Another proof point for tyler
Rik Van Diesel
Richard Sachs
"Rik Van Diesel" <metalkpre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119978650.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
film at six: twins peak.
e-RICHIE
excel_...@hotmail.com
"Nothing up my sleeve here, but looking in my abdomen...HO, HO, look it
that UCI, it's my twin!"
Maybe it'll explain why he crashes so much too; the fetus is throwing
off his center of gravity.
CH
John Rees
> This shit happens ALL the time.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4624307.stm
>
You know what I don't understand is this:
If Hamilton's argument is his missing twin, why not agree to be locked
up for , say 6 months. He doesn't shit without some neutral third party
knowing about it. No chance for any injections of anything.
Then, he submits to the blood test again. If he really is a chimera
like he says he is, then he should test positive again. Right?
6 months. Not necessarily really locked up. But with his shadow going
everywhere he goes. Hell, I'll do it for 50K. I'll even go out on
rides with Tyler if he keeps it under 25 or so.
ila...@yahoo.com
led me to believe that what was considered physically impossible
in 1996 (a response time of less than 1/10 of a second), might
now be. In particular, it seemed to me at the time that Christie
obviously did not anticipate. I was proved correct:
http://www.nserc.ca/news/stories/040806_e.htm
-ilan
Rik Van Diesel a écrit :
Rik Van Diesel
RVD
Tom Kunich
activity that the testing facility put a 'negative but funny' tag on
the results and the originator of the test - who we can all agree isn't
exactly a neutral party - changed the negative to positive. He said
that he didn't have any numerical standards but that he knew a positive
when he saw it.
I assume what he meant was that SOME activity combined with a
hematocrit right on the line (Tyler apparently had a 49.8% hematocrit)
was enough to convince him that Tyler was a true positive. Despite the
fact that he was the ONLY positive in the entire Olympics and later the
World Championships.
Without a false positives study the findings are almost preposterous.
His high hematocrit might be because he lives and trains at high
altitude and the Phonak doctors always water him down with saline
solution before races so that there's no questions about his high
hematocrit.
Remember that some significant part of the population has 'unnaturally
high' hematocrit (over 50%) naturally so that isn't some far fetched
idea and Phonak would be unlikely to admit to using IV's to correct
high hematocrit since it would make them look like they were
cooperating with doping.
In the latest Cyclingnews Perez makes a pretty bitter comment that
implies that he and Tyler have been mistreated by the UCI and Phonak
because of the testing which he ALSO claims is false.
Of course Brian would say that they're guilty regardless but who cares
what he thinks?
Patricio Carlos
Tyler got tested again in November 04 and once more (I think) in Feb
05. The latter two were negative....
Is it just a coincidence that he only tests positive in competition?
Makes the vanishing twin seem extremely unlikely.
Tim Lines
> This shit happens ALL the time.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4624307.stm
>
Oh, that's nothing. They found an entire EPO factory in my left
testicle. Which only makes Lance's victories seem all the more remarkable.
Tom Kunich
news:1120000227.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Since there is no standard you don't know if his "negative" was any
different from his "positive".
Patricio Carlos
any of its multitude of uses. Results are clear cut except when they
are done in Greek labs. Have you ever seen a Greek lab at work? The
Athens debacle is less surprising when you have seen one.
Tyler is really clutching at straws with the vanishing twin story when
his tests are not consistently positive.
Mad Dog
>Oh, that's nothing. They found an entire EPO factory in my left
>testicle. Which only makes Lance's victories seem all the more remarkable.
So what are you hiding in your right nut - a micro Starbucks?
Never mind, I don't wanna know.
-----------------
I wonder if this flab in my gut is actually the fetui of my long lost quadruplet
brothers?
Donald Munro
>> This shit happens ALL the time.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4624307.stm
Tim Lines wrote:
> Oh, that's nothing. They found an entire EPO factory in my left
> testicle. Which only makes Lance's victories seem all the more remarkable.
You must be quite popular with female endurance athletes.
trg
42C1A66A...@nc.rr.com...
| Rik Van Diesel wrote:
| > This shit happens ALL the time.
| >
| >
| > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4624307.stm
| >
|
| You know what I don't understand is this:
| If Hamilton's argument is his missing twin, why not agree to be locked
| up for , say 6 months. He doesn't shit without some neutral third party
| knowing about it. No chance for any injections of anything.
|
WADA has no interest in doing such a thing. They're satisfied of Tyler's
guilt. Tyler on the other hand does have an interest in doing such a thing.
But in order to do it, he needs to have the testing protocol which was used,
so he can follow it. He (and his lawyers) have been asking for the testing
protocol from the beginning, but WADA won't give it to them.
Tim Lines
> Tim Lines says...
>
>
>>Oh, that's nothing. They found an entire EPO factory in my left
>>testicle. Which only makes Lance's victories seem all the more remarkable.
>
>
> So what are you hiding in your right nut - a micro Starbucks?
>
MICRO!?!? HEY! What are you trying to imply?
Bob Schwartz
Donald Munro
>>> Oh, that's nothing. They found an entire EPO factory in my left
>>> testicle. Which only makes Lance's victories seem all the more remarkable.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> You must be quite popular with female endurance athletes.
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> heather prefers sprinters.
I thought she preferred pursuiters, albeit one at a time.
Alex Rodriguez
pg...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>Tyler tested positive at the Olympics and at the Vuelta.
He didn't test positive at the Olympics. That is why he got to keep his
medal.
-----------
Alex
Bob Schwartz
He did test positive at the Olympics. Haven't we been though
this before? The positive positive positive positive positive
positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
positive positive positive positive positive positive positive
test was invalidated by the destruction of the B sample.
That's why he still has the medal. But you knew that.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Tom Kunich
lab simply screwed up the results. All of that is fine but explain why
there have been only TWO positives for blood packing in cycling when
this was supposedly so wide-spread? I mean, we did discuss how unlikely
it would be for an endurance athlete at these guys level to be able to
'save' up blood for autologous transfusions so it's homologous or
nothing.
If it is "nothing" than why has so much effort been put into this
testing procedure and why aren't WADA releasing their testing protocol?
(Note: if "nothing" then perhaps that explains why they don't wish to
do a false positives test series.)
trg
11c5l30...@corp.supernews.com...
No, his test sample was declared negative at the Olympics. That's why the B
sample was subsequently frozen. Later his A sample was reclassified under
rather screwy circumstances as a positive. So whether you say he tested
negative or positive is a matter of semantics and which lab interpretation
you choose to follow.
But you knew that.
gwhite
It's not the "kill," it's the thrill of the chase?
-----------------------------------------
KNOCKING AT YOUR BACK DOOR
Sweet lucy was a dancer
But none of us would chance her
Because she was a samurai
She made electric shadows
Beyond our fingertips
And none of us could reach that high
She came on like a teaser
I had to touch and please her
Enjoy a little paradise
The log was in my pocket
When lucy met the rocket
And she never knew the reason why
I can’t deny it
With that smile on her face
It’s not the kill
It’s the thrill of the chase
Feel it coming
It’s knocking at the door
You know it’s no good running
It’s not against the law
The point of no return
And now you know the score
And now you’re learning
What’s knockin’ at your back door
Sweet nancy was so fancy
To get into her pantry
Had to be the aristocracy
The members that she toyed with
At her city club
Were something in diplomacy
So we put her on the hit list
Of a common cunning linguist
A master of many tongues
And now she eases gently
From her austin to her bentley
Suddenly she feels so young
I can’t deny it
With that smile on her face
It’s not the kill
It’s the thrill of the chase
Feel it coming
It’s knocking at the door
You know it’s no good running
It’s not against the law
The point of no return
And now you know the score
And now you’re learning
What’s knockin’ at your back door
Mike Murray
"explain why there have been only TWO positives for blood packing in cycling
when this was supposedly so wide-spread?"
This one is easy. If the incidence of normal people having a heterogeneous
population of red cells is not very uncommon, say 1 in 10,000, how many
tests would have to be done before the incidence of positives in the absence
of blood transfusion is noted? How many of these tests have been run? Note
that 1 in 10,000 is more common than many diseases that we worry about a
lot. Meningococcal disease is roughly 1 in 100,000. Lyme disease is roughly
1:10,000 in high prevalence areas.
Mike Murray
Patricio Carlos
Various preparations of Epo are the most popular. Transfusion of your
own or someone else's blood are other options. Which would you chose?
I would guess that elite athletes are fairly reluctant to blood dope
with homologous blood when Epo etc are safer as long as you work out
the best timing to avoid getting caught.
Only two people caught with this test - the two top riders in a
suddenly successful team.
Bob Schwartz
> "Bob Schwartz" <cv...@shell.core.com> a ?crit dans le message de news:
> But you knew that.
Indeed I did. And that's why I would not say he didn't test positive.
Because he did test positive. Screwy circumstances or no.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
h squared
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>>heather prefers sprinters.
>
>
> I thought she preferred pursuiters, albeit one at a time.
ok, in goofy heather code
individual pursuit=wacking off
h
and it's been too long since i last paid a visit to the track
Tom Kunich
news:HPKdnTIa-rF...@comcast.com...
You've hit on my point - if this was supposed to be so common and they've
turned up essentially nothing one has to wonder if the positives that they
have found are FALSE POSITIVES.
Tom Kunich
"Suddenly successful"??? Don't you think that spending a great deal of money
and buying some really great racers might have had something to do with
those successes?
trg
11c5o6l...@corp.supernews.com...
And that's why I'd say that he tested negative. Because he did test
negative. We are both correct. Ain't they some screwy circumstances?
Donald Munro
> | Indeed I did. And that's why I would not say he didn't test positive.
> | Because he did test positive. Screwy circumstances or no.
trg wrote:
> And that's why I'd say that he tested negative. Because he did test
> negative. We are both correct. Ain't they some screwy circumstances?
No, just quantum mechanics. Tugboat is chasing Schroedinger's cat somewhen.
trg
"Donald Munro" <inv...@invalid.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news:
pan.2005.06.30....@invalid.invalid...
More like quantum semantics.
Bob Martin
:-) nice one.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:1119991074.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> John, the problem is that Tyler tested negative. He showed just enough
> activity that the testing facility put a 'negative but funny' tag on
> the results and the originator of the test - who we can all agree isn't
> exactly a neutral party - changed the negative to positive. He said
> that he didn't have any numerical standards but that he knew a positive
> when he saw it.
But as there was no B sample, this wasn't relevant. Positive or negative,
this result was never used as evidence against Hamilton. Furthermore, as
dopign labs handle samples without nametags, I don't think the nameless
person you are referring to knew that it was Hamilton's, so I wouldn't see
what could influence his neutrality.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:DMnwe.670$8f7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yes there is a standard: the margin of error for the test.
Robert Chung
>
> But as there was no B sample, this wasn't relevant. Positive or
> negative, this result was never used as evidence against Hamilton.
> Furthermore, as dopign labs handle samples without nametags, I don't
> think the nameless person you are referring to knew that it was
> Hamilton's, so I wouldn't see what could influence his neutrality.
Wrong. From the Arbitrator's report:
"The truth is Mr. Hamilton did not test positive at the Athens Olympic
Games. The laboratory analysis report dated August 22, 2004 and signed by
the Laboratory Director ruled Mr. Hamilton's sample to be negative [...]
Nevertheless, on September 16, 2004, almost a month later, the IOC formed
an external expert group that ruled Mr. Hamilton's Athens sample was
positive. The group of experts consisted of [...] individuals who knew the
sample belonged to Mr. Hamilton."
Robert Chung
>>
>> Since there is no standard you don't know if his "negative" was any
>> different from his "positive".
>
> Yes there is a standard: the margin of error for the test.
So, what's the margin of error for the test?
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:3iid5aF...@individual.net...
The arbitrator's report states that the identification effect is 'down to
0,07%', with a noise level of 0,1%.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Actually, Phonak did buy some great racers but those racers didn't really
deliver what they were supposed to. Hamilton was under some pressure to
perform, but Perez was hardly their most important trump.
Robert Chung
That's the identification level. What's the real world margin of error?
BTW, when the ability to make small distinctions between distributions is
critical, statisticians would never recommend comparing two histograms by
eye.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
That's only half wrong: if the arbitrator's report states Hamilton did not
test positive for the Olympics, then his test there wasn't used as evidence
against him. As I said. The second part was just what I (wrongly) suspected,
not presented as fact.
Bob Schwartz
You're saying you like to watch?
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
I've got a medal from nationals in the TEAM pursuit. But
Sundquist's medal is bigger. And very few care to watch,
let me tell you.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> > "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> schreef in bericht
> > news:3iid5aF...@individual.net...
> >> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes there is a standard: the margin of error for the test.
> >>
> >> So, what's the margin of error for the test?
> >
> > The arbitrator's report states that the identification effect is 'down
> > to 0,07%', with a noise level of 0,1%.
>
> That's the identification level. What's the real world margin of error?
If it isn't noise, then it's data, so that would be 0,1%.
Robert Chung
> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> schreef in bericht
> news:3iifnfF...@individual.net...
>> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>>> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> schreef in bericht
>>> news:3iid5aF...@individual.net...
>>>> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes there is a standard: the margin of error for the test.
>>>>
>>>> So, what's the margin of error for the test?
>>>
>>> The arbitrator's report states that the identification effect is 'down
>>> to 0,07%', with a noise level of 0,1%.
>>
>> That's the identification level. What's the real world margin of error?
>
> If it isn't noise, then it's data, so that would be 0,1%.
Sigh. Nope. That's the resolution of the test, not the error. Take a
measuring tape that has millimeter markings and measure the length of your
sofa. Now repeat the measurement a few times. Do you get exactly the same
measurement to the same millimeter each time?
gym.gravity
Tom Kunich wrote:
> You've hit on my point - if this was supposed to be so common and they've
> turned up essentially nothing
because it was highly publicized that they were going to test for
homologous blood doping. What kind of idiot would show up knowingly
transfused with someone else's blood? Tyler is smarter than that.
Robert Chung
> As I said. The second part was just what I
> (wrongly) suspected, not presented as fact.
The timeline is kind of interesting:
The Olympics test done in Athens, and declared negative on August 22.
On September 11, "Mr. Hamilton was targeted for testing at the request of
the UCI" and he gave a sample on that day.
On September 16, an external group that knows it has been given Hamilton's
sample reclassifies the Athens sample as positive. Presumably, the Athens
re-examination came very close to the same time as the examination of the
Vuelta sample. The arbitrators' report doesn't make it clear, but the
timing suggests that Hamilton's identity was known for the Vuelta samples,
too.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
It's not the resolution (or it would have been called resolution). Noise is
variation in the graph where there is in reality nothing to measure. A noise
level of 0,1% would mean that the graph can show a peak of 0,1% without the
corresponding level of RBCs being present. Larger variations can only be
attributed to populations of RBCs. This is the only error that has proven to
be present in the test.
The threshold value has been set at 1,3%, which is a pretty tolerant value
for what I think is an accurate test. Detectable variations may have been
present in other tests, but we would not have heard about them. So the
actual number of riders with suspect values can be higher than the two that
tested positive.
gym.gravity
trg wrote:
> More like quantum semantics.
Results 1 - 10 of about 57 English pages for "quantum semantics". (0.22
seconds)
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> > As I said. The second part was just what I
> > (wrongly) suspected, not presented as fact.
>
> The timeline is kind of interesting:
Only marginally.
>
> The Olympics test done in Athens, and declared negative on August 22.
>
> On September 11, "Mr. Hamilton was targeted for testing at the request of
> the UCI" and he gave a sample on that day.
>
> On September 16, an external group that knows it has been given Hamilton's
> sample reclassifies the Athens sample as positive. Presumably, the Athens
> re-examination came very close to the same time as the examination of the
> Vuelta sample. The arbitrators' report doesn't make it clear, but the
> timing suggests that Hamilton's identity was known for the Vuelta samples,
> too.
Labs handle samples anonymously. They don't know who they're testing when
they are producing graphs and numbers.
gym.gravity
Robert Chung wrote:
> The arbitrators' report doesn't make it clear, but the
> timing suggests that Hamilton's identity was known for the Vuelta samples,
> too.
What do you mean...he won the stage...the stage winner always gets
tested, plus a few other samples from randoms or whoever, so the tester
knows that one of the samples on his bench is the stage winner...
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:1120146639.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps the men in black asked the others to let Hamilton win so they could
test him.
Robert Chung
>
> Labs handle samples anonymously. They don't know who they're testing
> when they are producing graphs and numbers.
Maybe the guy producing the graph didn't know, but in this case it appears
that the people who were evaluating the graph did.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
But he can't change the result. If he put a 'positive' tag on a result that
was negative, the arbitrators would have ruled in favor of Hamilton. But the
arbitrators ruled that the WADA criteria for what consitutes a positive are
reasonable and that Hamilton's sample met those criteria. In other words,
the interpretation steps for the Vuelta test result were controlled by them.
Hamilton did not dispute that the test result for his samples was above
criteria set by WADA.
h squared
> h squared <clevistoreply...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>and it's been too long since i last paid a visit to the track
>
>
> You're saying you like to watch?
you know what i'm saying, mr purposely obtuse. but sure, since you ask,
i like to watch, but now someone will post tell me i'm going to the
wrong track or something.
> I've got a medal from nationals in the TEAM pursuit. But
> Sundquist's medal is bigger. And very few care to watch,
> let me tell you.
well, i was happy to see carl post recently, it's true. but i'm still
naming my next bike "bob", don't think you can distract me from that
with sundquist's big huge medal.
h
Robert Chung
Right, but the arbitrator's point was that a special group was convened on
September 16 to re-evaluate the -->Athens<-- test. The timing makes me
wonder whether the Vuelta positive was decided by the regular lab
personnel, or by this special group. What was the sequence of events?
Robert Chung
>>>
>>> Labs handle samples anonymously. They don't know who they're testing
>>> when they are producing graphs and numbers.
>>
>> Maybe the guy producing the graph didn't know, but in this case it
>> appears that the people who were evaluating the graph did.
>
> But he can't change the result. If he put a 'positive' tag on a result
> that was negative, the arbitrators would have ruled in favor of
> Hamilton.
????
That's exactly what they *did* do. When the Oly sample was (presumably)
anonymous, the Athens lab put a negative tag on it. The external panel,
knowing that it was Hamilton's sample, put a positive tag on it.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
No, because it is unclear if the sample was negative to begin with. And as
Hamilton cannot be penalized for it, there is no way to verify either. The
first interpretation could have been (and it is likely that it was) the
incorrect result.
Robert Chung
>
> No, because it is unclear if the sample was negative to begin with. And
> as Hamilton cannot be penalized for it, there is no way to verify
> either. The first interpretation could have been (and it is likely that
> it was) the incorrect result.
Okay, let's summarize this part of the thread:
You: "They didn't know it was Hamilton, so they couldn't be influenced by
that."
Me: "The report says they knew it was Hamilton."
You: "But they couldn't change the result."
Me: "The report says they did change the result."
You: "But the negative tag was wrong, so they were right to change it."
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> schreef in bericht
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >
> > No, because it is unclear if the sample was negative to begin with. And
> > as Hamilton cannot be penalized for it, there is no way to verify
> > either. The first interpretation could have been (and it is likely that
> > it was) the incorrect result.
>
> Okay, let's summarize this part of the thread:
>
> You: "They didn't know it was Hamilton, so they couldn't be influenced by
> that."
> Me: "The report says they knew it was Hamilton."
> You: "But they couldn't change the result."
> Me: "The report says they did change the result."
No, they couldn't change the result. The test result is a graph. They could
not redraw that. If that graph was erronously given a 'negative' tag, that
could be changed.
Tom Kunich
"reportedly positive" at the Olympics was used as part of the proof of
the positive test later.
This whole case is so screwy that it has ceased being just humorous and
is now reaching propotions of great Opera.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:1120152311.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Sort of wrong there Jonathan. Because the FACT that Hamilton was
> "reportedly positive" at the Olympics was used as part of the proof of
> the positive test later.
No, the positive Vuelta test was the result of the lab test conducted on
samples taken from Hamilton during the Vuelta. Childishly simple, actually.
Tom Kunich
which there is a positive or a negative finding. It is left to the
determination of those evaluating the results and who have said, "We
know what a positive is when we see one."
Now if you add to that the fact that they were knowledgable about who
those graphs belonged to, there remains room for bias.
Tom Kunich
Tom Kunich
of the Olympics test. I'd be willing to bet that the SAME group who
classified the one positive classified the other positive and the whole
process is broken if there's not anonymity.
Robert Chung
>
> No, they couldn't change the result. The test result is a graph. They
> could not redraw that. If that graph was erronously given a 'negative'
> tag, that could be changed.
Well, I was using "result" to mean whether the test was judged to be
positive or negative but, okay, let's try again:
You: "They didn't know it was Hamilton, so they couldn't be influenced
by that."
Me: "The report says they knew it was Hamilton."
You: "But they couldn't change the negative/positive tag."
Me: "The report says they did change the negative/positive tag."
gwhite
>
> A noise level of 0,1% would mean that the graph
> can show a peak of 0,1% without the
> corresponding level of RBCs being present.
I doubt the random error specification is given in a peak value. But
maybe in the doper business that's how it is done.
RMS is how I see random error specs most often expressed. That says
nothing of peak-to-rms.
Get your numbers (facts) here:
gwhite
>
> Tyler is smarter than that.
Can I get a number? I just want the facts.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Maybe you missed the point that there is no numerical percentage at
> which there is a positive or a negative finding. It is left to the
> determination of those evaluating the results and who have said, "We
> know what a positive is when we see one."
There is a threshold value of 1,3%. As I read the report, that's the
difference between a positive and a negative finding.
>
> Now if you add to that the fact that they were knowledgable about who
> those graphs belonged to, there remains room for bias.
Hamilton was suspended on the grounds of the Vuelta samples, and the graphs
of those samples were produced anonymously.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Willingness to bet doesn't really matter: if the Vuelta samples were
negative, the Athens samples couldn't make them otherwise and vice versa.
On a TV documentary about doping labs I witnessed that anonimity was
standard. There is no reason to assume that the Vuelta samples were not
anonymous, but there is also no proof to support the accusation that WADA
made Hamilton test positive (kind of a moot point, since they couldn't make
him test positive even if they wanted to).
Robert Chung
> There is a threshold value of 1,3%. As I read the report, that's the
> difference between a positive and a negative finding.
In the last paragraph on page 7 they specifically write, "[t]here is
either a mixed blood population or a single one. In this context,
quantification of the RBCs is completely unrelated to that yes or no
outcome." There is no specified threshold limit.
Robert Chung
> kind of a moot point, since they
They made the Athens test positive.
Tim Lines
You may be correct in your interpretation so long as you're confining
yourself to debunking the Athens test and ignoring the Vuelta test. I'm
not sure you need to bother with Athens, since the B sample was botched
there.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
>
> > A noise level of 0,1% would mean that the graph
> > can show a peak of 0,1% without the
> > corresponding level of RBCs being present.
>
> I doubt the random error specification is given in a peak value. But
> maybe in the doper business that's how it is done.
>
> RMS is how I see random error specs most often expressed. That says
> nothing of peak-to-rms.
The test is trying to detect two populations, which appear as two
peaks in a histogram. The number being measured is the number of
RBCs that are in the second population (second peak) as a fraction of
the total. It is claimed that the instrumental noise in the flow
cytometer is 0.1%, and shown that the test can detect a certain
antigen population down to 1.5% - 2.9% (depending on whether the minor
population is positive or negative for that antigen).
So the error is on the amount in the peak, not on the peak value
of the peak, so to speak.
I don't know what WADA used to set their threshold of 1.3%.
It seems to me that all the plots in the paper and in the arbitration
decision show histograms for one antigen at a time, but the WADA
protocol requires that at least two markers must show evidence for
a mixed population (Hamilton arbitration decision, top of page 7).
This somewhat reassures me that they're not completely full of BS.
I couldn't really say without seeing TH's histograms.
Hamilton decision:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/AAA_CAS%20Decision%20-%20Hamilton.pdf
Nelson article:
http://www.medicalhosting.org/archives/FMPro?-db=backissues.fp5&-format=details.html&-lay=show&PMID=14607758&-find=
Stewart Fleming
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> Actually, Phonak did buy some great racers but those racers didn't really
> deliver what they were supposed to. Hamilton was under some pressure to
> perform, but Perez was hardly their most important trump.
For "suddenly successful" read "needing to produce significant results".
To get (and keep) a ProTour slot.
Stewart Fleming
Robert Chung wrote:
> On September 11, "Mr. Hamilton was targeted for testing at the request of
> the UCI" and he gave a sample on that day.
>
> On September 16, an external group that knows it has been given Hamilton's
> sample reclassifies the Athens sample as positive. Presumably, the Athens
> re-examination came very close to the same time as the examination of the
> Vuelta sample. The arbitrators' report doesn't make it clear, but the
> timing suggests that Hamilton's identity was known for the Vuelta samples,
> too.
You need to keep in mind the WADA approach of "using evidence other than
positive tests".
If they KNEW that a transfusion had taken place prior to the Vuelta test
and they had a sample with particular characteristics (and the test
showed up positive),
a) It would constitute a positive test
b) It could be compared against the parameters of the Athens test and
used to determine post-facto a positive for the Olympics if they were
similar.
While the doping protocol emphasises anonymity during the majority of
the formal process, the kind of additional administrative activity
(panels, commissions etc) are not specifically anonymized and the
process (some might say persecution) of US sprinters in 2003/2004 gives
precedent...
Stu
Robert Chung
> I don't know what WADA used to set their threshold of 1.3%.
1.3% is not the threshold. The only place that shows up is on page 8,
where it says the amount of foreign RBCs was 1.3%. The bottom of page 7
says they don't need to count no steenking RBCs.
> It seems to me that all the plots in the paper and in the arbitration
> decision show histograms for one antigen at a time, but the WADA
> protocol requires that at least two markers must show evidence for
> a mixed population (Hamilton arbitration decision, top of page 7).
> This somewhat reassures me that they're not completely full of BS.
> I couldn't really say without seeing TH's histograms.
Yeah. The point about the "no threshold" is that it means they're
eyeballing histograms for peaks. I'm just not clear how I'd do that. Note
the X-axis is logarithmic. I suspect it means that it would be harder to
tell about foreign cells off to the right than nearby or off to the left.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >
> > No, they couldn't change the result. The test result is a graph. They
> > could not redraw that. If that graph was erronously given a 'negative'
> > tag, that could be changed.
>
> Well, I was using "result" to mean whether the test was judged to be
> positive or negative but, okay, let's try again:
>
> You: "They didn't know it was Hamilton, so they couldn't be influenced
> by that."
> Me: "The report says they knew it was Hamilton."
> You: "But they couldn't change the negative/positive tag."
They can change the tag and I never said that was impossible. One can always
go back to the data and say: "Hey, it's above 1,3 percent, so that should
actually be declared a positive." Which, incidentally, is a far cry from a
plot to bring down Hamilton.
What nobody can do is 'raise' a graph to give it's peak a height of 5,1
percent where previously there was less than 0,1. Unless one assumes that
there is fraudulent behaviour present with WADA, but I see no proof of that.
And neither do Hamilton's lawyers, it appears.
> Me: "The report says they did change the negative/positive tag."
> You: "But the negative tag was wrong, so they were right to change it."
I suspect they were right, which is a bit different from what you claimed I
said. Because of the loss of the B sample, this part has justifiably been
left as it is. Hamilton is presumed to be innocent as far as the olympics
are concerned. It's even possible that Hamilton is proclaimed completely
innocent after all. But I really do believe that the arbitrators made a good
assessment of the situation and I agree with their report, which convinced
me (the dissent didn't).
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Actually, there is, even though in that passage it is different from the
1,3% percent I mentioned earlier (and mentioned on page 8). The text says
that anything above noise level identifies a population of RBCs. This means
that two peaks above 0,1% constitute a positive test. This however would
likely not be visually identifiable. The WADA criterium of the presence of a
visually identifiable peak is therefore lenient towards athletes, also
because a 'tail' rather than a 'separate peak' is normally taken as evidence
of a mixed population, if I have understood other contributions in this
group correctly. I believe the arbitrators when they say that the approach
chosen by WADA is tolerant.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
In the end, Hamilton was considered to have tested negative in Athens. The A
sample was deemed to have tested positive in retrospect, but there were no
changes made to the actual test result itself. Just a reinterpretation. I
presume they thought the second interpretation was more correct and since
several experts looked at this, I see no reason to assume they were wrong.
If you claim a rose is pink but I would correct you and say it is actually
yellow, the thing doesn't change color on my command. It was either pink or
yellow all along, just as Hamilton did or did not have mixed blood in his
sample all along. If you want to argue either possibility, then please do
so, but there is no point in playing a retorical trick by insinuating that
WADA retroactively changed the test results to suit some hidden agenda when
there is no proof they did.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:42C43575...@crank.com...
> "gym.gravity" wrote:
> >
>
> > Tyler is smarter than that.
>
> Can I get a number? I just want the facts.
Digital numbers will do fine. Tylerguilty = 1, Blooddopingdumb = 1, so
naturally Tylersmart = 0.
Robert Chung
>
> They can change the tag and I never said that was impossible.
No, what you said was, "If he put a 'positive' tag on a result that was
negative, the arbitrators would have ruled in favor of Hamilton." Yet the
external panel did indeed put a positive tag on a graph (a "result" in
your terms) that was initially considered negative, and the arbitrators
did not rule in favor of Hamilton.
> One can always go back to the data and say: "Hey, it's
> above 1,3 percent, so that should actually be declared a
> positive."
There is no threshold of 1.3%. Read page 8 again.
So, let's keep track. So far, you've said: 1) the evaluation was made on
an anonymous subject; 2) they wouldn't change a negative decision to a
positive one; and 3) there's a threshold of 1.3%.
Hmmm.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> 1.3% is not the threshold. The only place that shows up is on page 8,
> where it says the amount of foreign RBCs was 1.3%. The bottom of page 7
> says they don't need to count no steenking RBCs.
You are correct, I misread that.
> Yeah. The point about the "no threshold" is that it means they're
> eyeballing histograms for peaks. I'm just not clear how I'd do that. Note
> the X-axis is logarithmic. I suspect it means that it would be harder to
> tell about foreign cells off to the right than nearby or off to the left.
I thought about the importance of the log axis, but it's not clear to
me if that is intrinsic or has something to do with whether they set
the instrument to linear or log amplification, etc. The major peak
looks relatively symmetrical when the data are on the log axis.
Did you reverse right and left? I think it would be easier to detect
the foreign cells as a minor population on the right (high
fluorescence, especially given that it's a log scale) rather than on
the left, in which case you're looking for a small population of
non-fluorescing cells among a large population of fluorescing. In
fact that seems to be the case in the Nelson et al paper figure 2.
There are statistical tests for the presence of bimodality in a
distribution which could be applied here, though I don't really know
how good they are. If the "gates" (the ranges of fluorescence
attributed to each population) were fixed, then it's simpler, but it
seems they aren't fixed.
Real statisticians don't plot histograms, anyway, they use kernel
estimation, because histograms suck. But that is hopefully a minor
point w.r.t. Ty-Ty.
Robert Chung
>
>> Yeah. The point about the "no threshold" is that it means they're
>> eyeballing histograms for peaks. I'm just not clear how I'd do that.
>> Note the X-axis is logarithmic. I suspect it means that it would be
>> harder to tell about foreign cells off to the right than nearby or off
>> to the left.
>
> I thought about the importance of the log axis, but it's not clear to
> me if that is intrinsic or has something to do with whether they set
> the instrument to linear or log amplification, etc. The major peak
> looks relatively symmetrical when the data are on the log axis.
> Did you reverse right and left? I think it would be easier to detect
> the foreign cells as a minor population on the right (high
> fluorescence, especially given that it's a log scale) rather than on
> the left, in which case you're looking for a small population of
> non-fluorescing cells among a large population of fluorescing. In
> fact that seems to be the case in the Nelson et al paper figure 2.
I was thinking about a comparison where the main body was locationally
fixed. I suspect part of the reason why figure 2 looks the way it does is
because in the bottom panels the main body is shifted to the right. BTW,
2D and 2H show what a secondary peak in the neighborhood of about 1.3%
would look like. What's really interesting is figure 2G, which is supposed
to show a secondary peak of 2.9%.
> There are statistical tests for the presence of bimodality in a
> distribution which could be applied here, though I don't really know
> how good they are. If the "gates" (the ranges of fluorescence
> attributed to each population) were fixed, then it's simpler, but it
> seems they aren't fixed.
>
> Real statisticians don't plot histograms, anyway, they use kernel
> estimation, because histograms suck. But that is hopefully a minor
> point w.r.t. Ty-Ty.
I've made that point elsewhere. Eyeballing histograms is a lousy way to
determine a mixed density at low levels because they're pretty dependent
on bin width. When the bins have unequal width (as they would in log
scale) things become tricky since it affects the height, i.e., the
location affects the identification problem.
BTW, see the figure on page 6 of the Arbitrator's decision? See the clump
labeled "patient's own blood?" Would you say that has two peaks?
I've also said before that since it is presumed that the decay rate of
foreign cells is known (this is the basis for figure 2 in the Nelson
paper) it would be possible to go backwards from the Vuelta samples and
see whether they were consistent with the single Athens sample. In
addition, I think it would be interesting to see if there was any
difference between the Vuelta A and B samples, since they were collected
at the same time.
Steven L. Sheffield
42c54$42c43c7e$52ad8801$15...@news.versatel.nl, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
<nos...@nospam.nl> wrote:
> Hamilton was suspended on the grounds of the Vuelta samples, and the graphs
> of those samples were produced anonymously.
Prove it.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
gwhite
>
> It is claimed that the instrumental noise in the flow
> cytometer is 0.1%, and shown that the test can detect a certain
> antigen population down to 1.5% - 2.9% (depending on whether the minor
> population is positive or negative for that antigen).
I'm talking about the 0.1% noise rating for the machine. I'd question a
peak noise rating for a machine. Caveat: I don't know squat about the
dope detecting industry. I'll read the links when I get some time. (I
don't pay attention to the dope stuff much.)
> So the error is on the amount in the peak, not on the peak value
> of the peak, so to speak.
That's the measurement, which includes what is being measured and the
instrumentation error.
> I don't know what WADA used to set their threshold of 1.3%.
Just guessing, but I suppose it isn't a bad number to pull out of their
asses. 1.3/0.1 (13) is probably a decent rule-of-thumb, as it goes.
That is, if for the observation window they base this on, the peak2avg
is 10, then a ratio of 13 gives them a bit of margin. If the
observation window for evaluating the quality of the measuring machine
was "big," and they found 10, then 13 is "good."
I wonder how they figured it out in the first place.
Qualitively, the idea is a bit like this:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/462
2 How Peak-to-Peak Jitter Relates to RMS Jitter
A Gaussian distribution describes random jitter. Qualitative analysis
shows that the tails of a Gaussian distribution extend indefinitely on
either side of the mean. Therefore, it is impossible to specify a
peak-to-peak jitter range that bounds the jitter 100% of the time.
Instead we want to identify a range that contains the jitter, for
example, 99.99999% of the time. This means that 0.00001% of the time the
jitter will be outside of our peak-to-peak range. Calculating
peak-to-peak jitter is important for jitter budget analysis. It is
assumed that any samples that fall outside the peak-to-peak range will
cause errors. Therefore, if a BER target of 10-12 is selected, it is
necessary to select a range that will contain the jitter all but
0.0000000001% of the time.
h squared
> I've got a medal from nationals in the TEAM pursuit.
this one?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/jun01/UStrackchamps011.shtml
that wasn't that long ago, i didn't realize that. i don't think i was
paying attention to any track stuff at the time, so i don't remember you
mentioning it (sorry)
h
Kurgan Gringioni
Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> I've got a medal from nationals in the TEAM pursuit.
Dumbass -
Medals from Masters Fattie categories don't count. They give out
thousands of those a year.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Bob Schwartz
I owe it all to Mike Plant. His fiscal mismanagement of USAC did
so much damage to the track programs that anybody with any talent
bailed and overweight geezerheads could stand a chance. Thanks
Mike.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> I'm talking about the 0.1% noise rating for the machine. I'd question a
> peak noise rating for a machine. Caveat: I don't know squat about the
> dope detecting industry. I'll read the links when I get some time. (I
> don't pay attention to the dope stuff much.)
They just toss out the 0.1% number in a parenthesis. It's not
clear if it really is a property of the machine or just the
particular measurement they are talking about in that one
paragraph.
In any case, everyone else talking about "peak" is referring
to the number of counts in a signal that looks like a peak, not
the peak height of the signal, which is what you are referring to
with "peak noise" and the peak-vs-RMS jitter reference. (I agree
"peak noise" doesn't mean anything.)
Chung is questioning how they reliably tell that a sample has
two signals rather than one, which is a good question. Look
at the pdfs, but do like a good scientist: don't read them, just
look at the pictures. It will be clear what "peak" refers to
in the plots. Most of the plots, anyway; that's the issue.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> I was thinking about a comparison where the main body was locationally
> fixed. I suspect part of the reason why figure 2 looks the way it does is
> because in the bottom panels the main body is shifted to the right. BTW,
> 2D and 2H show what a secondary peak in the neighborhood of about 1.3%
> would look like. What's really interesting is figure 2G, which is supposed
> to show a secondary peak of 2.9%.
But it's shifted because of the asymmetry I mentioned - in the
top row the minority population is the one that fluoresces (right
hand peak), in the bottom row the minority population is the
non-fluorescing because they are testing the same sample with
the opposite antiserum. In that sense, you couldn't keep the
main body locationally fixed at non-fluorescing and detect
something on the left side (it would be even less flourescing).
The peaks themselves are asymmetric due to the log axis, they
look like log-normal distributions.
If you have a very strong prior belief that the peaks should be
normal, and thus log-normal on the log-axis, then figure 2G is
different enough to show two components. I guess this meets
the standards of the research field (or at least M.D. researchers
in the field) and that's why WADA claims it's being conservative
by requiring two separate peaks.
I wrote a paper that rested a lot of the work on the idea that
the upper histogram in this plot is bimodal/two-component:
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/deep1.rc3.ubhist.new.png
I didn't do any statistical tests of its significance, either.
Would you believe me?
(However, there are other samples that show bimodality, so it
wasn't a terribly controversial claim. I know I should have
plotted a kernel estimation, but the paper was supposed to be
read by PhD's, who get confused easily by such things.
I did the kernel-est myself just to be sure it looked OK.)
> I've also said before that since it is presumed that the decay rate of
> foreign cells is known (this is the basis for figure 2 in the Nelson
> paper) it would be possible to go backwards from the Vuelta samples and
> see whether they were consistent with the single Athens sample. In
> addition, I think it would be interesting to see if there was any
> difference between the Vuelta A and B samples, since they were collected
> at the same time.
If they write a paper similar to the Catlin lab's paper about
TT and norbolethone, they could do that. But they certainly
won't write such a paper while Ty-Ty's case is open, and maybe
not after since his lawyers could still be prowling around
claiming human-subjects-code violations.
I don't think WADA will release the information itself, I don't
get the impression WADA is interested in presenting
self-justification or corroborating evidence beyond winning
the case: the Dick Pound approach sees power as coming from fear
more than trust.
Robert Chung
> But it's shifted because of the asymmetry I mentioned - in the
> top row the minority population is the one that fluoresces (right
> hand peak), in the bottom row the minority population is the
> non-fluorescing because they are testing the same sample with
> the opposite antiserum. In that sense, you couldn't keep the
> main body locationally fixed at non-fluorescing and detect
> something on the left side (it would be even less flourescing).
Ah. I'd missed that. Thanks for explaining.
> The peaks themselves are asymmetric due to the log axis, they
> look like log-normal distributions.
>
> If you have a very strong prior belief that the peaks should be
> normal, and thus log-normal on the log-axis, then figure 2G is
> different enough to show two components. I guess this meets
> the standards of the research field (or at least M.D. researchers
> in the field) and that's why WADA claims it's being conservative
> by requiring two separate peaks.
Possibly. It's been my experience that medicine is a place that statistics
goes to die. I'm guessing, btw, that the graphs in figure 2 were chosen
because they were clear. I suspect that the reason that the Oly result was
originally read as negative and then reclassified is because it wasn't
easy to spot two peaks.
> I wrote a paper that rested a lot of the work on the idea that
> the upper histogram in this plot is bimodal/two-component:
>
> http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/deep1.rc3.ubhist.new.png
How many co-authors? I think co-authorship distributions are probably
bi-modal.
> I didn't do any statistical tests of its significance, either.
> Would you believe me?
Probably, but then colliding galaxies are probably less important than
whether some cyclist's blood profile has bumps in it.
>> I've also said before that since it is presumed that the decay rate of
>> foreign cells is known (this is the basis for figure 2 in the Nelson
>> paper) it would be possible to go backwards from the Vuelta samples and
>> see whether they were consistent with the single Athens sample. In
>> addition, I think it would be interesting to see if there was any
>> difference between the Vuelta A and B samples, since they were
>> collected at the same time.
>
> If they write a paper similar to the Catlin lab's paper about
> TT and norbolethone, they could do that. But they certainly
> won't write such a paper while Ty-Ty's case is open, and maybe
> not after since his lawyers could still be prowling around
> claiming human-subjects-code violations.
Yeah. I think it's telling, though, that Hamilton's lawyers haven't seemed
to bring up the issue.
Jenko
>
> I've also said before that since it is presumed that the decay rate of
> foreign cells is known (this is the basis for figure 2 in the Nelson
> paper) it would be possible to go backwards from the Vuelta samples and
> see whether they were consistent with the single Athens sample.
They were not. I read somewhere in the report that the 2-peaked markers
in the Athens and Vuelta samples were different.
Jenko
Jenko
It was not in the report but in Hamilton's diary
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_defence
"The antigens declared positive for 'mixed populations' in Athens and
the Vuelta are not the same"
Robert Chung
Holy cow.
Ewoud Dronkert
"Consistent with" does not mean identical. Robert mentions the rate of
change of foreign cell presence. That, and the time between the two
samples taken, could be used to calculate if the 2nd sample is just an
older version of sample 1, or if something else happened inbetween.
For Hamilton, either would have the same consequences, but the first case
would mean a big boost for the test's believability, I guess.
--
Firefox - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
Ewoud Dronkert
> On 1 Jul 2005 00:17:19 -0700, Jenko wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_defence
>> "The antigens declared positive for 'mixed populations' in Athens and
>> the Vuelta are not the same"
>
> "Consistent with" does not mean identical.
Maybe I misunderstood you, and/or the quote. What does "positive antigens"
mean? Are they saying the foreign population was different? (different
rbc, not the same older rbc). If they are indeed saying that themselves,
then I concur with Chung: holy cow.
Jenko
>
> > It was not in the report but in Hamilton's diary
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_defence
> > "The antigens declared positive for 'mixed populations' in Athens and
> > the Vuelta are not the same"
>
> "Consistent with" does not mean identical.
If "different" means the Vuelta antigens are a subset of the Athens
ones, yes, it could be consistent. Otherwise, take your pick
a. There was a post-Athens transfusion (from a different donor?)
b. There's something wrong with the tests
c. Hamilton is lying
d. All of the above
Jenko
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >
> > They can change the tag and I never said that was impossible.
>
> No, what you said was, "If he put a 'positive' tag on a result that was
> negative, the arbitrators would have ruled in favor of Hamilton." Yet the
> external panel did indeed put a positive tag on a graph (a "result" in
> your terms) that was initially considered negative, and the arbitrators
> did not rule in favor of Hamilton.
I was talking about what the sample actually contained as opposed to what
the interpretation is. Nobody can pretend there are different RBCs in a
sample where there are only RBCs of one kind.
>
> > One can always go back to the data and say: "Hey, it's
> > above 1,3 percent, so that should actually be declared a
> > positive."
>
> There is no threshold of 1.3%. Read page 8 again.
>
> So, let's keep track. So far, you've said: 1) the evaluation was made on
> an anonymous subject;
Tests are done on anonymous samples. The graph belonging to Hamilton's
sample was drawn before was produced by people who did not know to whom the
sample belonged. That graph was later judged to be indicative of a positive
result.
> 2) they wouldn't change a negative decision to a
> positive one;
It was just a re-evaluation. I don't see the problem with that or with me
saying that.
> and 3) there's a threshold of 1.3%.
The text mentions such a threshold.
>
> Hmmm.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:BEE9DBEA.21178%ste...@veloworks.com...
> On 06/30/2005 12:40 PM, in article
> 42c54$42c43c7e$52ad8801$15...@news.versatel.nl, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
> <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote:
>
>
> > Hamilton was suspended on the grounds of the Vuelta samples, and the
graphs
> > of those samples were produced anonymously.
>
>
> Prove it.
That's how doping labs work.
Steven L. Sheffield
squared" <clevistoreply...@comcast.net> wrote:
And he rode for the women's team too! (that's what WIMN means, right?)
Steven L. Sheffield
1120187354.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> I've got a medal from nationals in the TEAM pursuit.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Medals from Masters Fattie categories don't count. They give out
> thousands of those a year.
2001 Team Pursuit, Bronze, Elite National Track Championships (not Masters
Fattie) ....