FLandis Redux
Davey Crockett
Anti-doping tests used at the Olympics and other major sporting events
are too often based on faulty science and statistical methods that can
yield erroneous results, a researcher charged Wednesday in a leading
scientific journal. Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the
University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to
point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the
problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to
ferret out
http://www.velonews.com/article/81414
--
Davey Crockett
-
Welcome to Turd Wurld Britannia.
Hospitals staffed By NHS trusts have reported
almost 20,000 incidents of pest infestation in hospitals over the past
two years. Outbreaks have included rats in maternity wards, wasps and
fleas in neo-natal units and maggots in patients slippers.
At the same time, the latest figures available show a massive rise in
foreign workers within the NHS, with the number of foreign trained
nurses rising to 43% of the total.
The details - released under the Freedom of Information Act - come
from all 171 NHS trusts in England.
Of the 127 which responded, almost all were said to have experienced
some problems. There were almost 20,000 reports of pest problems while
seven out of 10 trusts said that they had called in pest control
officers more than 50 times since January 2006.
Tom Kunich
news:87vdydu...@azurservers.com...
>
> Anti-doping tests used at the Olympics and other major sporting events
> are too often based on faulty science and statistical methods that can
> yield erroneous results, a researcher charged Wednesday in a leading
> scientific journal. Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the
> University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to
> point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the
> problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to
> ferret out
Come on Davey. Remember you're putting this out on .racing which is
inhabited by experts who believe that the slightest positive should be
immediately followed by the death penalty because there's NO WAY that an
error could be made in a lab. Just ask Ben or that Asian guy who pretends to
be a scientist.....
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> "Davey Crockett" <r...@azurservers.com> wrote in message
>
> > University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to
> > point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the
> > problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to
> > ferret out
>
> Come on Davey. Remember you're putting this out on .racing which is
> inhabited by experts who believe that the slightest positive should be
> immediately followed by the death penalty because there's NO WAY that an
> error could be made in a lab. Just ask Ben or that Asian guy who pretends to
> be a scientist.....
Lying Tom Kunich,
Please find a post where I said anything like the
words you just put in my mouth. I criticized the
lab and WADA several times in the Landis case.
Back up your smack talk.
Go on your own little rants if you want, but don't
drag my name into it and lie to make yourself
feel superior.
Ben
William Asher
Ben:
In order to save you from the soul-searing agony that comes from knowing
Tom has kill-filed you, I beg you to stop taunting him. It's too late to
save me, I'm a non-person. But there is still time to save yourself.
Agree with Tom, tell him that yes, you think any cycling testing positive,
or maybe even looking like they might test positive, especially if they're
American because you hate America, should be castrated, disemboweled with
that big hook thing they used in Braveheart, and have their head fixed on a
pike attached to one of the motos in the Tour so all can see their shame.
There are some other things I was going to say you should agree with Tom
on, but they seem to have slipped my mind after I got carried away with the
first one.
--
Mike Jacoubowsky
No. What some of us believe is that the "slightest positive" is grounds from removal from an event, *not* something that, by itself, warrants longterm sanctions of any kind whatsoever. Thorough analysis apparently takes too much time to yield meaningful results during a multi-day event, and the very real concern that someone doped up not only has an advantage, but influences the outcome for everyone else, means the risk of leaving someone in the event until due process has run its course is too great.
That's very different from saying that there's no way an error could occur in a lab, or that you should be banned for life based upon the initial finding.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
ila...@gmail.com
That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's
the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post
regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the
samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should
have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test
which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is
about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic
arguments alone.
-ilan
Donald Munro
> In order to save you from the soul-searing agony that comes from knowing
> Tom has kill-filed you, I beg you to stop taunting him. It's too late to
> save me, I'm a non-person. But there is still time to save yourself.
> Agree with Tom, tell him that yes, you think any cycling testing positive,
> or maybe even looking like they might test positive, especially if they're
> American because you hate America, should be castrated, disemboweled with
> that big hook thing they used in Braveheart, and have their head fixed on
> a pike attached to one of the motos in the Tour so all can see their
> shame. There are some other things I was going to say you should agree
> with Tom on, but they seem to have slipped my mind after I got carried
> away with the first one.
Why don't you invite him to your next Kun-Anon meeting.
William Asher
That seems a little gay to me.
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
>> Why don't you invite him to your next Kun-Anon meeting.
> That seems a little gay to me.
Well he is a liberal so he should feel at home.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post
> regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the
> samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should
> have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test
> which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is
> about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic
> arguments alone.
>
> -ilan
I'm not competent to understand how this changes things, but testing has
moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that
there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using doping
products. So what's happening is that far fewer "clean" athletes are likley
to be tested (or so they hope), and far more rigorous testing is being done
for those whose profile or bloodwork implies they're more likely to be
doping.
But it really might not change anything at all, other than the fact that
it's far less likely a clean athlete will have a false positive, because
it's far less likely that athlete is being tested in the first place. If
he/she is tested, the chances of that individual test reading incorrectly
are no different than before. But because of the smaller sample size, it's
less likely a bad test will pop up. Even though that false positive might be
less likely to be seen, when it does happen, it's little comfort to the
individual that they were simply unlucky.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Tom Kunich
news:LPFmk.18384$89....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> No. What some of us believe is that the "slightest positive" is
> grounds from removal from an event, *not* something
> that, by itself, warrants longterm sanctions of any kind whatsoever.
Look at the comments here Mike - first they use any positive finding on the
tests as a real positive. So eventually they get the idea that false
positives AND unknowns are common with these tests so they kick the levels
up so that any positive is pretty sure to be a positive and not a false
positive. So then we see the scum-sucking bullcrap artists here who know
absolutely nothing about it telling us that everyone is doping and the labs
are in on it.
> That's very different from saying that there's no way an error could
> occur in a lab, or that you should be banned for life based upon
> the initial finding.
That is YOUR position Mike. You can see the majority of posters here are
opposite.
Tom Kunich
news:YLHmk.32779$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> But it really might not change anything at all, other than the fact that
> it's far less likely a clean athlete will have a false positive, because
> it's far less likely that athlete is being tested in the first place.
Remember that the founders of the United States were more willing to let a
guilty party go than to accidently convict an innocent one.
But the posters here would gladly sacrifice a thousand innocent parties to
get one guilty.
ila...@gmail.com
That argument applies to blood related doping, but as far as I know,
there is no such targeting for other drugs. Remember, that it's
something like 1% (or some such number) for each and every substance
they are tested for! If the chance of a false positive is 1% for each
of a 100 tests performed on a single sample, then you are getting into
50+% for a false positive on a single sample.
-ilan
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> > That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's
> > the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post
> > regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the
> > samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should
> > have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test
> > which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is
> > about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic
> > arguments alone.
> >
> > -ilan
>
> I'm not competent to understand how this changes things, but testing has
> moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that
> there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using doping
> products.
Article of faith. Unsupportable in a clean testing program.
--
Michael Press
Mike Jacoubowsky
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:LPFmk.18384$89....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> No. What some of us believe is that the "slightest positive" is
>> grounds from removal from an event, *not* something
>> that, by itself, warrants longterm sanctions of any kind whatsoever.
>
> Look at the comments here Mike - first they use any positive finding on
> the tests as a real positive. So eventually they get the idea that false
> positives AND unknowns are common with these tests so they kick the levels
> up so that any positive is pretty sure to be a positive and not a false
> positive. So then we see the scum-sucking bullcrap artists here who know
> absolutely nothing about it telling us that everyone is doping and the
> labs are in on it.
I'm going to have to get out my decoder ring on that response Tom. Are you
saying that the initial false positive creates a momentum and/or desire that
causes the lab to falsify subsequent testing to be in line with the initial
test result?
>> That's very different from saying that there's no way an error could
>> occur in a lab, or that you should be banned for life based upon
>> the initial finding.
>
> That is YOUR position Mike. You can see the majority of posters here are
> opposite.
I don't recall reading anyone claiming the test labs were infallible. I
certainly don't think they are. The Landis testing was a complete disgrace.
But unfortunately, the riders have screwed up repeatedly. We wouldn't be
having these issues if there wasn't a culture of doping. A culture that
shockingly has carried through to the youngest in the peloton. The Ricco and
Sella cases should have been an eye-opener.
In the end, it's a lot like telling kids they shouldn't smoke. The evidence
is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do it
anyway, partly out of spite. I think that might be part of what's going on
with the younger guys in the peloton. They feel they're immortal, that rules
don't apply to them.
I think there's an unfortunate choice to be made. Clean things up in a
drastic way, catching a few good guys in the 'net because there's no way to
catch enough of the bad guys otherwise, or give up on the idea of
competitive cycling as a fair competition. It's there for entertainment
value only.
Many of the riders are IDIOTS. There, I said it. They know better, but they
just can't resist temptation. Make the likelihood of getting caught stronger
and they might get the message. And give hope to those who do manage to
resist.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:rubrum-367A97....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Could you explain that? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to
figure out what you mean.
Howard Kveck
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
Hey Ben, in order to save some electrons, you can abreviate that "Lying Tom
Kunich" to a simple acronym. Big Lying Tom becomes BLT. I like it.
--
tanx,
Howard
The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-367A97....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> > In article <YLHmk.32779$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's
> >> > the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post
> >> > regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the
> >> > samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should
> >> > have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test
> >> > which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is
> >> > about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic
> >> > arguments alone.
> >> >
> >> > -ilan
> >>
> >> I'm not competent to understand how this changes things, but testing has
> >> moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that
> >> there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using
> >> doping
> >> products.
> >
> > Article of faith. Unsupportable in a clean testing program.
>
> Could you explain that? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to
> figure out what you mean.
A clean testing program treats all athletes equally.
No fair choosing an athlete for extra testing.
Increases the probability that a positive test will be obtained.
We are to trust the governing body that they know who is doping?
--
Michael Press
Tom Kunich
>
> I don't recall reading anyone claiming the test labs were infallible. I
> certainly don't think they are. The Landis testing was a complete
> disgrace.
But nearly everyone here claims that fake test was good as gold. Look, the
Tour can disqualify anyone they want to, but when they're distroying
reputations and life's work you'd think they'd want to be careful.
> But unfortunately, the riders have screwed up repeatedly.
And we DO need to crack down hard. But if it isn't bending over backwards to
be fair it simply isn't fair enough.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> >> has
>> >> moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that
>> >> there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using
>> >> doping
>> >> products.
>> >
>> > Article of faith. Unsupportable in a clean testing program.
>>
>> Could you explain that? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to
>> figure out what you mean.
>
> A clean testing program treats all athletes equally.
> No fair choosing an athlete for extra testing.
> Increases the probability that a positive test will be obtained.
>
> We are to trust the governing body that they know who is doping?
>
> --
> Michael Press
Isn't that a bit idealistic and not how the real world works? In business,
you do extensive market research so you can target the correct audience for
your product. The IRS targets people according to various profiles for tax
audits. At least as far as the IRS issue, it's certainly not "fair" to put
someone through all manner of grief to prove they haven't done anything
wrong, but there is simply no better way to check for cheating.
And either the governing body has done a pretty good job at figuring out
who's doping, or there are a whole lot more doping than most thought.
alan...@sbcglobal.net
>Snip<
> Hey Ben, in order to save some electrons, you can abreviate that "Lying Tom
> Kunich" to a simple acronym. Big Lying Tom becomes BLT. I like it.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
Hey Howard...hate to rain on your parade, but isn't 'Big Lying Tom'
already in use?
You know, Boonen?
Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS
Donald Munro
> But nearly everyone here claims that fake test was good as gold.
You must be somewhere else.
Donald Munro
>>> Why don't you invite him to your next Kun-Anon meeting.
>
> William Asher wrote:
>> That seems a little gay to me.
Donald Munro wrote:
> Well he is a liberal so he should feel at home.
Come to think of it, perhaps you should invite
JFT to the Fog-Anon meeting.
Scott
> In article <ivLmk.20841$N87.14...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:rubrum-367A97....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's
> > >> > the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post
> > >> > regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the
> > >> > samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should
> > >> > have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test
> > >> > which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is
> > >> > about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic
> > >> > arguments alone.
>
> > >> > -ilan
>
> > >> I'm not competent to understand how this changes things, but testing has
> > >> moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that
> > >> there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using
> > >> doping
> > >> products.
>
> > > Article of faith. Unsupportable in a clean testing program.
>
> > Could you explain that? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to
> > figure out what you mean.
>
> A clean testing program treats all athletes equally.
> No fair choosing an athlete for extra testing.
> Increases the probability that a positive test will be obtained.
>
> We are to trust the governing body that they know who is doping?
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not a probability expert, but I play one on RBR. As such, let me
say that extra testing doesn't raise the probability of a positive
test, unless you're actually doping (unless the test protocol has an
abnormally high false positive rate). Sort of like how buying two
lottery tickets instead of one doesn't exactly put you at better odds
of winning the lottery.
Or, of course, they could falsify the results of one of the tests.
Not that I'm saying that sort of thing happens (wink, wink) but it
could.
RicodJour
> On Aug 7, 6:29 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > A clean testing program treats all athletes equally.
> > No fair choosing an athlete for extra testing.
> > Increases the probability that a positive test will be obtained.
>
> say that extra testing doesn't raise the probability of a positive
> test, unless you're actually doping (unless the test protocol has an
> abnormally high false positive rate). Sort of like how buying two
> lottery tickets instead of one doesn't exactly put you at better odds
> of winning the lottery.
Of course not. The odds remain 50-50 regardless of circumstances.
Michael is under the delusion that probability can be something
besides 50-50 and that more frequent testing increases the
probability. Where does he come up with this stuff?!
R
Tom Kunich
news:150d2b17-0540-41a2...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> let me
> say that extra testing doesn't raise the probability of a positive
> test, unless you're actually doping (unless the test protocol has an
> abnormally high false positive rate). Sort of like how buying two
> lottery tickets instead of one doesn't exactly put you at better odds
> of winning the lottery.
You really don't understand this stuff do you?
1) The more testing of someone that doesn't use drugs, the MORE likely that
they'll have a false positive.
2) Two tickets doubles your chances of a win though that is usually a very
small number.
dusto...@mac.com
> I don't recall reading anyone claiming the test labs were infallible. I
> certainly don't think they are. The Landis testing was a complete disgrace.
As was the "appeals" "process".
> But unfortunately, the riders have screwed up repeatedly.
By getting caught-- or, accused via positive test? Or even by
possession (which does not prove use)?
> We wouldn't be
> having these issues if there wasn't a culture of doping.
Excuse me, but backing up a good healthy step or two here, "We
wouldn't be having these issues", or might not be, anyhow, if the
rules and the enforcement, were different. Which they most certainly
could be.
A case can be made, IRT "rider health", that careful dosages of some
"doping products" might not only _not_ be injurious to "rider health",
but in fact might be beneficial.
(I can hear the howls even from way over here in Austin. Google "blood
pathology endurance athlete" or such. Same for steroids;
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1214580768278932315> for
one.)
> A culture that
> shockingly has carried through to the youngest in the peloton. The Ricco and
> Sella cases should have been an eye-opener.
(excuse me) "Intimidation (including the incredibly bad Floyd affair)
doesn't work".
The problem is, as even The Testers admit, testing is imperfect. False
positives, and "false negatives" as well. Leaky as an old sieve, not a
Golden Protector of Health and Fairness in Sport.
> In the end, it's a lot like telling kids they shouldn't smoke. The evidence
> is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do it
> anyway, partly out of spite. I think that might be part of what's going on
> with the younger guys in the peloton. They feel they're immortal, that rules
> don't apply to them.
(excuse me) That's a very poor analogy because no one is paying kids
millions of dollars to make a career out of smoking.
Drug (doping) testing is inaccurate. Only some are "rightfully"
caught, while doping is rampant. And if you don't dope, you're a step
behind-- meaning, you don't reap the financial and other rewards.
Hardly "kid stuff".
> I think there's an unfortunate choice to be made. Clean things up in a
> drastic way, catching a few good guys in the 'net because there's no way to
> catch enough of the bad guys otherwise, or give up on the idea of
> competitive cycling as a fair competition. It's there for entertainment
> value only.
Fair? "Sport" is not "fair". Can a short guy guard Michael Jordan? Can
Shaq go to a second career as a jockey?
You don't think the Floyd affair was "drastic"?
> Many of the riders are IDIOTS. There, I said it. They know better, but they
> just can't resist temptation. Make the likelihood of getting caught stronger
> and they might get the message. And give hope to those who do manage to
> resist.
Again, "the message" is that it's imperative to dope intelligently and
not get caught. --D-y
Scott
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
hey, Tom... what's two times NOTHING?
Of course I understand that increased testing ups the rate of
probability of a false positive. Why the hell do you think I included
reference to that in my post???
The idea that increased testing won't result in a significantly higher
chance of a false positive requires that the rate of false positives
is quite low (approaching zero). If I recall, one of your concerns w/
the most testing protocols is that they either ignore, or don't even
know, the probability of false positives for a given test.
You must have missed the very thinly veiled sarcasm in my post, 'cause
I'm appalled that they don't seem to give a damn about the false
positive issue.
Tom Kunich
> On Aug 8, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:150d2b17-0540-41a2...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > let me
> > > say that extra testing doesn't raise the probability of a positive
> > > test, unless you're actually doping (unless the test protocol has an
> > > abnormally high false positive rate). Sort of like how buying two
> > > lottery tickets instead of one doesn't exactly put you at better odds
> > > of winning the lottery.
> >
> > You really don't understand this stuff do you?
> >
> > 1) The more testing of someone that doesn't use drugs, the MORE likely
> > that
> > they'll have a false positive.
> > 2) Two tickets doubles your chances of a win though that is usually a
> > very
> > small number.
>
> hey, Tom... what's two times NOTHING?
If someone wins that means the chances are more than nothing. Got that?
> Of course I understand that increased testing ups the rate of
> probability of a false positive. Why the hell do you think I included
> reference to that in my post???
It ups the chances DRAMATICALLY.
> The idea that increased testing won't result in a significantly higher
> chance of a false positive requires that the rate of false positives
> is quite low (approaching zero). If I recall, one of your concerns w/
> the most testing protocols is that they either ignore, or don't even
> know, the probability of false positives for a given test.
They do know that it is as high as 5% for many kinds of tests. Sooo - what
are the chances of a false positive if you test 20 riders none of whom are
using?
Scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom,
I get it. You missed the sarcasm in my post and assumed I don't. You
can stop arguing with me now, I agree with you. Do YOU get it?
William Asher
No way! I see those two in a thread and I think: "Ooooohhhh! Somebody get
the popcorn."
--
Bill Asher
Michael Press
<a5f477cf-1cf8-4610...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ila...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 7, 9:09 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> > > That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's
> > > the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post
> > > regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the
> > > samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should
> > > have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test
> > > which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is
> > > about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic
> > > arguments alone.
> >
> > I'm not competent to understand how this changes things, but testing has
> > moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that
> > there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using doping
> > products. So what's happening is that far fewer "clean" athletes are likley
> > to be tested (or so they hope), and far more rigorous testing is being done
> > for those whose profile or bloodwork implies they're more likely to be
> > doping.
> >
> > But it really might not change anything at all, other than the fact that
> > it's far less likely a clean athlete will have a false positive, because
> > it's far less likely that athlete is being tested in the first place. If
> > he/she is tested, the chances of that individual test reading incorrectly
> > are no different than before. But because of the smaller sample size, it's
> > less likely a bad test will pop up. Even though that false positive might be
> > less likely to be seen, when it does happen, it's little comfort to the
> > individual that they were simply unlucky.
>
> That argument applies to blood related doping, but as far as I know,
> there is no such targeting for other drugs. Remember, that it's
> something like 1% (or some such number) for each and every substance
> they are tested for! If the chance of a false positive is 1% for each
> of a 100 tests performed on a single sample, then you are getting into
> 50+% for a false positive on a single sample.
Remember too that with
99% true positive rate
99% true negative rate
5% usage rate in the tested population
a positive test leaves a 17% chance that the testee is not positive.
This kind of calculation applies to all medical screening
tests of the sort used daily in the population at large.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<150d2b17-0540-41a2...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Scott <hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a probability expert, but I play one on RBR. As such, let me
> say that extra testing doesn't raise the probability of a positive
> test, unless you're actually doping (unless the test protocol has an
> abnormally high false positive rate). Sort of like how buying two
> lottery tickets instead of one doesn't exactly put you at better odds
> of winning the lottery.
>
> Or, of course, they could falsify the results of one of the tests.
> Not that I'm saying that sort of thing happens (wink, wink) but it
> could.
We do not know the true positive and true negative rates.
The details of the tests are a closed book to us.
We know very little about the confounding factors in the testing,
and the sensitivity to errors. When should a test result,
positive or negative be discarded? What are the exact details
of the chemistry behind the tests? What is the reliability
of the laboratory doing the tests?
As for probability, your assertion "extra testing doesn't
raise the probability of a positive test, unless you're
actually doping ", is incorrect. Review the concept
`false positive.' It means a test result comes back positive
on a testee who is free of the syndrome. In absence of
more information we are obliged to assign a binomial
probability distribution.
False positive probability = p.
number of tests on samples free of the syndrome = n
probability that at least one positive result occurs = 1 - (1 - p)^n.
Suppose the false positive rate is 0.01 and we perform
100 tests on samples from testees free of the syndrome.
Probability that at least one false positive occurs = 1 - (0.99)^100 = 0.63.
--
Michael Press
Scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, you're pretty smart.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> evidence
> is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do it
> anyway, partly out of spite. I think that might be part of what's going on
> with the younger guys in the peloton. They feel they're immortal, that
> rules
> don't apply to them.
>>(excuse me) That's a very poor analogy because no one is paying kids
>>millions of dollars to make a career out of smoking.
Are you serious?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:03ba8f32-f805-4e38...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
dusto...@mac.com
wrote:
(MJ wrote):
> > In the end, it's a lot like telling kids they shouldn't smoke. The
> > evidence
> > is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do it
> > anyway, partly out of spite. I think that might be part of what's going on
> > with the younger guys in the peloton. They feel they're immortal, that
> > rules
> > don't apply to them.
(I replied):
> >>(excuse me) That's a very poor analogy because no one is paying kids
> >>millions of dollars to make a career out of smoking.
(MJ replied in turn):
> Are you serious?
(to which I reply):
Completely. Like with all pro sports, the money is always "there",
being at the elite level means making the money but to be at the elite
level means you have to have results, one way or another-- usually
meaning, _winning_.
All other considerations are pretty minor-- sure there might be some
of your "smokers' mentality" in the mix, but the main thing is
"results". And not getting caught if you're doping to get them. Given
the effectiveness of "doping" now available, and the apparent low
risk-- 190-odd riders in the TdF, they only busted what, three?-- the
"temptation" to dope is pretty huge.
I'd like to think I'm a "moral" kind of guy. But, it's like the
baseball player explained in an NPR show I keep referring to in these
discussions said-- if you're in the Majors, it's a real living (even
at minimum pay) and the experience is worlds better than being in the
minors, trying to eat on $25 a day (from memory) and riding on busses,
making peanuts (the "$17k dream"). Not to mention, name in the record
books, favorable treatment in social situations (getting a table in a
restaurant) and being able to mate with a much wider selection of
prospects... how are the anti-dopers going to "fix" that? --D-y
Bill C
> I'd like to think I'm a "moral" kind of guy. But, it's like the
> baseball player explained in an NPR show I keep referring to in these
> discussions said-- if you're in the Majors, it's a real living (even
> at minimum pay) and the experience is worlds better than being in the
> minors, trying to eat on $25 a day (from memory) and riding on busses,
> making peanuts (the "$17k dream"). Not to mention, name in the record
> books, favorable treatment in social situations (getting a table in a
> restaurant) and being able to mate with a much wider selection of
> prospects... how are the anti-dopers going to "fix" that? --D-y
The response has been to ramp up the risk/reward equation, which I
could live with IF the testing was solid, openly peer reviewed before
use, the athletes could have any samples tested at the lab of their
choice also, leaks weren't being used as a weapon, there was a
complete restructuring of the appeals process, and any possible
question/abnormality was deemed to invalidate the testing.
If we ramp up the penalties then we need to ramp up the
accountability, and accuracy of the labs, and the presumption of
innocence even more.
Bill C
Donald Munro
>> Come to think of it, perhaps you should invite JFT to the Fog-Anon
>> meeting.
William Asher wrote:
> No way! I see those two in a thread and I think: "Ooooohhhh! Somebody
> get the popcorn."
What flavour ? Some doughnuts too after all we are fatty masters.
Ryan Cousineau
<95f5edcc-239a-4db9...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 11:47 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
> (MJ wrote):
> > > In the end, it's a lot like telling kids they shouldn't smoke. The
> > > evidence
> > > is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do it
> > > anyway, partly out of spite.
> I'd like to think I'm a "moral" kind of guy. But, it's like the
> baseball player explained in an NPR show I keep referring to in these
> discussions said-- if you're in the Majors, it's a real living (even
> at minimum pay) and the experience is worlds better than being in the
> minors, trying to eat on $25 a day (from memory) and riding on busses,
> making peanuts (the "$17k dream"). Not to mention, name in the record
> books, favorable treatment in social situations (getting a table in a
> restaurant) and being able to mate with a much wider selection of
> prospects... how are the anti-dopers going to "fix" that? --D-y
Up the penalties to fines and castration?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Paul G.
> In article
> <95f5edcc-239a-4db9-8bf5-ccb50f423...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 11:47 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > (MJ wrote):
> > > > In the end, it's a lot like telling kids they shouldn't smoke. The
> > > > evidence
> > > > is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do it
> > > > anyway, partly out of spite.
> > I'd like to think I'm a "moral" kind of guy. But, it's like the
> > baseball player explained in an NPR show I keep referring to in these
> > discussions said-- if you're in the Majors, it's a real living (even
> > at minimum pay) and the experience is worlds better than being in the
> > minors, trying to eat on $25 a day (from memory) and riding on busses,
> > making peanuts (the "$17k dream"). Not to mention, name in the record
> > books, favorable treatment in social situations (getting a table in a
> > restaurant) and being able to mate with a much wider selection of
> > prospects... how are the anti-dopers going to "fix" that? --D-y
>
> Up the penalties to fines and castration?
>
<shrug> So they apply TWO testosterone patches to their empty nut
sacks.
-Paul
Mike Jacoubowsky
> > In the end, it's a lot like telling kids they shouldn't smoke. The
> > evidence
> > is clear that it will give them grief, maybe kill them. And yet they do
> > it
> > anyway, partly out of spite. I think that might be part of what's going
> > on
> > with the younger guys in the peloton. They feel they're immortal, that
> > rules
> > don't apply to them.
(I replied):
> >>(excuse me) That's a very poor analogy because no one is paying kids
> >>millions of dollars to make a career out of smoking.
(MJ replied in turn):
> Are you serious?
(to which I reply):
>Completely. Like with all pro sports, the money is always "there",
>being at the elite level means making the money but to be at the elite
>level means you have to have results, one way or another-- usually
>meaning, _winning_.
What I meant was, are you serious when you say that companies aren't
spending many millions of dollars to get kids to smoke? It might not be so
easily done now, but it was unquestionably the goal of tobacco companies to
get kids hooked at an early age, and they spent many millions of dollars
doing so.
So yes, someone is essentially paying kids millions of dollars to make a
career out of smoking. Not directly into their pockets, but it's every bit
as effective (as paying athletes to do whatever's required to win).
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:95f5edcc-239a-4db9...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
dusto...@mac.com
> What I meant was, are you serious when you say that companies aren't
> spending many millions of dollars to get kids to smoke? It might not be so
> easily done now, but it was unquestionably the goal of tobacco companies to
> get kids hooked at an early age, and they spent many millions of dollars
> doing so.
>
> So yes, someone is essentially paying kids millions of dollars to make a
> career out of smoking. Not directly into their pockets, but it's every bit
> as effective (as paying athletes to do whatever's required to win).
Welllll... It's still a poor analogy, precisely because no, the
nicotine kids are not getting paid (big) money.
There are strong incentives to smoke at least for some kids, but
having a nice house, name in the record books, financial security for
life, and... well, I guess if the one(s) you want to mate with think
smoking is cool, then smoking could be an advantage in that area of
life. --D-y
Donald Munro
>> Up the penalties to fines and castration?
Paul G. wrote:
> <shrug> So they apply TWO testosterone patches to their empty nut sacks.
There's more room for patches.
Paul G.
Bonus: they stick better to a flat surface.
Added bonus: that top tube doesn't hurt when you snap your chain!
-Paul