Don’t forget that the Russian Lab was a WADA accredited lab. Accreditation is via audit of the lab’s systems and procedures. All testing procedures are according to that listed in the relevant Pharmacopeia. These testing procedures must be validated in the test lab using international standards and independently reviewed by their peers and regulators. So, in the case of TB4, the test method is not listed in any pharmacopeia, They don’t have a standard to test it against and from what I have read the scientists do not have a clear idea what baseline levels exist in humans.
WADA are dealing with these exotic peptides in many cases using experimental methods or by identifying breakdown markers. It would be fair to say that the cutting edge sports scientists are working with peptides that in many cases have very questionable efficacy and relatively unknown safety. So the test labs are playing catchup with test methods that can “reliably” identify these peptides.
WADA accredited labs are not necessarily accredited by the likes of NATA or the TGA in Australia. These are the two highest profile regulators in Australia and have a harmonised agreement with regulators from other countries, especially for registered and listed substances/drugs etc.
Bio21, who are attached to the RMH, (and whose involvement in the saga was crucial in WADA’s case against the E34) are a research lab with many fine scientists, doctors and all the latest equipment. They work at the cutting edge of research and test development. However they would not be scrutinised/ regulated in the same way Labs that test registered or listed drugs would be. The test specifications/protocol for each drug tested is validated and results must fall within the test specifications. Because that set of compliant test results means that the batch of pharmaceuticals can be released for use in the population. Hence these Labs must be accredited by the TGA and the equipment calibrated and tested by NATA or equivalent.
WADA used the Essendon 34 to create a precedent that would do away with the need to have a positive test. The scope of testing and the cost of it would diminish if WADA and CAS continue to prove use of PEDs by this strands in the cable approach and the forever floating evidentiary standard of comfortable satisfaction.
In saying all this I am sure that the vast majority of these WADA accredited labs are good and honest operators. But they are funded in many cases by WADA (the IOC) and are therefore beholding to them.
Just as I mentioned in my previous post we have eminent, high profile, scientific/medical people in Australia who provide their knowledge and expertise to WADA, the CAS and therefore the IOC. The problem is they are too far removed from the coalface and sometimes make statements and decisions that are wrong. They escape any accountability for their lack of rigor and the people who suffer are the athletes.
Just how many lives and careers have been ruined and how many have escaped sanction because of this lack of rigor, not only in science but in regulation, policy, administration, the law, governments and their bureaucracies: need I go on.