Abstract
The paper contains a reply to ‘Validation of specificity in doping control: problems and prospects’ by N. M. Faber. Dr. Faber charges the work of anti-doping scientists of the use inappropriate methods. The allegations refer to the procedure of substance identification which according to Dr. Faber is based on subjective criteria (“visual inspection”). We demonstrate that by contrast it represents an objective, logically sound, and clearly defined procedure which strictly follows the logic of scientific reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Faber NM (2009) Validation of specificity in doping control: problems and prospects. Accred Qual Assur 14:399
Schänzer W, Fußhöller G, Halatcheva N, Kohler M, Parr MK, Guddat S, Thomas A, Thevis M (2006) Mass spectrometric identification and characterization of a new long-term metabolite of metandienone in human urine. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 20:2252–2258
de Zeeuv RA (2004) Substance identification: the weak link in analytical toxicology. J Chromatogr B 811:3–12
WADA (2003) Identification criteria for qualitative assays incorporating chromatography and mass spectrometry. URL http://www.wada-ama.org, document Number TD2003IDCR, Version Number 1.2
Budzikiewicz H (1998) Massenspektrometrie, 4th edn. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Papers published in this section do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editors, the Editorial Board and the Publisher.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flenker, U., Schänzer, W. Comment on “Validation of specificity in doping control: problems and prospects”. Accred Qual Assur 15, 53–55 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-009-0585-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-009-0585-9