[kinser]

Originally Posted by Charles Nungester Wow, 12 test by three companies and a check by a major tire manufacturer. the original tester found four teams cheated not once but twice. The two other testers found four teams DID NOT CHEAT, Not once but twice. and peer reviewed. So the positives for cheating are four and the negatives for cheating are eight Sounds like USAC did it's job diligently to me, They got nothing to gain by suspending or fining people unless it's absolutely necessary. So lets keep on with the USAC bashing. Id be interested to find out if the Xtreme test were from the same positives Testing company that found the USAC samples to be "DOPED" Seems to me their credibility is tarnished. Not USAC's Xtreme can do as it likes, They found two to be cheating and delt the penalties. Totally separate event. But if the company that USAC used was used originally. That puts Their findings in question to me.

They’ve got nothing to gain but a lot to lose by suspending/fining them. Everything to gain by not suspending/fining them. Sounds like they’ve already lost 3 cars for the burg because of their decision.

[Kart#51]

Originally Posted by Charles Nungester Wow, 12 test by three companies and a check by a major tire manufacturer. the original tester found four teams cheated not once but twice. The two other testers found four teams DID NOT CHEAT, Not once but twice. and peer reviewed. So the positives for cheating are four and the negatives for cheating are eight Sounds like USAC did it's job diligently to me, They got nothing to gain by suspending or fining people unless it's absolutely necessary. So lets keep on with the USAC bashing. Id be interested to find out if the Xtreme test were from the same positives Testing company that found the USAC samples to be "DOPED" Seems to me their credibility is tarnished. Not USAC's Xtreme can do as it likes, They found two to be cheating and delt the penalties. Totally separate event. But if the company that USAC used was used originally. That puts Their findings in question to me.

So there were 6 samples taken, 4 were positive based on the information we have been given. So what do you tell the two teams that were tested and weren't in violation with the initial testing sample with rogue testing company that matched the same "benchmark" sample? Were those samples re-tested as well by all three companies? What where their findings if they were tested, all three test negative?

Here is food for thought. They should take two samples from the tire. Clearly, there is a flaw here if they are using the same sample for all tests. This is why there is an A sample and B sample when drug testing. If the A is positive you open the B sample. If the B is positive then you are a positive test. You cant re-use the same A sample because its been contaminated. How do you validate that the samples are still valid in a case as such?

[Charles Nungester]

Originally Posted by kinser They’ve got nothing to gain but a lot to lose by suspending/fining them. Everything to gain by not suspending/fining them. Sounds like they’ve already lost 3 cars for the burg because of their decision.

The three cars are?

[Charles Nungester]

Originally Posted by Kart#51 So there were 6 samples taken, 4 were positive based on the information we have been given. So what do you tell the two teams that were tested and weren't in violation with the initial testing sample with rogue testing company? Sorry about your luck? Here is food for thought. Did they take two samples from the tire? Clearly, there is a flaw here if they are using the same sample for all tests. This is why there is an A sample and B sample when drug testing. If the A is positive you open the B sample, you cant re-use the same A sample because its been contaminated. Seems weird to me they sent the same sample to multiple companies.

The several times I was drug tested they took one cup of Urine and sealed it, had me initial it. Same on the hair. and the first company unless it was super strong positive as in (They were under the influence at the time of testing) didn't suspend or fire over one sample. They sent em back to get tested several times and had a record. Oh Chuck had THC in his system on three different occasions, Chuck is fired. BTW, I was never fired from a drug test. But I know a couple who were and they were users.

All Im saying if teams are cheating "Doping" it probably wasn't only once.

Im going to the Burg to watch may the best driver and team win against the best NW drivers in the land. Hope a few show up.

[kinser]

Originally Posted by Charles Nungester The three cars are?

Kunz, Cockrum, Dutcher, and I also just heard Garrett and Rogers.

[Kart#51]

Originally Posted by Charles Nungester All Im saying if teams are cheating "Doping" it probably wasn't only once.

Everyone does drug test different and it usually is a matter of what they are trying to accomplish and cost efficiency. I've filled a few cups for USADA. The procedure I explained is how it is done at a very high level. This keeps it from being a question of contamination and you actually get to watch the B sample opened and poured into the testing beaker. If the B sample is positive then you are suspended. You can appeal with USADA or WADA, but you wont win.

If they are doing tires, its not the first time they have done them. I'd bet one of the Mafia member's Coors Light on it.

[racefan20]

Originally Posted by kinser Kunz, Cockrum, Dutcher, and I also just heard Garrett and Rogers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[racefan20]

Originally Posted by racefan20 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heard from where. Why do we always get the I heard but not where you heard from. Makes a big difference in credibility


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kart#51]

Originally Posted by racefan20 Heard from where. Why do we always get the I heard but not where you heard from. Makes a big difference in credibility Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The proof will be in the pudding in 24 hours. If he is right, you gotta give him his credibility. If not, you can discredit him. Where his information comes from shouldn't matter...its if his information is correct.

[kinser]

Originally Posted by racefan20 Heard from where. Why do we always get the I heard but not where you heard from. Makes a big difference in credibility Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

. Here you go