On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Richard McCann wrote:
> There's a reason for the statement "innocent until proven guilty":
... in a court of law! *That* is the real application of this statement (and even that backfires, or the letters OJ wouldn't resonate in our minds).
The principle is equally applicable in ALL situations. Again, testing scientific hypotheses rely on the same logical principle, so it is UNIVERSALLY applicable.
This point aside, however, they *are* guilty of having a substance in their system which is not supposed to be there according to the rules of competition.
Your assuming that the tests were fully accurate. In fact, most medical tests have significant "false positives." In the two particular cases discussed, that does not appear to be the case, but the original statement was a blanket one that assumed that ALL failed drug tests were correct--but the facts are that these tests are often wrong, for a variety of reasons.
> Your statement that if someone is "busted" then they are guilty, with > NO hearings or procedures to determine if (1) the testing procedures > was faulty (i.e., false positives, which are extremely common in > medical testing)
Don't forget that there are *two* samples which are tested. This redundancy is to reduce the chance of false positives. It does not eliminate them, but it does reduce the probability of an erroneous result.
True, but again, it does not ELIMINATE the probability. Again, that they were "busted" does not PROVE their guilt.
> Second, no one, I repeat, NO ONE, is able to record absolutely every event > or influence in their life. For example, I suspect that ALL of us have > mistakes in our tax returns, ...
A more appropriate tax analogy: suppose we were required to file on January 1st, and on Dec 31st you won the lottery. If you fail to claim this income on your return, then it's probably not an accident.
When an athlete has taken medication immediately prior to running -- and the medication has *enabled* the athlete to compete in lieu of succumbing to their medical condition -- you have to question how they could possibly forget to note it on the testing form.
That wasn't John's point. His stated that even "soy" intake should be recorded! He was calling for recording EVERYTHING, not just something hugely significant as winning the lottery. His example is more akin to receiving a $20 dividend check on Dec 31, or even less so.
> You're implying that White should have gone so far as record > absolutely everything that she ingested--where does she make the > cutoff as to what to report? She may not have realized that the drug > had some type of stimulant. >
See my comment above. Also, how can something that combats narcolepsy *not* be a stimulant? It certainly isn't a depressant.
You would think that the way to treat hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder (ADD) would be to administer a sedative. But in fact the opposite occurs--a stimulant is prescribed. The body doesn't always work in the "logical" way that we think. So I (nor you) should presume what is the treatment course for narcolepsy. (Now our resident pharmacist, Buck Jones, may have a qualified view on this....)
RMc
