tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post3280245465269086109..comments2024-03-05T06:32:37.180-05:00Comments on The Daly Planet: Mayfield Media Mayhem May Be MutedDaly Planet Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13834588435004023666noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-17356674227332692072009-07-26T05:04:07.861-04:002009-07-26T05:04:07.861-04:00anon - ".then the second test was CLEARLY a c...anon - <i>".then the second test was CLEARLY a conflict of interest...if NASCAR really wanted to be certain, they would have used an un-bias lab and they didn't. That seems to be suspect."</i><br /><br />Suspect? Well then so is your grasp of facts. NASCAR tested sample "A" and "B" from Richmond using Aegis, another test was conducted, tested as positive for meth, by another lab, meaning not Aegis.<br /><br />It's a matter of court record, you should read it.<br /><br />Furthermore I've seen a lot of Mayfield's sycophants and apologists make claims of conflict of interest but I haven't see a single one answer the following question:<br /><br />If NASCAR's contract with Aegis is a conflict of interest, why isn't Mayfield and his lawyers hiring of LabCorp a conflict of interest.<br /><br />And BTW, "anon", no where in the Fed Guidelines is a requirement for a separate lab to test the "A" sample and "B" samples.<br /><br />Of course a requirement to follow Fed Guidelines is also a load of hooey put out by Mayfield, they are not and never have been required of private entities.marchttp://fullthrottle.cranialcavity.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-25991549859452364092009-07-25T21:47:35.598-04:002009-07-25T21:47:35.598-04:00Curiously it would appear that both NASCAR and May...Curiously it would appear that both NASCAR and Mayfield are relying on the same science to prove their point. So the question would be who applied the science properly. It's a shame the media has not done more to explore and explain the science for the fans.<br /><br />NASCAR doesn't need another Tim Richmond. This needs to be fully settled and out in the light of day.Richard in N.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-39260625941882749142009-07-25T21:14:40.380-04:002009-07-25T21:14:40.380-04:00Sorry...my point is actually more, no science is 1...Sorry...my point is actually more, no science is 100%, so in my way of thinking, to trust it 100%, is crap.<br /><br />The chance of mistakes is reasonably high in this case, intentional or not. I personally belive there is a very real chance the first test was an error / mistake / screw-up of some sort...then the second test was CLEARLY a conflict of interest...if NASCAR really wanted to be certain, they would have used an un-bias lab and they didn't. That seems to be suspect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-36660873827759113632009-07-25T21:00:41.469-04:002009-07-25T21:00:41.469-04:00anon, with a starting point of "the science i...anon, with a starting point of "the science is crap," there's no need for me to continue a discussion.<br /><br />we disagree.redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08469882559901586219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-73203880008910960632009-07-25T20:57:20.616-04:002009-07-25T20:57:20.616-04:00Easy...
The "science" is crap.
Read the ...Easy...<br />The "science" is crap.<br />Read the article over at cbssports.com/columns/story/11978765<br />The ONLY thing about science you can believ is...it WILL change every day. THAT should tell you something.<br /><br />I've ALWAYS belived that so-called drug tests should only be used to start an "investigation" and NOT EVER trust as the word of God. They are never 100% acurate 100% of the time...so why on earth do so many seem to thing they are FACT??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-64268240854741041512009-07-25T20:42:06.031-04:002009-07-25T20:42:06.031-04:00anon@8:25: nope, don't see it.
look, i get it...anon@8:25: nope, don't see it.<br /><br />look, i get it: nascar management stinks and isn't what it used to be -- or something. (actually, my view of "the good old days" of nascar management is far less sanguine than others, apparently. you wanna see a bully and tyrant in action? check out big bill and his banning of curtis turner for life b/c of turner's attempts to unionize nascar. but i digress.)<br /><br />none of these scenarios explain the SCIENCE of the issue and that's what's being minimized by these conspiracy theories. what in heaven's name does aegis have to gain by sacrificing their reputation in order to have an "exclusive" with nascar? by the way, my understanding is that each sport has it's own testing agency and doesn't farm the testing out to several agencies. so, by definition: each sport has an "exclusive" drug testing agency. nascar is no different.<br /><br />regardless, the science is what it is: mayfield has repeatedly tested postive for d-meth. that's the bottom line. <br /><br />and by the way: what does nascar have to gain by busting crew members under these conspiracy scenarios? and what about mayfield supporting the testing when his crew member was busted early on? how to fit all of these into the theories?<br /><br />again: bottom line is the science. and the science says mayfield's urine tested positive for d-meth. not amphetamine, not adderall, not claritin-d, not sudafed. d-methamphetamine. <br /><br />and that's an illegal drug for anyone, list or no list.redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08469882559901586219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-71225047948664347642009-07-25T20:25:00.993-04:002009-07-25T20:25:00.993-04:00Why would NASCAR want to bust Mayfield and how do ...Why would NASCAR want to bust Mayfield and how do they benifit? Easy. A chain of events that starts with the "typical" way NASCAR executives pocket money. A some point NASCAR gives Dr Black "exclusive" rights. just like they pull with everything else, and you can bet, NASCAR made money on that deal. Not in intrest of acuracy, but to just make a dollar. Black made a mistake first round, NASCAR backs their "exclusive" client, after all, Mayfield is small potatoes. What NASCAR didn't count on was Mayfield not wanting to go along. By now, NASCAR is in too deep to back down, and counting on their usual mass of lawyers, plan to win, with ZERO regard to what's right or fair. <br /><br />Besides...even "IF" NASCAR loses, well, all they have to do is point the finger at Dr Black and say it wasn't thier fault. EXACTLY like they did with Tim Richmond.<br /><br />You really don't see this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-20315097412599205452009-07-25T20:06:43.351-04:002009-07-25T20:06:43.351-04:00I've been a NASCAR follower for nearly 40 year...I've been a NASCAR follower for nearly 40 years and I AGREE with what Steven posted. Who said "this ain't the NASCAR of Big Bill?" maybe not...it's worse. Out of everyone involved in this mess, I certainly trust NASCAR the LEAST of all...a long, and current history of heavy handedness. Time after time we witness NASCAR's wrong doings...TECH, SPONSORS, SCHEDULES, DRIVERS...the list goes on and on...and in EVERY case, it gets down to what lines the NASCAR brass'es pockets with money, and NEVER what's in the best interest of racing. And anyone that dosen't see that, either hasn't been around long or, like the lemmings Steven mentions.Larry from Ohionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-77303514800424320522009-07-25T18:38:11.333-04:002009-07-25T18:38:11.333-04:00Steven, I sense that we are not in complete agreem...Steven, I sense that we are not in complete agreement, except maybe for one very important thing - this whole mess needs to be thoroughly pursued, settled in the light of day, and let the chips fall where they may.Richard in N.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-14948947263189376532009-07-25T18:31:49.607-04:002009-07-25T18:31:49.607-04:00(and again, jd: feel free to delete if you desire ...(and again, jd: feel free to delete if you desire but i'm starting to become more than a little annoyed at the tone of this poster.)<br /><br />ok, steven, time to step away -- again.<br /><br />for me, when someone begins to toss around historical references when discussing nascar, i can only smile. surely you can't seriously think of nascar in the same vein as stalin or the ancient pharoahs? really, steven, try to keep this case in perspective, ok? weak and fallacious hyperbole simply undercuts your attempt to make a point.<br /><br />you still ignore the science of the case, you continue to claim that nascar wants to destroy mayfield without offering any explanation as to why they would bother and your anger at nascar is clouding any ability you have to accept some of the unpleasant realities and dismiss the silliness.<br /><br />again, i strongly encourage you to make time to read the science involved in the testing before you go off on nascar again. i'm no apologist for nascar but i am still waiting for you or anyone else to explain why they would go thru all this nonsense just to bust jeremy mayfield. <br /><br />yes, they are often an arrogant organization and yes, their own lack of transparency has come back to bite them in the butt and yes, what they intentionally did to tim richmond was disgraceful, immoral and appalling.<br /><br />but mayfield ain't no tim richmond and today's nascar ain't the nascar of big bill or bill jr. <br /><br />again, steven: make time to read the science before going off again and then we can discuss. but just ranting without any support for your accusations is unpleasant at best and irritating beyond acceptance for me.redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08469882559901586219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-29872517805707858772009-07-25T18:14:39.776-04:002009-07-25T18:14:39.776-04:00A lot of very good points.
It seems to me that th...A lot of very good points.<br /><br />It seems to me that the media has done a routinely mediocre job the past 3 seasons with any big story that was new to NASCAR - Toyota coming to Cup, the ownership battle at DEI, the Grant suit, and now the JM drug test controversy. If I give the media the benefit of the doubt, it is because they had become used to doing stories simply by talking to people in the garage and were not used to actually having to do real research to obtain facts - and when in doubt simply bash NASCAR. In any event, it is much easier to write a story if you are not burdened by facts, especially inconvenient facts.<br /><br />I suspect the life of the Mayfield story is going to be a matter of supply and demand - it will live on in the media until there is something more interesting to write about. And of course the NASCAR-bashing segment of the media has to have fresh meat for those who agree with them. <br /><br />I suspect JM and his attys are likely to want to keep the story in the "news" to keep the pressure on NASCAR to settle to make the whole mess go away and to influence the jury pool in the event the case in District Court could be a jury trial.<br /><br />In regard to Dr. Black's statement about JM and ADD - obviously I do not know what he really said. However, I believe it was in NASCAR's countersuit that I saw that Dr. Black asserted that what he told JM was that it surprised him that JM could be diagnosed as having ADD and needing to take Allderall (sp?) based on the 30 minute session with the doctor that JM told Black about.Richard in N.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-91008232872656477552009-07-25T18:05:30.236-04:002009-07-25T18:05:30.236-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150625766185126619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-50728661650331242382009-07-25T17:34:55.114-04:002009-07-25T17:34:55.114-04:00Andrew S - "All Jeremy needs to now is to tak...Andrew S - <i>"All Jeremy needs to now is to take a test that is witnessed and he passes and then the stuff hits the fan."</i><br /><br />Do ya think?<br /><br />It doesn't look like it, First of all no drug program accepts independent tests as evidence, that's true of every program run by the major sports.<br /><br />Secondly, even if they were accepted they would fail to prove he wasn't on the drug when the test was conducted at Richmond.<br /><br />His ONLY hope is to prove that Richmond test, and the two positives since than were faulty in some way.<br /><br />Otherwise he's a goose that's cooked.marchttp://fullthrottle.cranialcavity.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-419760244283152672009-07-25T17:28:55.061-04:002009-07-25T17:28:55.061-04:00DannyBoy said - "it has become obvious that t...DannyBoy said - <i>"it has become obvious that the stakes here are so high that reporters who earn their livings in NASCAR are tiptoeing thru the tulips on this one. Nobody wants to take a chance on stepping on the wrong toes."</i><br /><br />How does that explain why many "journalists" haven't made the slightest effort at questioning Mayfield on his idiotic allegations about "spiked" samples, his proven lie about taking a hair test when busting his suspension at Lowes and many other examples of Mayfields nonsense?<br /><br />It doesn't, the so-called "journalists" were more than happy to have him in their presence spewing utter crapola they could place their bylines on the sensational remarks and gain readership.marchttp://fullthrottle.cranialcavity.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-53427799336811286582009-07-25T17:28:35.897-04:002009-07-25T17:28:35.897-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Andrew S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00515801162530641305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-17923509743888949012009-07-25T16:12:41.175-04:002009-07-25T16:12:41.175-04:00The WWE program has nothing to do with the NASCAR ...The WWE program has nothing to do with the NASCAR program. Testing programs are set up to accomplish specific goals, be it detection of performance enhancing drugs, street drugs, or whatever. All the labs do is report back what is found. It is up to the specific league, employer, or other sponsoring organization what to do with that information. Does anyone think Vince McMahon had the same objectives in mind as did Brian France?Matt TSBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-24840897663104448202009-07-25T13:34:36.168-04:002009-07-25T13:34:36.168-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-34322923551783789812009-07-25T13:21:47.749-04:002009-07-25T13:21:47.749-04:0050 yr Fan 9:40 has it about where I see it: it has...50 yr Fan 9:40 has it about where I see it: it has become obvious that the stakes here are so high that reporters who earn their livings in NASCAR are tiptoeing thru the tulips on this one. Nobody wants to take a chance on stepping on the wrong toes.<br /><br />As for the observation of test sample gathering: JM should have been informed that it is NORMAL for someone to watch as the sample is deposited. My son, a petty officer in the Navy, was done with his 4 year enlistment last year. He had a few weeks left and his ship was out of port. The command assigned him temporary duty at Naval Station San Diego observing sample submission by sailors who were required to undergo routine drug testing. This is daily routine in the military, no matter if it's embarrassing.<br /><br />I still can't form a conclusion as to what's going on in this case; that's not unusual considering it's still in the "he said, they said" stage. Until they actually get into court, we're not going to get much different from what we've been getting: a circus sideshow.Dannyboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-62855509838860133272009-07-25T13:14:19.362-04:002009-07-25T13:14:19.362-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jeremy Mayfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-36704684046526820652009-07-25T11:25:19.812-04:002009-07-25T11:25:19.812-04:00I don't think the Mayfield affair is over yet....I don't think the Mayfield affair is over yet. It may go quiet for a while, but it's not over. Aegis Labs, the labs who does the testing for NASCAR, is also the same labs that does the testing for the WWE. Anyone remember WWE wrestlers Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero? That says something about their reliability and trustworthiness. Also, there's Dr. Black's statement about adults not having ADD/ADHD. Dr. Black is a toxicologist, not an expert on ADD/ADHD. This could come back to burn him. NASCAR also has a history of playing dirty with drivers who they aren't happy with. This could also come back to haunt them. Is Mayfield innocent? Maybe, maybe not. That'll be up for the courts to decide. Is his career finished? At this point, even if he is found completely innocent, he probably won't return to NASCAR. Not when he knows they'll be gunning for him and looking for any, and I do mean any, excuse to take his legs out from under him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-1039225816019303982009-07-25T11:01:57.322-04:002009-07-25T11:01:57.322-04:00SAMSHA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services...SAMSHA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) currently is not certifying laboratories for drug hair tests.<br /><br />STATEMENT FROM SAMSHA<br />Presently, urine is the only specimen collected for Federally regulated Workplace drug testing programs and for most private sector programs. Urine drug testing in the Federally related Workplace is currently recognized as the “Gold Standard” because of its proven accuracy, reliability, and fairness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-68413757966782810492009-07-25T11:01:37.105-04:002009-07-25T11:01:37.105-04:00The Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT) and t...The Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT) and the Toxicology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences remain on record as not supporting hair testing for employee substance abuse programs due to lack of scientific knowledge, technologies and certification programs.<br /><br />Hair testing for drugs should not be confused with other kinds of tests<br />that have a more established record of reliability.<br /><br />Hair testing for particular DNA, despite using the same sampling<br />material as a hair test for drugs, is altogether different. For one<br />thing, the analyte in the actual detection phase of the test is present<br />in millions of times the quantity as would be the analyte in a drug<br />test.<br /><br />Hair drug testing should not be equated with urine drug testing either.<br />Urine tests, although still not perfect, have several advantages in<br />terms of reliability:<br /><br />-- The mechanism of drug deposition in urine is reasonably understood.<br />With hair it is not clear if the blood, sweat, or sebum is the<br />depositing medium.<br /><br />-- The analyte, if present, would be there in larger quantities in urine<br />than in a hair test.<br /><br />-- The sample does not need to be washed. The washing step may introduce<br />contamination and is controversial for other reasons.<br /><br />-- The probability of environmental contamination is less. Urine comes<br />from inside the body.<br /><br />-- With urine, there is no cutting step. Hair needs to be chopped into<br />small pieces. This is another place where contamination can occur.<br /><br />-- There is no liquefaction step. Apparently there are three different<br />ways to liquefy hair. Comparative benefits and hazards do not appear to<br />be clearly established.<br /><br />-- The relationship between levels of detected analytes and usage has not<br />been established with hair tests. There have been no large-scale<br />controlled dosage studies. Consequently, so-called cutoff levels do not<br />have a scientific basis and are not standardized.<br /><br />-- With urine testing there is a great deal of experience: the procedure<br />is established and is legally certified. Hair tests are not legally<br />certified. There is no oversight whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-84260207413756208952009-07-25T09:40:54.533-04:002009-07-25T09:40:54.533-04:00I think the media has tip toed
through the questio...I think the media has tip toed<br />through the questioning to avoid<br />being a defendant in JM's lawsuit<br />for "robbing" him of his livelihood. One bad question and<br />they will look like the executioner. The media could, however, do a much better job<br />of the technical aspects and comparisons.50 yr. fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-38353754246815951002009-07-25T08:19:48.225-04:002009-07-25T08:19:48.225-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080132098367510832.post-37786585654773683932009-07-25T07:10:26.280-04:002009-07-25T07:10:26.280-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00410386793322866819noreply@blogger.com