smrlt just did the screening .....
Which is a dumb defense and that's why they were being railed by everyone. For being morons. Are you really trying to argue now that wada didn't screen for all prohibited substances. Clearly they did.
Did they quantify carboxy-thc? Clearly they did.
The gc/ms has to be optimized for carboxy-thc to get the exact final amount, right? Rightttt?
Do you understand yet?Comment
-
Why do you just refuse to answer questions?WHat??????????????????????????????????????
1) So you think they would have just missed that point for SMRTLs but not QUESTs? You are funny!
2) Even NSAC mentioned that QUEST performed both test but SMRLT didn't .....
#2 above concluded that SMRLT just did the Screening .....
What does this mean?
The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.
https://www.aacc.org/publications/cl...ry/sports-drugComment
-
Man, you are making me crack up!!!! Everyone is wrong and you are right ... too funny!
SO where did you hear that SMRTL only did a confirmation test? Or did you make that up? What they said is that QUEST did 2 tests while SMRTL only did one, which is true ....
AGAIN, you are mixed up because you are reading screening somewhere but that is for Immunoassay not GCMS .....
The initial screening can be quantifiable since its using GCMS ..... but the difference is that a confirmation test is more rigorous test and time consuming.
and if its a threshold substance and its below the threshold, then its negative and it would not be required to do a confirmation test ..... AGAIN, if it was positive, why was it not mentioned anywhere in the hearing? That would have been brought up for sure!!! QUESTs was but SMRTLS wasn't? HA!Comment
-
So what you are saying is that Quest only tested for Carboxy-THC, right?
Because we know that to test for Carboxy-THC, the machine has to be optomized to test for Carboxy-THC. It says that right here:
NSAC is clearly thinking that Quest did a screening with immunoassay and a confirmation with GC/MS, while SMRTL only tested for carboxy-THC with the GC/MS. They are not considering that WADA first did a screen for ALL prohibited substances. This is clear to those of us who have a brain.The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.
https://www.aacc.org/publications/cl...ry/sports-drug
LMAO. THE QUOTE IS NOT ABOUT IMMUNOASSAY!!!!!!!!
SO YOU WANT TO SAY WHAT IT MEANS NOW?The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.
https://www.aacc.org/publications/cl...ry/sports-drug
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THIS MEANS:
The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.
https://www.aacc.org/publications/cl...ry/sports-drugComment
-
lmaooooo. Will you admit that you are wrong (proving you wrong is becoming commonplace).
The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
data analysis
gc-ms detects target compounds by comparing the retention time and relative intensities of ion fragments in unknown samples to those obtained for reference compounds. The collected data are reduced to dedicated windows consisting of selected time slices and mass-to-charge (m/z) ions corresponding to the expected retention times and mass spectral fragments for each target compound. interfering peaks and background noise can complicate gc-ms data reading because screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.
Last edited by travestyny; 02-25-2017, 05:04 AM.Comment
-
See you are lost. Thanks for proving it!!!
Where in the hearing do they say that Diaz's threshold from the screening was above the limit?
QUEST can but not SMRTL? Are you serious? Why was this not mentioned by nobody??? Not SMRTL, not Diaz's lawyer, not the prosecutor, NOT NSAC, NOT QUEST, not even Diaz's "expert" .... ONLY Travestyny!!!!
lets hear a good answer .... was QUEST's immunoassay test superior to SMRTL's GCMS? If not then why was it not even mentioned if YOU SAY IT WAS POSITIVE???????
Like I keep on telling you, GCMS can be used in various ways. Initially, it can detect the multiple metabolites but because its not as specific in that its not looking for just that substance initially, they need to do further tests to CONFIRM their initial findings but if the initial findings does not find the PED or in this case, is below a given threshold then there is no point to confirm. As stated before that there are exceptions but Diaz's case was not one of them.
They have 2 QUEST results from 1 sample but I did not hear 2 from SMRTL, NSAC didn't hear 2, nobody but TRAVESTNY ..... so point me to where they said that there were 2 results and what were the results????
Optimized: This is why I believe that you are lost. You are comparing Immunoassay to GCMS and getting mixed up. GCMS can split the various substances and get the concentration levels of each ... just like SMRTL said and you are not getting it.
but since its not optimized and to say as sensitive, they may have gotten a false positive and requires confirmation process.
When they say optimized, they mean that they use a different process once they know what to target. Its a more rigorous, extensive and time consuming process which requires another aliquot ..... none of this was said. In fact, SRMTL said it was not required.
So again, the screening process can get quantitative results and SMRTL gave that ..... now its for you to read and read and then cry and cry that you had it wrong and then need to come back here and DEFLECT AT ALL COSTS because you have proven that you are not capable of stating THAT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!
.Last edited by ADP02; 02-25-2017, 05:34 AM.Comment
-
What the actual **** are you talking about? No one is concerned about any screening tests except for you. The screening is not important. The confirmation is important. Why would they have to say that there was a positive screen???? We know they found marijuana, and we know they quantified the amount of marijuana metabolite. You want them to discuss the screen when they confirmed an amount below the threshold.See you are lost. Thanks for proving it!!!
Where in the hearing do they say that Diaz's threshold from the screening was above the limit?
QUEST can but not SMRTL? Are you serious? Why was this not mentioned by nobody??? Not SMRTL, not Diaz's lawyer, not the prosecutor, NOT NSAC, NOT QUEST, not even Diaz's "expert" .... ONLY Travestyny!!!!
lets hear a good answer .... was QUEST's immunoassay test superior to SMRTL's GCMS? If not then why was it not even mentioned if YOU SAY IT WAS POSITIVE???????
That's really ******.
Like I keep on telling you, GCMS can be used in various ways. Initially, it can detect the multiple metabolites but because its not as specific in that its not looking for just that substance initially, they need to do further tests to CONFIRM their initial findings but if the initial findings does not find the PED or in this case, is below a given threshold then there is no point to confirm. As stated before that there are exceptions but Diaz's case was not one of them.
They have 2 QUEST results from 1 sample but I did not hear 2 from SMRTL, NSAC didn't hear 2, nobody but TRAVESTNY ..... so point me to where they said that there were 2 results and what were the results????
Optimized: This is why I believe that you are lost. You are comparing Immunoassay to GCMS and getting mixed up. GCMS can split the various substances and get the concentration levels of each ... just like SMRTL said and you are not getting it.
but since its not optimized and to say as sensitive, they may have gotten a false positive and requires confirmation process.
When they say optimized, they mean that they use a different process once they know what to target. Its a more rigorous, extensive and time consuming process which requires another aliquot ..... none of this was said. In fact, SRMTL said it was not required.
So again, the screening process can get quantitative results and SMRTL gave that ..... now its for you to read and read and then cry and cry that you had it wrong and then need to come back here and DEFLECT AT ALL COSTS because you have proven that you are not capable of stating THAT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!
.
LMAOOOOOO. YOU STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND, CAN YOU.
And what's up with your false quotation? How many times are you going to type it. You are a sad sad person if you have to keep lying to yourself this way. LMAOOOOO
There was no reason to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE!
THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS, RIGHT? RIGHTTTTT? LOL
QUESTION 1: DID SMRTL GIVE A FINAL CONCENTRATION OF ONLY THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE?The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
data analysis
gc-ms detects target compounds by comparing the retention time and relative intensities of ion fragments in unknown samples to those obtained for reference compounds. The collected data are reduced to dedicated windows consisting of selected time slices and mass-to-charge (m/z) ions corresponding to the expected retention times and mass spectral fragments for each target compound. interfering peaks and background noise can complicate gc-ms data reading because screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.
https://www.aacc.org/publications/cl...ry/sports-drug
QUESTION 2: ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION ABOVE, DOES THIS MEAN THAT IT WAS A SCREEN OR A CONFIRMATION?
LMAOOOOO!!!!Last edited by travestyny; 02-25-2017, 06:15 AM.Comment
Tweet
Comment