Where's the science?
ila...@gmail.com
What worries me the most about the latest round of Tour de France
doping scandals is how pure science, the basis for all doping tests,
is being forgotten in favour of political expediency. Riders are being
fired, teams are leaving the race, and sponsors are withdrawing
because of positive A samples, which in themselves do not provide any
kind of proof of doping. This is not surprising in the current climate
in which WADA head Dick Pound wanted Marion Jones to explain why her
EPO B sample returned negative after a positive A sample, Iban Mayo's
B sample was continually retested until it finally confirmed the
original A sample positive, and millions of L'Equipe readers are
convinced that the newspaper proved Armstrong's EPO use through the
analysis of his supposed frozen A sample.
One wonders whether the B sample will soon be relegated along with
presumption of innocence and I conjecture that most non-scientists
involved in cycling have no clue why the B sample is so important. For
this reason it is important to go over the basic reason for this
confirmation. Since medical science is imprecise due to the
inevitability of experimental error, medical tests such at the EPO
test cannot avoid having a marging or error, so even 1% chance of
getting a false positive is considered reasonable. However, elementary
probability theory shows that if the EPO test is administered 100
times (close to the numbers in this Tour de France), and (for the sake
of argument) the probability of a false positive is 1% for each test,
then the probability of having at least one false positive among the
100 rises to about 63%. In other words, as everyone is saying, more
tests mean more cheaters will get caught, but it also means that more
non-cheaters will get falsely accused from their A sample. That is
just an inescapable result of the inherent uncertainty of medical
science. And that's exactly where the B sample comes in, a falsely
accused clean rider will then have a 99% chance of being exonerated by
his B sample.
One can understand how the non-scientifically trained cycling
community might find the testing protocol labourious and unecessary,
however, there can be no excuse for lack of rigour and breach of
protocol by a scientific testing agency. In particular, the LNDD
laboratory was shown on a number of occasions to lack necessary high
scientific standards. The first example is the USADA Landis panel
which unanimously threw out the original test results for the
testosterone positive (though the CAS panel has since reversed this by
ruling that it was "good faith" incompetence). Secondly, the LNDD
gave a different interpretation of Mayo's B sample from two other
laboratories even though one of the basic principles of scientific
investigation is that an experiment must be repeatable and can be
verified independently. It is also important to mention the LNDD's
role in the fraudulent L'Equipe article on Armstrong's frozen samples
which led to it being chastised both by the IOC and the UCI. Far from
finding and eliminating the person or persons who leaked their results
to the newspaper, the LNDD has continued to leak their tests results
to L'Equipe. This is a clear violation of protocol as was recently
stated by WADA CEO David Howman referring to the LNDD-L'Equipe leaks
in an e-mail quoted on the LA Times website by reporter Phillip Hersh
in his article "What a bunch of cycling dope(r)s" of July 17, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2008/07/what-a-bunch-of.html
"The only organization that can match the anonymous sample to an
athlete is the one under whose jurisdiction the test was conducted.
WADA is disappointed by any breach of confidentiality that may occur
during the results management process. Any breach is unacceptable."
One can only wonder at the WADA definition of the word "unacceptable"
given the many years that these leaks have been going on without there
having been any formal action taken by the WADA on this matter.
Apart from having their jobs unjustly taken away before the
confirmation of their B sample, having their names leaked to the press
by the testing laboratory, the final blow to this year's Tour de
France riders is that they will have the added penalty of having their
B sample tested again at the LNDD due to ASO's rift with the UCI. In
other words, ASO has made sure that the embarassing string of negative
Mayo B samples will not be repeated. It is scary to think that the
riders are not even aware that their rights are being taken from them,
until they test positive that is.....
-ilan
Steven Bornfeld
I am by no means an expert on clinical laboratory technology, but
anyone who has gotten several medical tests or known someone who's
gotten several medical tests can testify to human and clinical fallibility.
It almost gives me a bit of sympathy for creationists trying to pass
"intelligent design" off as science. They tend to feel that science is
our new religion.
Of course it's not--not to scientists. But if you BELIEVE and have
FAITH in the INFALLIBILITY of the clinical test, maybe science as a
religion really is out there.
Steve
Donald Munro
> Of course it's not--not to scientists. But if you BELIEVE and have
> FAITH in the INFALLIBILITY of the clinical test, maybe science as a
> religion really is out there.
Not really. More a case of people who want to believe something without
having to think for themselves. That's what makes religions popular.
ila...@gmail.com
I just managed to connect my wife's Nintendo DS to our Wifi. I can do
ANYTHING!
-ilan
Ryan Cousineau
<c0b5db24-3745-4e51...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
ila...@gmail.com wrote:
Translation: ilan just turned off the WPA security on his access point.
Free internet if you're in the neighbourhood!
I do anything for a living,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
dusto...@mac.com
> Apart from having their jobs unjustly taken away before the
> confirmation of their B sample, having their names leaked to the press
> by the testing laboratory, the final blow to this year's Tour de
> France riders is that they will have the added penalty of having their
> B sample tested again at the LNDD due to ASO's rift with the UCI. In
> other words, ASO has made sure that the embarassing string of negative
> Mayo B samples will not be repeated. It is scary to think that the
> riders are not even aware that their rights are being taken from them,
> until they test positive that is.....
This sounds like a a a con con conspira cy.
Conspiracy. Not "Conspiracy Theory".
"Let's get a positive reader in here!"
There's a strong element of revenge for the failure of past attempts
to intimidate in all of this.
IOW, some athletes are still getting Pounded. --D-y
Mike Jacoubowsky
| confirmation of their B sample, having their names leaked to the press
| by the testing laboratory, the final blow to this year's Tour de
| France riders is that they will have the added penalty of having their
| B sample tested again at the LNDD due to ASO's rift with the UCI. In
| other words, ASO has made sure that the embarassing string of negative
| Mayo B samples will not be repeated. It is scary to think that the
| riders are not even aware that their rights are being taken from them,
| until they test positive that is.....
|
| -ilan
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the timing is awful.
There appears to be plenty of evidence, including confessions & confiscated materials, to indicate that doping is, indeed, going on. And that at least some of those caught are dead-to-rights guilty as charged. That being the case, arguments such as yours may simply reinforce the mindset of those who believe that doping must be stopped regardless of the costs, regardless of how many innocents are caught up in the net. Why? Because you're making your case at a time in which nearly everyone believes in the guilt of those charged, and thus you come across similar to a defense lawyer for a client that everyone knows is guilty, and trying to get the client off on a technicality.
This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
<ila...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:74e3445d-afcd-46a3...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Shawn
>
> I understand the point you're trying to make, but the timing is awful.
>
> There appears to be plenty of evidence, including confessions & confiscated materials, to indicate that doping is, indeed, going on. And that at least some of those caught are dead-to-rights guilty as charged. That being the case, arguments such as yours may simply reinforce the mindset of those who believe that doping must be stopped regardless of the costs, regardless of how many innocents are caught up in the net. Why? Because you're making your case at a time in which nearly everyone believes in the guilt of those charged, and thus you come across similar to a defense lawyer for a client that everyone knows is guilty, and trying to get the client off on a technicality.
>
> This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Wow, the "Kill 'em all and let god sort it out" argument!
B samples are not technicalities, they are the real evidence. Positive
"A" samples are (from a scientific inquiry point of view) only the
suggestion to look further, not actionable data.
It's unconscionable, and I'm surprised that it's been legally
defensible, that ANY action including a press release, can be taken on
the result of a test of a single sample.
Shawn
Mike Jacoubowsky
I'd feel very differently... and have, in the past felt very differently... if it appeared that those caught were likely innocent. But so far, that hasn't been the case. We have equipment confiscated from one riders room, and confessions from the team mate of another. Beltran remains, so far as I know, the only rider without substantial corroborating evidence that the "A" sample's result is indicative of doping.
I cannot and will not defend the manner in which the ASO disregards basic decency by allowing test results to be leaked to L'Equipe; that's inexcusable, and casts doubt on the motivations and devotion to science of those in the lab.
pm
> And that's exactly where the B sample comes in, a falsely
> accused clean rider will then have a 99% chance of being exonerated by
> his B sample.
Unfortunately no, this will only happen if false positives can be
attributed entirely to variability in the testing procedure. If that
were the case, we could just develop a highly expensive test to
eliminate variability in the test procedure, and no B sample would be
needed.
In reality, test results are contaminated by the variability of the
test subject's physiology. Since A and B samples are taken at the same
time, and tested under the same criteria, testing of a B sample cannot
achieve anywhere near 99% exoneration of false positives.
In diagnostic medicine, when you get a positive result on one test,
you don't repeat the same test on a frozen and thawed portion of the
same sample as though that would help. Rather, you confirm or
disconfirm the diagnosis by performing a *different* test (that is
affected by different sources of variability in the patient's
physiology.).
-pm
Donald Munro
> Translation: ilan just turned off the WPA security on his access point.
> Free internet if you're in the neighbourhood!
Now all we need is tED or h**2 to provide us with some good
porn links.
BTW I prefer h**2 to tED as a porn link provider; h**2 has
a much better looking ass.
Donald Munro
> In diagnostic medicine, when you get a positive result on one test, you
> don't repeat the same test on a frozen and thawed portion of the same
> sample as though that would help. Rather, you confirm or disconfirm the
> diagnosis by performing a *different* test (that is affected by different
> sources of variability in the patient's physiology.).
Different tests would be nice but some of the current tests aren't
even subject to peer review which is another scientific cornerstone.
Ted van de Weteringe
> BTW I prefer h**2 to tED as a porn link provider; h**2 has
> a much better looking ass.
Is it less hairy? Because if you're talking form, I don't know.
Ted van de Weteringe
> This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.
It always is, Wild Bill.
DC
> Wow, the "Kill 'em all and let god sort it out" argument!
> B samples are not technicalities, they are the real evidence. Positive
> "A" samples are (from a scientific inquiry point of view) only the
> suggestion to look further, not actionable data.
> It's unconscionable, and I'm surprised that it's been legally
> defensible, that ANY action including a press release, can be taken on
> the result of a test of a single sample.
There's a difference between the Tour and, say, an Olympic event. If a
rider tests positive in an Olympic time trial, their B sample can be
tested before any action is taken against the athlete. Delaying the
action has no effect, the race is already over.
If a rider tests positive during the middle of the Tour but is allowed
to continue riding until the outcome of testing of the B sample is
known, then the extra few days delay in taking action can change the
outcome of the race.
So, by taking action immediately after the results of the A sample test
are known, there might be a 1% chance that a rider is unjustly removed
from the race. However, leaving the rider in the race potentially
effects the tactics of everyone else - especially if no one knows about
the positive test.
Nobody
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Shawn" <scurryno...@commiecast.net> wrote in message news:2s2dnSctTvQmVB_V...@comcast.com...
>| Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>| >
>| > I understand the point you're trying to make, but the timing is awful.
>| >
>There appears to be plenty of evidence, including confessions &
> confiscated materials, to indicate that doping is, indeed, going on.
> And that at least some of those caught are dead-to-rights guilty as
>charged. That being the case, arguments such as yours may simply
>reinforce the mindset of those who believe that doping must be
>stopped regardless of the costs, regardless of how many innocents are
>caught up in the net. Why? Because you're making your case at a time
>in which nearly everyone believes in the guilt of those charged, ..and
>thus you come across similar to a defense lawyer for a client that
>everyone knows is guilty, and trying to get the client off on a
>technicality.
>| >
-- This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.--
>| >
>| > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>| > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
No time for technicalities? Gosh, then we don't even need science or
testing. We'll just have Mr J go over and tell by looking at the
riders who's guilty.
What a savings that would be, in time, money, equipment, testing
supplies.
I'm all for it.
Tom Kunich
news:4883398d$0$20558$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> So, by taking action immediately after the results of the A sample test
> are known, there might be a 1% chance that a rider is unjustly removed
> from the race. However, leaving the rider in the race potentially effects
> the tactics of everyone else - especially if no one knows about the
> positive test.
The problem is that this isn't a 1% chance. Apparently it is more like a
3-5% chance.
DC
> The problem is that this isn't a 1% chance. Apparently it is more like a
> 3-5% chance.
Say it's a 5% chance then. What's the chance that failing to act quickly
will change the outcome of the Tour?
Personally, I don't know. It's impossible to say. However, some people
say that we might have had a different winner last year if Rasmussen had
been removed a few days earlier.
My point is that leaving drug cheats in the Tour can change its outcome.
Robert Chung
> In diagnostic medicine, when you get a positive result on one test,
> you don't repeat the same test on a frozen and thawed portion of the
> same sample as though that would help. Rather, you confirm or
> disconfirm the diagnosis by performing a *different* test (that is
> affected by different sources of variability in the patient's
> physiology.).
I believe that's what happened in the Landis case. The "A" sample was
tested for T/E ratio. The "B" sample was tested for the presence of
synthetic T. The "A" sample was subsequently acknowledged by the
arbitrators to have been a false positive, and should not have
triggered a B test. However, two of the three arbitrators argued that
despite this, the B test result was admissible.
Donald Munro
> No time for technicalities? Gosh, then we don't even need science or
> testing. We'll just have Mr J go over and tell by looking at the riders
> who's guilty.
Pound would have enjoyed doing that.
Howard Kveck
DC <us...@nospam.net> wrote:
In the Olympics, there are often a series of races (I'm thinking track events
here) to winnow the field down to the final few so a rider can continue on,
eliminating other riders, while his sample(s) are tested.
--
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?
ila...@gmail.com
> It's unconscionable, and I'm surprised that it's been legally
> defensible, that ANY action including a press release, can be taken on
> the result of a test of a single sample.
Yes, it's considered completely wrong in other sports. For example,
when L'Equipe did its standard leak about Michael Phelps (except they
waited for swimming worlds to have maximum impact) there was a general
outcry and it was the test and the newspaper which were put into
question by officials, e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/mar/31/swimming
-ilan
Bob Schwartz
> Wow, the "Kill 'em all and let god sort it out" argument!
Entirely appropriate given the phrase's French origins.
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
I don't believe there are any Albigensians riding for Saunier
Duval though.
Bob Schwartz
Bill C
wrote:
They just might herd 'em into a cathedral and light it anyway. That's
the tradition isn't it?
Bill C
2bow...@gmail.com
> | > This is not the time for technicalities
Who yielded the floor to the honorable senator from Wisconsin??
Mark
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> | Apart from having their jobs unjustly taken away before the
> | confirmation of their B sample, having their names leaked to the press
> | by the testing laboratory, the final blow to this year's Tour de
> | France riders is that they will have the added penalty of having their
> | B sample tested again at the LNDD due to ASO's rift with the UCI. In
> | other words, ASO has made sure that the embarassing string of negative
> | Mayo B samples will not be repeated. It is scary to think that the
> | riders are not even aware that their rights are being taken from them,
> | until they test positive that is.....
> |
> | -ilan
>
> I understand the point you're trying to make, but the timing is awful.
>
[...]
> This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.
Mike, I just spoke about technicalities within the last few days.
Why did you not challenge me directly? You make a categorical
assertion contrary to what I said, do not acknowledge that you
challenge what I said, and offer not support for your assertion.
We all know that it is your opinion.
--
Michael Press
Mike Jacoubowsky
|
| > | > This is not the time for technicalities
|
| Who yielded the floor to the honorable senator from Wisconsin??
|
| Mark
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers. Try Kalifornia.
Mike Jacoubowsky
| testing. We'll just have Mr J go over and tell by looking at the
| riders who's guilty.
Yes, this is not the time. Wait a while until we see how it all plays out. See if the "B" samples show positive, watch for whatever mistakes might be made, attack the process then. But to be launching a crusade now is simply really bad timing. It would be quite different if there wasn't corroborating evidence pointing towards guilt. But there is. Attacking the process at this moment comes across as suggesting that either there isn't a doping problem, or that it's irrelevant.
And notice I said this-
| -- This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.--
That's very different from saying there's "No time for technicalities." There *is* a time, after everyone's showed their cards. But for now we have to go with what the teams & riders already (and perhaps you'd say foolishly) agreed upon.
--
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Nobody" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:nie684h8vqpqn05sa...@4ax.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
| >
|
| [...]
|
| > This is not the time for technicalities, in my opinion.
|
| Mike, I just spoke about technicalities within the last few days.
| Why did you not challenge me directly? You make a categorical
| assertion contrary to what I said, do not acknowledge that you
| challenge what I said, and offer not support for your assertion.
| We all know that it is your opinion.
|
| --
| Michael Press
You've lost me. I never made a categorical assertion contrary to what you said. I said the TIMING was wrong. The point I was trying to make, and obviously failed, is that it makes sense to wait a bit until the dust has settled, because people are going to turn a deaf ear towards reform of the process to protect rights while at that very moment evidence continues to pile up that doping is a problem, corroborative evidence that supports the initial positive test result. To do otherwise is seen as an effort to get dopers off the hook.
How long before someone asks if my favorite movie is "M"?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:rubrum-1E8B90....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Nobody
You mean Dick Pound famous porn actor?
Donald Munro
> You mean Dick Pound famous porn actor?
You're probably thinking of Bill Asher. His producer
is the rbr expert on global warming.
2bow...@gmail.com
> <2bowl...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1a774d81-01e7-4e3f...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> |
> | > | > This is not the time for technicalities
> |
> | Who yielded the floor to the honorable senator from Wisconsin??
> |
> | Mark
>
Mike,
My comment is not regarding your domicile.
I hope you wrote the "technicalities" post in a moment of anger and
will consider your position further.
Mark
Mike Jacoubowsky
> will consider your position further.
You'll have to explain what it is that I said that you found so offensive. Meantime, please, someone, show me the evidence this year that the doping police have crossed over the line and done terrible harm to innocent people in this years' TdF. Or explain how the 'Tour would have been better off last year to allow Vino to continue prior to crossing the t's and dotting the i's required for the second test (which could have possibly resulted in yet another TdF result re-written after the fact).
There are problems with the current system, sure. But since this is an event where the spoils of cheating are so well defined and effective, there simply isn't time, during the event, for due process. The downside to that? Without draconian measures that can be taken against the ASO or testing organizations in the event of a screw-up, there's both a lack of incentive to prevent screw-ups, and a severe imbalance to the scales of justice, since there's currently no method of compensating a rider for, say, a TdF podium opportunity lost.
The system should be engineered such that the ASO and testing labs are scared to death of the possibility of a mistake, or release of information not according to the rules. But at the same time, the riders should be scared to death that, if caught cheating during the event, they won't have the opportunity to drag the process out and stay in the race.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
<2bow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:651993af-9dbc-47d9...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Bob Schwartz
>> I hope you wrote the "technicalities" post in a moment of anger and
>> will consider your position further.
>
> You'll have to explain what it is that I said that you found so offensive. Meantime, please, someone, show me the evidence this year that the doping police have crossed over the line and done terrible harm to innocent people in this years' TdF. Or explain how the 'Tour would have been better off last year to allow Vino to continue prior to crossing the t's and dotting the i's required for the second test (which could have possibly resulted in yet another TdF result re-written after the fact).
>
> There are problems with the current system, sure. But since this is an event where the spoils of cheating are so well defined and effective, there simply isn't time, during the event, for due process. The downside to that? Without draconian measures that can be taken against the ASO or testing organizations in the event of a screw-up, there's both a lack of incentive to prevent screw-ups, and a severe imbalance to the scales of justice, since there's currently no method of compensating a rider for, say, a TdF podium opportunity lost.
>
> The system should be engineered such that the ASO and testing labs are scared to death of the possibility of a mistake, or release of information not according to the rules. But at the same time, the riders should be scared to death that, if caught cheating during the event, they won't have the opportunity to drag the process out and stay in the race.
>
I think the Tour should be taken off it's pedestal as
something that is of critical importance in people's
lives and relegated to it's proper role as entertainment.
I think proper courses of action will become clear if
that ever happens.
Not that I am expecting it to ever happen.
Bob Schwartz
bjwe...@gmail.com
> > | > | > This is not the time for technicalities
>
> > will consider your position further.
>
>
> this is an event where the spoils of cheating are so well
> defined and effective, there simply isn't time, during the event,
Dumbass,
I don't go so far as Ilan in saying this is a rights
or employment issue. Nobody has to be a bike racer.
There are rules, and it would be perfectly valid to
set up the rules to kick people out of the race after
an A test.
However, when you say this is not the time for
technicalities or due process, you leave open
the question, when _is_ the time? Generally,
nobody needs due process until they're accused
of something. This is why even arrogant Italians
who look guilty, guilty, guilty should be treated by
the same rules as poor suffering innocents
whose dog just happened to die.
If ASO, the UCI, or WADA want to publicize and
suspend after a positive A sample, they should
rewrite the rules to let them do that and say
"Oops we screwed up, sorry, tough shit" if the
B comes back negative. Instead, they
just do whatever they please and have no
obligation to treat the riders objectively (witness
the history of Mayo's B-sample).
By calling the existing rules a bunch of technicalities
and due process something we don't have time
for, you're endorsing the position that doping is
an emergency that requires suspending the rules.
If you think so, change the rules, don't break them.
Ben
Davey Crockett
| I think the Tour should be taken off it's pedestal as
| something that is of critical importance in people's
| lives and relegated to it's proper role as entertainment.
| I think proper courses of action will become clear if
| that ever happens.
|
Professional sports _are_ entertainment
--
Davey Crockett
-
The continuing occupation of Iraq by US forces guarantees a mass death
rate in excess of 10,000 people per month with half that number dying
at the hands of US forces - a carnage so severe and so concentrated as
to equate it with the most heinous mass killings in world history.
ila...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please stop making sense, this newsgroup is for entertainment value
alone. Sensible messages, like clean sports, are boring.
-ilan
Davey Crockett
It seems to Davey that the testing process is not thorough enough. Not
referring here to the actual laboratory work, but to the inferences
drawn from the test results produced by the laboratories.
Currently, rightly or wrongly, but in any instance by current observed
practice, the rider is adjudged "guilty" after the first or "A"
Sample which Davey thinks is pure bullshit.
It's commonly accepted that drug testing is highly accurate, even to
99 percent which seems very reasonable at first blush.
But the rudimentary application of Bayes Theorem indicates the flaws in
that logic. Without going through the arithmetic, if the test is
deemed 99 percent effective, and an estimated 5 percent of riders use
drugs, there is only around an 83 percent chance that a rider who
tested positive actually is positive, leaving a 17 percent
chance/probability that the positive finding is false. We can ignore
false negatives here as they give the rider a "pass".
The second test, or "B" sample, which is only applied currently if the
first sample is positive significantly reduces the probability of a
false positive. Like 17 percent times 17 percent or roughly 3 percent.
Where the druggies in the population decreases, the probability that a
positive rider actually did use drugs decreases dramatically until
when almost no riders actually dope up, the testing becomes a Witch
Hunt.
Is this good enough?
Is Bayesian inference useful in this situation?
Perhaps a third sample is the answer? Suppose we had more certified
laboratories, possibly the samples could be sent, ignoring costs, to
(1) a laboratory of the Organizer's choice, (2) a laboratory of the
Team or Sponsor's choice and (3) a laboratory of the rider's
choice. With safeguards to ensure that the samples all went to
separate laboratories.
Currently there is still some suspicion if the "B" sample comes up
negative. Would "Two out of Three" improve the situation?
Also, any test results "leaked" to the press would result in a
laboratory's being "decertified" for sport testing purposes.
Or is Davey all firked up as usual?
Tom Kunich
news:878wvvh...@azurservers.com...
> Is Bayesian inference useful in this situation?
>
> Perhaps a third sample is the answer? Suppose we had more certified
> laboratories, possibly the samples could be sent, ignoring costs, to
> (1) a laboratory of the Organizer's choice, (2) a laboratory of the
> Team or Sponsor's choice and (3) a laboratory of the rider's
> choice. With safeguards to ensure that the samples all went to
> separate laboratories.
>
> Currently there is still some suspicion if the "B" sample comes up
> negative. Would "Two out of Three" improve the situation?
>
> Also, any test results "leaked" to the press would result in a
> laboratory's being "decertified" for sport testing purposes.
>
> Or is Davey all firked up as usual?
I think that you have a good solution to the problem. I especially like the
decertification of labs who leak results.
Davey Crockett
Yes, it seems like all kinds of horribles happen before a rider is
really proven guilty.
It has to stop.
Davey doesn't race any more, apart from the odd local time trial or
kermesse, but he does ride lots of sportif and occasionally randonneur
events and even these events rely heavily on sponsors.
I would hate to see that sponsorship disappear due to backlash from
the pro peloton doping, or rumours therof.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> By calling the existing rules a bunch of technicalities
> and due process something we don't have time
> for, you're endorsing the position that doping is
> an emergency that requires suspending the rules.
This kind of talk will embolden our enemies: the dopers.
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
You think you're too cool and level headed to ask for a pony?
Donald Munro
>> By calling the existing rules a bunch of technicalities and due process
>> something we don't have time for, you're endorsing the position that
>> doping is an emergency that requires suspending the rules.
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> This kind of talk will embolden our enemies: the dopers.
Think of the children.
2bow...@gmail.com
> You'll have to explain what it is that I said that you found so offensive.
Mike,
Upfront, I think you are a good dude so don't get too twisted up about
an internet argument. That said, here is the debate and why you should
reconsider what you wrote previously.
The offensive part of your position is that you are apparently willing
to damn some innocents to catch a few of the guilty. History teaches
us that this approach may feel good for a short period but then leads
to negative outcomes with larger negative consequences than intended.
Take a look at the larger picture and not just the current tour
(TIOOYK). Outside of the hyperbole, this sport is not dying. Based on
the TV coverage, the fans are still fans and even guys in RBR that
swore off the tour are obviously watching this year despite
protestations to the contrary. So while cheating is a real issue, it
is a manageable issue.
To clarify my position:
(1) I am involved in laboratory testing in the pharma industry so I
understand the tests reasonably well. The root problem in catching
dopers is that the testing is actually difficult and the methods are
imprecise. To flip the argument around, if doping is as widespread as
we expect, we should be apoplectic that the process only catches
randoms who screw up their programs. Even when the testers get lucky,
the labwork is done poorly enough that the cheats can then cast
significant doubt on the findings. Rather than applauding WADAs
accidental success' we should ask why they can't, or won't, do better.
(2) I have discussed some of the doping detection issues with a few
individuals from WADA and related labs. It is not unreasonable to
suggest that some (but not all) of these individuals have lost
perspective. Those individuals are convinced that everyone cheats and
all should be punished. A scientific issue thus becomes a religious
quest. This is a huge problem as objectivity is eliminated. Your
position feeds this beast which is why it should be reconsidered.
(2.1) I agree with lifetime bans for proven cheats or those that
confess. Get them out of here in total. But be certain that they
actually did what they are accused of by using good tests, methods and
process.
(3) I agree with others in RBR who argue that pro sports are basically
entertainment. I don't care what an adult pro cyclist does to enhance
or prolong his career. Perhaps I should but there are more important
matters to consider. That said, there are collatoral issues with
doping and because of that I would like to see it eliminated.
(4) There is actual crime which police could be occupied with. Pursuit
of EPO shooting 120 pound cyclists is a waste of limited resources.
We're also wasting medical resources chasing sporting cheats as
opposed to treating disease. This is another waste of resources on
something that is relatively unimportant.
Speaking to the lab testing issues and how that affects the debate.
The problem is type I and type II error rates. It's already been
explained well in this forum and there are numerous statistics guides
online if you'd like to better understand this. From the moral
perspective, because of false positives (the rate of which is
unpublished and probably unknown with good precision) the labs are
going to snare individuals that are innocent. This has happend and
we've discussed it before. If the false positive rate is a few percent
and you do enough testing you are going to identify non-cheats as
cheats. Given the current environment (which you are feeding) it'll be
just about impossible for a non-cheat to defend themselves in a timely
manner and resume their careers.
So in the end, simply because of the way this comes together, the path
that you are advocating is one where you are apparently willing to
ruin careers and lives in order to catch a few more cheaters. I find
that an indefensible position even though the basic problem has
importance to me as a racer and as a fan of pro cycling.
Take home is that although we would both like to see the same outcome
(elimination of doping) I simply don't agree that encouraging poor
testing and political agendas is the right way to do this. From my
perspective, your solutuon is emotional and illogical and given
historical precendents will result in a cure that is worse than the
disease.
Have a beer and give it a think. If you are not moved that is fine.
Apologies for the length, but you asked a question that deserves a
respectful answer since I did compare your perspective to a witch
hunter / cheesehead :-)
Best,
Mark
SLAVE of THE STATE
> If ASO, the UCI, or WADA want to publicize and
> suspend after a positive A sample, they should
> rewrite the rules to let them do that and say
> "Oops we screwed up, sorry, tough shit" if the
> B comes back negative. Instead, they
> just do whatever they please and have no
> obligation to treat the riders objectively (witness
> the history of Mayo's B-sample).
"Just do whatever they please..." They just did it with Ricco, didn't
they? (Of course, I don't know all the events or the exact sequence.)
Prud[e] and others were publicly saying guilty guilty guilty before
the B test. I can live with suspension on an A-positive. (I can live
with any rules really, as it is voluntary.) But I think they are just
like politicians who simply want people to perceive them as "tough on
dope regardless of who gets run over. Really, they *are* politicians.
The difference between a Prud[e] and me is that Prud[e] *ought* imo
appear more objective and cool in the storm. For me, I believe Ricco
is guilty guilty guilty, but then I am a nobody.
And I think they oughta be testing the domestiques and 2nd & 3rd place
too, if they want to be viewed as objective rather than as political
whores.
Whores -- they are everywhere. Is that okay?
Mike Jacoubowsky
However, when you say this is not the time for
technicalities or due process, you leave open
the question, when _is_ the time? Generally,
nobody needs due process until they're accused
of something. This is why even arrogant Italians
who look guilty, guilty, guilty should be treated by
the same rules as poor suffering innocents
whose dog just happened to die.
(Someday I'll figure out why my replies don't properly "quote" some posts)
What, exactly, is "due process?" According to this-
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm
"DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The
Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's
basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'
Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular
cases."
But that references the US Constitution, and when you do a search on
International Due Process, you get into a real mixed bag, most of it dealing
with refugees.
Are we claiming that this is a basic human rights issue? Does that really
apply to athletes who agree to the measures in question ahead of time, and
aren't forced into this line of work?
But to answer the question about *when* is the time (for "technicalities"),
I would say it should occur within a set period of time after the event,
perhaps no more than 5-10 days, which should have given enough time for the
B sample to be analyzed. There should be no long drawn out period in which
the athlete exists in a no-mans land, unable to compete due to allegations
that have, as yet, not been proven.
My opinion on this has changed dramatically since the Floyd Landis affair. I
still feel (strongly) that the lab did a terrible job and his results should
have been thrown out. But at the same time, had the tests been from an
earlier stage, and the lab & ASO felt were conclusive enough to throw him
out of the race, they should have been able to. BUT- with the caveat that
they would be liable for appropriate damages if it could be shown they
screwed up, which would provide a huge incentive to not screw up.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c968d913-e475-4c93...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Amit Ghosh
> Riders are being
> fired, teams are leaving the race, and sponsors are withdrawing
> because of positive A samples, which in themselves do not provide any
> kind of proof of doping.
dumbass,
i agree that the rules should be followed as they are written or
revised if they aren't adequate, but the choice to declare a rider
positive after both to A and B sample return adverse findings is an
arbitrary one.
the notion of two tests has become convention, but there isn't a
compelling reason why it shouldn't be just one or three or more.
Tom Kunich
news:9673bcf7-2f7a-4b06...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> i agree that the rules should be followed as they are written or
> revised if they aren't adequate, but the choice to declare a rider
> positive after both to A and B sample return adverse findings is an
> arbitrary one.
>
> the notion of two tests has become convention, but there isn't a
> compelling reason why it shouldn't be just one or three or more.
And here I thought you understood fairly simple mathematics.
Mike Jacoubowsky
quotes, I could more readily resond! :>)
As it is, I'm forced to top-post a bit. There's very little you've said that
I disagree with, and I think you've misunderstood my position. I feel there
should be draconian penalties for the labs and the ASO or WADA or whomever
when they get it wrong, and the threat of those draconian penalties should
provide for more-accurate results and fewer screw-ups.
But there are two separate issues here. One is the "due process" argument,
which I feel I've addressed at length, summarizing my position here as, yes,
a positive A sample is enough to remove someone from competition, but if
they've got it wrong, the rider has avenues to seek substantial
compensation. The whole thing about "technicalities" is probably sending
things in the wrong direction. "Technicalities" are obviously required in
order to scrutinize the process and ensure fairness. What, unfortunately,
cannot (in my opinion) be entirely fair is that a rider will be dismissed
from an event without recourse, based upon the initial findings. I just
don't see a way around this.
The second thing you bring up remains very troublesome, that being the
continuing likelihood of false positives. I still don't understand the
testing well enough to know if there are absolute ways to prove that someone
had a false positive, or if it's just one of those things where you can
predict that some will, but can't verify it on an individual basis.
Careers should not be allowed to be ruined based upon either shoddy labwork
or false positives. There are solutions for the shoddy labwork (make them
financially liable), but the false positive issue is something else again.
And once more, my apologies for having to top-post this one.
Thanks for the explanations; I do appreciate the effort you put into it.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<2bow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a211eb0a-64d7-43d4...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Tom Kunich
news:Zq7hk.6370$cn7...@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> If I could only figure out why my newsreader won't indent or "<" your
> quotes, I could more readily resond! :>)
Because he's using HTML instead of plain ASCII text.
> As it is, I'm forced to top-post a bit. There's very little you've said
> that I disagree with, and I think you've misunderstood my position. I feel
> there should be draconian penalties for the labs and the ASO or WADA or
> whomever when they get it wrong, and the threat of those draconian
> penalties should provide for more-accurate results and fewer screw-ups.
Here's the problem - it isn't necessarily a screw-up on the part of the
labs. It is a statistical probability that the tests will result in an
occasional false positive and equally an occasional false negative through
different tests have different rates of both failures.
The problem is that the more unlikely it is to find a positive, the more
likely it is to get a false positive.
Unlike mechanical real-world stuff - chemical analysis has a lot of
variables that cannot be completely controlled. What's more, the tests have
never been sufficiently validated so that in most cases they don't even have
a clue what the rates of false positives are. And because the tests haven't
been completely validated there may be physiological differences in some
riders in which tests will turn up false positives a large percentage of the
time.
This is something that those in such careers understand and it is very
surprising to us the way that these tests are thrown about as if they were
gospel before backup varification tests have been performed.
So the underlying problem is this - with EVERYONE involved doing their very
best there could still be false multiple positives from riders. The way you
usually solve something like this is that you have SEVERAL different types
of tests for a particular target chemical and different types of tests have
to test positive multiple times.
bjwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ================
> However, when you say this is not the time for
> technicalities or due process, you leave open
> the question, when _is_ the time? Generally,
> nobody needs due process until they're accused
> of something. This is why even arrogant Italians
> who look guilty, guilty, guilty should be treated by
> the same rules as poor suffering innocents
> whose dog just happened to die.
> ================
>
> (Someday I'll figure out why my replies don't properly "quote" some posts)
>
>
> "DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The
> Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's
> basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'
> Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular
> cases."
>
> But that references the US Constitution, and when you do a search on
> International Due Process, you get into a real mixed bag, most of it dealing
> with refugees.
>
> Are we claiming that this is a basic human rights issue? Does that really
> apply to athletes who agree to the measures in question ahead of time, and
> aren't forced into this line of work?
>
> But to answer the question about *when* is the time (for "technicalities"),
> I would say it should occur within a set period of time after the event,
> perhaps no more than 5-10 days, which should have given enough time for the
> B sample to be analyzed. There should be no long drawn out period in which
> the athlete exists in a no-mans land, unable to compete due to allegations
> that have, as yet, not been proven.
>
Mike,
"Due process," meaning due process of law, is a
statement about just that, process - the laws should be
followed as written and applied equally to all. It doesn't
necessarily say what the rules should be or have anything
to do with fundamental human rights. It is an Anglo/American
legal concept, but I think there are basically similar ideas
in European law now. Essentially it is anti-monarchical -
the idea that the laws cannot be superseded by a king,
president, unitary executive, CIA interrogator, or a sheriff's
deputy with a chip on his shoulder.
The end state of what you advocate is reasonable.
You're just getting to it the wrong way. The current
situation is broken. When you say that we should
suspend due process and technicalities while the
race is going on, and fix it up later, you forget that
the dope cops use one case as precedent for the
next, always expanding what they can do. I'm going
to go libertarian and channel SLAVE of the STATE for
a moment: when you surrender a right to authority,
the chances that the authority will give it back once
the so-called state of emergency is past are very
very small.
This is why you should be advocating to change
the rules first, rather than saying riders should be
fired mid-race and we can fix the rules and the
LNDD leaks later. A month from now, no one will
be agitating to fix the rules.
I think Ricco is a bigmouth with Gary Hart syndrome
who likely had what he thought was undetectable
new EPO. Oops. It would suck to leave him in the
race for a couple of extra days. However, this was
foreseeable, and they should have changed the rules
before starting the Tour. And they should have provided
for expediting the B-test. I'm not sure if they've done
his yet, but they certainly haven't leaked the result yet.
Ben
ila...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> "Due process," meaning due process of law, is a
> statement about just that, process - the laws should be
> followed as written and applied equally to all. It doesn't
> necessarily say what the rules should be or have anything
> to do with fundamental human rights. It is an Anglo/American
> legal concept, but I think there are basically similar ideas
> in European law now. Essentially it is anti-monarchical -
> the idea that the laws cannot be superseded by a king,
> president, unitary executive, CIA interrogator, or a sheriff's
> deputy with a chip on his shoulder.
What you are referring to here is "raison d'etat" in French,
essentially, "national interest." This was at the center of the debate
during the Dreyfus affair 1894-1906, that is, whether saving
appearances for the sake of the Army was more important that justice
for one man. The complete exoneration of Dreyfus in 1906 by the French
judicial system meant the victory of due process over state secret.
French justice still seems to be bizarre to me. For example, the
attempted murderer of Dreyfus who shot him in front of hundreds of
witnesses (including most of the government) and the assassin of Jean
Jaures were both acquitted, even though both the perpetrators admitted
that they shot the person. In other words, the jury was not there
simply to decide on the facts, whether Dreyfus was shot by Gregori or
Jaures by Vilain, as they would be in an American court, but decided
their verdict on whether Dreyfus and Jaures *deserved* to be shot
(their answer was yes, Dreyfus because he caused so much damage to the
Army and Jaures because he had tried to prevent WWI and France's
glorious victory in that conflict). Just a couple of more entries in
the French hall of shame, though such decisions are less common these
days :).
-ilan
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On Jul 22, 1:21 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Due process," meaning due process of law, is a
> > statement about just that, process - the laws should be
> > followed as written and applied equally to all. It doesn't
> > necessarily say what the rules should be or have anything
> > to do with fundamental human rights. It is an Anglo/American
> > legal concept, but I think there are basically similar ideas
> > in European law now. Essentially it is anti-monarchical -
> > the idea that the laws cannot be superseded by a king,
> > president, unitary executive, CIA interrogator, or a sheriff's
> > deputy with a chip on his shoulder.
>
> What you are referring to here is "raison d'etat" in French,
> essentially, "national interest." This was at the center of the debate
> during the Dreyfus affair 1894-1906, that is, whether saving
> appearances for the sake of the Army was more important that justice
> for one man. The complete exoneration of Dreyfus in 1906 by the French
> judicial system meant the victory of due process over state secret.
I assume that you are familiar with Anatole France's
"Penguin Island" (if not, and for everyone else,
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1930 ). There is a
passage which parodies the trial of Zola, in which
the military penguins announce that they have
incontrovertible proof of the guilt of Dreyfus
("Pyrot" in the novel, convicted of stealing eighty
thousand bales of hay), but the proofs, though
weighty, are far too secret to discuss. I am continually
convinced that higher ups in the US Govt (Cheney,
Addington, Yoo, etc) read this passage and did not
realize it was a parody:
----------
Summoned before the judges at a public sitting, Colomban immediately
perceived that his judges were not anxious to discover the truth. As
soon as he opened his mouth the President ordered him to be silent in
the superior interests of the State. For the same reason, which is the
supreme reason, the witnesses for the defence were not heard. General
Panther, the Chief of the Staff, appeared in the witness-box, in full
uniform and decorated with all his orders. He deposed as follows:
"The infamous Colomban states that we have no proofs against Pyrot. He
lies; we have them. I have in my archives seven hundred and thirty-two
square yards of them which at five hundred pounds each make three
hundred and sixty-six thousand pounds."
That superior officer afterwards gave, with elegance and ease, a
summary
of those proofs.
"They are of all colours and all shades," said he in substance, "they
are of every form--pot, crown, sovereign, grape, dove-cot, grand
eagle,
etc. The smallest is less than the hundredth part of a square inch,
the
largest measures seventy yards long by ninety yards broad."
At this revelation the audience shuddered with horror.
Greatauk came to give evidence in his turn. Simpler, and perhaps
greater, he wore a grey tunic and held his hands joined behind his
back.
"I leave," said he calmly and in a slightly raised voice, "I leave to
M.
Colomban the responsibility for an act that has brought our country
to the brink of ruin. The Pyrot affair is secret; it ought to remain
secret. If it were divulged the cruelest ills, wars, pillages,
depredations, fires, massacres, and epidemics would immediately burst
upon Penguinia. I should consider myself guilty of high treason if I
uttered another word."
----------
Ben
2bow...@gmail.com
wrote:
> If I could only figure out why my newsreader won't indent or "<" your
> quotes, I could more readily resond! :>)
Probably because I'm using Google Groups instead of a proper text
based newsreader. For a couple dozen posts a year I'll admit being too
lazy to switch.
> (snip) the threat of those draconian penalties should
> provide for more-accurate results and fewer screw-ups.
Yes, but then you run into other issues like lab techs covering up
mistakes and if the penalties are too high labs won't do the work.
Running and interpreting esoteric tests is difficult and labs /
technicians will make mistakes. The way this could work is that if the
lab screws up they simply say so, the sample is gone, potential
cheater gets away and that is the end of it. Mistakes will happen and
can be used to learn and improve processes. What you don't want is a
situation where techs have to hide (cover up) their mistakes.
> "Technicalities" are obviously required in
> order to scrutinize the process and ensure fairness.
Fair enough.
> The second thing you bring up remains very troublesome, that being the
> continuing likelihood of false positives. I still don't understand the
> testing well enough to know if there are absolute ways to prove that someone
> had a false positive, or if it's just one of those things where you can
> predict that some will, but can't verify it on an individual basis.
Tests are not 100% accurate (precise) so it can't be absolute.
However, by employing multiple precise methods you can get well past
reasonable doubt and that is sufficient.
A problem for things like EPO is the labs don't have multiple tests
available so they repeat the same test on a B-sample. If the B is
negative you have to accept the negative result and move on. You don't
re-test ad infinitum until you get another positive.
To handle type I and type II errors, typically one adjusts the cut
offs to accept either a higher false positive or higher false negative
rate depending on the problem. For example, if I am screening for a
disease (say cancer) I may well accept a high rate of false positives.
I will have to sort through all positives to identify true positives
(patients that have the disease and need treatment) and eliminate ture
negatives. Depending on the situation I may tolerate extra cost to
weed out true false positives because I don't want to miss any disease
cases (e.g. I want a very low false negative rate). You can do the
same thing with doping but it requires resources to do all the follow-
up. It also takes time and we want real-time results.
Hope that made sense.
> Careers should not be allowed to be ruined based upon either shoddy labwork
> or false positives. There are solutions for the shoddy labwork (make them
> financially liable), but the false positive issue is something else again.
It is complex. Still makes one angry when a doper screws up an
exciting event.
> Thanks for the explanations; I do appreciate the effort you put into it.
Enjoyed the spirited discussion.
Mark
Amit Ghosh
> And here I thought you understood fairly simple mathematics.
dumbass,
if a rider produces beke proteins or the cera test is flawed how does
splitting the sample up into A and B vials make the test more
accurate ?
though your comment did make me check ilan's math. i assumed (from the
familar looking 63% figure) that he was alluding to the poisson
distribution, but i get 37% (ie. 1.00-.63).
ila...@gmail.com
Hmm, no one recognized 63% as 1-1/e. If the probability of a false
positive is 1%, then the probability of no false positive in 100 tests
is (1-1/100)^100 -> 1/e, so the probability of at least one false
positive is 1-1/e, approximately.
-ilan
Amit Ghosh
ok
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> ================
> However, when you say this is not the time for
> technicalities or due process, you leave open
> the question, when _is_ the time? Generally,
> nobody needs due process until they're accused
> of something. This is why even arrogant Italians
> who look guilty, guilty, guilty should be treated by
> the same rules as poor suffering innocents
> whose dog just happened to die.
> ================
>
> (Someday I'll figure out why my replies don't properly "quote" some posts)
>
>
> "DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The
> Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's
> basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'
> Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular
> cases."
>
> But that references the US Constitution, and when you do a search on
> International Due Process, you get into a real mixed bag, most of it dealing
> with refugees.
>
> Are we claiming that this is a basic human rights issue? Does that really
> apply to athletes who agree to the measures in question ahead of time, and
> aren't forced into this line of work?
Dumbass-
Don't be such a gd literalist and google Truth Seeker. Few
(especially amerikans) claim such a thing as "fundamental right" since
participation in pro bike racing is voluntary.
Regardless of the particular rules, bylaws, and whatever in pro
cycling, "due process" as an "average person" could be expected to
understand it would simply mean that the governing body _followed
their own rules _ (due process; procedures; technicalities) in
enforcing the rules of competition. The reason is very basic and
commonsensical: it promotes confidence of "fair play" in the governing
body(s) themselves.
Now for us dumbass fans watching pro bike racing, "they," including
the governing bodies, want to sell us (give confidence) on the idea
that both the competition and enforcing of the rules of competition
have some common sense idea of fairness embedded. Again to build the
confidence -- it is a confidence game -- then the governing bodies
must also play by the rules. They need to behave in the way they said
they would (contracted), just as the riders should not dope if they
said (contracted) they would not dope. They *ought* to want to create
confidence in their rule following and the quality of rule
enforcement.
Rules give people confidence, and by this rules in turn create order
by ensuring a good measure of reasonable expectation and thus
predictability. People naturally want to "count on things," as much
as such goal is humanly achievable. There are procedural ways to
change rules/bylaws if they seem to hold intolerable defects, although
good reflection and humble attitudes are the rule for changing rules.
(As any Slave of A State could tell you though, a slave does not like
overburdening, counter productive, and ill considered rules/laws.)
Fred Fredburger
I didn't know you had to ask. I thought they just kind of showed up by
themselves.
Michael Press
Davey Crockett <r...@azurservers.com> wrote:
Thanks, Davey, I did not think to do this calculation.
Let
D be the event "is a dirty dog doper"
P be the event "positive test returned"
When Davey supposed 99% accuracy he conflated two independent data:
the true positive rate and the true negative rate.
Suppose the doping rate is d.
Pr(D) = d.
Suppose the true positive test rate is r.
Pr(P|D) = r.
Suppose the true negative test rate is s.
Pr(~P|~D) = s.
We need to find the rate of positive tests.
Pr(P) = Pr(P|D).Pr(D) + Pr(P|~D).Pr(~D)
= Pr(P|D).Pr(D) + (1 - Pr(~P|~D)).Pr(~D)
= r.d + (1-s)(1-d)
Bayes's Theorem is a simple derivation
Pr(P & ~D) = Pr(P|~D).Pr(~D) = Pr(~D|P).Pr(P)
Therefore the probability that
a testee is a ddd given a positive test is
Pr(~D|P) = Pr(P|~D).Pr(~D)/Pr(P)
= (1-s).(1-d)/r.d + (1-s)(1-d)
Now when, as Davey supposes, d = 0.05, r = s = 0.99
99 5 1 95
(r.d + (1-s)(1-d)) = ---- --- + ---- -----
100 100 100 100
then the probability that a positive testee is a ddd
= (1-s).(1-d)/(r.d + (1-s)(1-d))
= 1/100 * 95/100 /(r.d + (1-s)(1-d))
95
= ---------- = 0.161
99*5 + 95
--
Michael Press
Donald Munro
>> You think you're too cool and level headed to ask for a pony?
> I didn't know you had to ask. I thought they just kind of showed up by
> themselves.
And then they start crapping in the garden.
Donald Munro
Only if they come with a pony.
ila...@gmail.com
> I just sent this to CyclingNews letters:
>
> What worries me the most about the latest round of Tour de France
> doping scandals is how pure science, the basis for all doping tests,
> is being forgotten in favour of political expediency. Riders are being
> fired, teams are leaving the race, and sponsors are withdrawing
> because of positive A samples, which in themselves do not provide any
> in which WADA head Dick Pound wanted Marion Jones to explain why her
> EPO B sample returned negative after a positive A sample, Iban Mayo's
> B sample was continually retested until it finally confirmed the
> original A sample positive, and millions of L'Equipe readers are
> convinced that the newspaper proved Armstrong's EPO use through the
> analysis of his supposed frozen A sample.
>
> One wonders whether the B sample will soon be relegated along with
> presumption of innocence and I conjecture that most non-scientists
> involved in cycling have no clue why the B sample is so important. For
> this reason it is important to go over the basic reason for this
> confirmation. Since medical science is imprecise due to the
> inevitability of experimental error, medical tests such at the EPO
> test cannot avoid having a marging or error, so even 1% chance of
> getting a false positive is considered reasonable. However, elementary
> probability theory shows that if the EPO test is administered 100
> times (close to the numbers in this Tour de France), and (for the sake
> of argument) the probability of a false positive is 1% for each test,
> then the probability of having at least one false positive among the
> 100 rises to about 63%. In other words, as everyone is saying, more
> tests mean more cheaters will get caught, but it also means that more
> non-cheaters will get falsely accused from their A sample. That is
> just an inescapable result of the inherent uncertainty of medical
> science. And that's exactly where the B sample comes in, a falsely
> accused clean rider will then have a 99% chance of being exonerated by
> his B sample.
>
> One can understand how the non-scientifically trained cycling
> community might find the testing protocol labourious and unecessary,
> however, there can be no excuse for lack of rigour and breach of
> protocol by a scientific testing agency. In particular, the LNDD
> laboratory was shown on a number of occasions to lack necessary high
> scientific standards. The first example is the USADA Landis panel
> which unanimously threw out the original test results for the
> testosterone positive (though the CAS panel has since reversed this by
> ruling that it was "good faith" incompetence). Secondly, the LNDD
> gave a different interpretation of Mayo's B sample from two other
> laboratories even though one of the basic principles of scientific
> investigation is that an experiment must be repeatable and can be
> verified independently. It is also important to mention the LNDD's
> role in the fraudulent L'Equipe article on Armstrong's frozen samples
> which led to it being chastised both by the IOC and the UCI. Far from
> finding and eliminating the person or persons who leaked their results
> to the newspaper, the LNDD has continued to leak their tests results
> to L'Equipe. This is a clear violation of protocol as was recently
> stated by WADA CEO David Howman referring to the LNDD-L'Equipe leaks
> in an e-mail quoted on the LA Times website by reporter Phillip Hersh
> in his article "What a bunch of cycling dope(r)s" of July 17, 2008http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2008/07/what-a-bunch-of...
>
> "The only organization that can match the anonymous sample to an
> athlete is the one under whose jurisdiction the test was conducted.
> WADA is disappointed by any breach of confidentiality that may occur
> during the results management process. Any breach is unacceptable."
>
> One can only wonder at the WADA definition of the word "unacceptable"
> given the many years that these leaks have been going on without there
> having been any formal action taken by the WADA on this matter.
>
> Apart from having their jobs unjustly taken away before the
> confirmation of their B sample, having their names leaked to the press
> by the testing laboratory, the final blow to this year's Tour de
> France riders is that they will have the added penalty of having their
> B sample tested again at the LNDD due to ASO's rift with the UCI. In
> other words, ASO has made sure that the embarassing string of negative
> Mayo B samples will not be repeated. It is scary to think that the
> riders are not even aware that their rights are being taken from them,
> until they test positive that is.....
>
> -ilan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7519137.stm
``Ricco tried to avoid being tested, according to the president of the
French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD), Pierre Bordry.
Ahead of today's stage, Bordry said: "When he saw that he was to be
tested, he escaped. But he was caught by the stewards and we told him
that as he had tried to avoid the test, he would be tested every day."
''
I wonder if that is in the WADA rules, if a rider doesn't follow your
exact instructions then you "punish" him. Seems more like grammar
school rules to me.
-ilan
DC
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7519137.stm
>
> ``Ricco tried to avoid being tested, according to the president of the
> French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD), Pierre Bordry.
>
> Ahead of today's stage, Bordry said: "When he saw that he was to be
> tested, he escaped. But he was caught by the stewards and we told him
> that as he had tried to avoid the test, he would be tested every day."
> ''
>
> I wonder if that is in the WADA rules, if a rider doesn't follow your
> exact instructions then you "punish" him. Seems more like grammar
> school rules to me.
It's probably more a case of identifying those riders who are most
likely to have offended. A rider trying to avoid being tested is
probably a pretty good indicator.
Tom Kunich
news:4885e40d$0$20528$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> It's probably more a case of identifying those riders who are most likely
> to have offended. A rider trying to avoid being tested is probably a
> pretty good indicator.
Or perhaps someone who hates having needles jammed into him?
Amit Ghosh
> "DC" <u...@nospam.net> wrote in message
dumbass,
ricco's not afraid of needles.
Bob Schwartz
> As it is, I'm forced to top-post a bit. There's very little you've said that
> I disagree with, and I think you've misunderstood my position. I feel there
> should be draconian penalties for the labs and the ASO or WADA or whomever
> when they get it wrong, and the threat of those draconian penalties should
> provide for more-accurate results and fewer screw-ups.
No, no, no, you've missed a step.
Before you can make the case for draconian penalties you first
have to establish that this is important enough to justify
draconian anything. What you are proposing is establishing a
gold mine for lawyers. Is this really worth it? Or alternatively,
is there nothing that is more deserving of this level of
attention and resources?
Lots of people beside me are asking this question. No one seems
interested in addressing it. As 2bowlers pointed out, this has
become a religious issue and objectivity has been lost.
Bob Schwartz
Fred Fredburger
Damn free government ponies!
Mike Jacoubowsky
So you're saying we should give up, because there's no way to come up with a
workable system that protects the riders rights but also keeps dopers out?
Bob Schwartz
I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that the problem
does not justify the high cost of the solution. It's entertainment
after all.
And I am pointing out that no one, yourself included, is
disputing that assertion.
Bob Schwartz
SLAVE of THE STATE
They pee where they stand, like a rider I knew.
Bob Schwartz
> I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that the problem
> does not justify the high cost of the solution. It's entertainment
> after all.
To elaborate on that...
I grew up in a college town. Every year on St Patrick's Day
there would be drunken antics on a large scale, with many
being perpetrated by visitors from out of town.
One year the city responded with a massive police effort.
They hired every off-duty cop for miles around. They busted
hundreds of college age kids, many for offenses like
jaywalking.
In the end the bill for this was staggering. And the result
was riots, a few burned cars, and lots of broken glass. The
city concluded that... the problem did not justify in any
way the extreme cost of the 'solution', and especially
because the solution did not fix the problem.
Want to know what the solution was? The solution was to
align spring break with St Patrick's Day. There were still
drunken antics on a large scale. But not in town. This was
always opposed by the faculty because it didn't match up
with the school district's spring break and they wanted to
have time off at the same time as their kids. Lucky for
the college, their faculty did not see it as a religious
issue.
In general, well thought out plans do not involve massive
efforts in response to minor problems.
Bob Schwartz
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> As it is, I'm forced to top-post a bit. There's very little you've said
> >> that I disagree with, and I think you've misunderstood my position. I
> >> feel there should be draconian penalties for the labs and the ASO or WADA
> >> or whomever when they get it wrong, and the threat of those draconian
> >> penalties should provide for more-accurate results and fewer screw-ups.
>
> > No, no, no, you've missed a step.
>
> > Before you can make the case for draconian penalties you first
> > have to establish that this is important enough to justify
> > draconian anything. What you are proposing is establishing a
> > gold mine for lawyers.
Now I know why BL hated "rich dopers" like LANCE. He couldn't get his
hand on the pie.
> > ...Is this really worth it? Or alternatively,
> > is there nothing that is more deserving of this level of
> > attention and resources?
>
> > Lots of people beside me are asking this question. No one seems
> > interested in addressing it. As 2bowlers pointed out, this has
> > become a religious issue and objectivity has been lost.
>
>
> So you're saying we should give up,...
What do you mean "we?" "We" don't have any to do with it in any
important way, and properly so.
And no, he did not say that.
> ... because there's no way to come up with a
> workable system that protects the riders rights but also keeps dopers out?
That sounds a little absolutist and unrealistic. No "workable [and
properly affordable] system" will be 100% effective, nor can so-called
"rights" be 100% ensured.
Tom Kunich
news:f9e85bff-1208-4807...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
And of course you would know all about this.
Mike Jacoubowsky
In an event such as the TdF, where the outcome can be dramatically altered
by the presence (or lack of) a given rider, and where the effects of doping
have been demonstrated to be extremely effective in influencing the outcome,
I don't see any way you can justify leaving someone in the race once there's
a reasonable certainty of doping, as evidenced by a positive A sample.
Do we agree or disagree on that?
As for the argument that "it's just entertainment" and thus not worthy of
great effort to clean up, we don't get to decide that. The amount it's worth
to clean things up will be determined by the sponsors and the UCI & ASO.
They evidently feel it's worth more $$$ now than at any time in the past,
based on both direct and indirect costs (indirect costs including loss of
sponsorship revenue).
For what it's worth, prior to Ricco and Piepoli, I was on the other side of
the fence on this one. Those two put me over the edge.
Mark
I think the issue is defining "reasonable certainty". Others feel you
don't achieve that with an "A" test alone. I think they've made good
arguments, myself. You seem to feel that an "A" test is enough for
"reasonable certainty". I think that's the crux of the matter.
Mark J.
Tom Kunich
news:SPydnZZKGaBzGRvV...@comcast.com...
>
> I think the issue is defining "reasonable certainty". Others feel you
> don't achieve that with an "A" test alone. I think they've made good
> arguments, myself. You seem to feel that an "A" test is enough for
> "reasonable certainty". I think that's the crux of the matter.
I think that Mike has been quite lucky in his life and hasn't had to face
being falsely accused of something important. So he can't make that connect
to the riders being found positive even when they're negative.
Bob Schwartz
Eh? That's not a point I was addressing. "Draconian penalties."
Remember that? It's quoted above. You were talking about
draconian penalties against governing bodies and labs for screwing
up. I think there may have been a request for a pony in there too,
although it may have been implied.
You were talking about a level of involvement with extremely,
extremely high cost. Extremely high cost. That's what I was
addressing. That and the pony. I am coming to really dislike
ponies. But only other people's ponies. I still want one for
myself.
> As for the argument that "it's just entertainment" and thus not worthy of
> great effort to clean up, we don't get to decide that. The amount it's worth
> to clean things up will be determined by the sponsors and the UCI & ASO.
> They evidently feel it's worth more $$$ now than at any time in the past,
> based on both direct and indirect costs (indirect costs including loss of
> sponsorship revenue).
All too true. But they are not proposing going after labs that
screw up, as you are. And they are not talking about turning the
gun on themselves if, as Davey would say, they firk up. Only the
riders suffer any penalties. Why do you think that is?
> For what it's worth, prior to Ricco and Piepoli, I was on the other side of
> the fence on this one. Those two put me over the edge.
When Pantani got tossed from the Giro it was Ivan Gotti that
benefited. Ivan Gotti! If they had tossed Pedro Delgado from the
Tour then the ultra-clean Rooks would have won.
Are you sure you know where the edge is? I don't. And I'm not losing
any sleep over that. It's just a bike race. Professional sports is
rife with drug use. Cycling is not the worst, the Olympics are the
worst. Or maybe it's soccer, I'm not sure. I bet if they subjected
your local high school football team to the level of scrutiny that
professional cyclists get you'd see a boatload of positives. But no
one is advocating bringing the hammer down on high school football.
If I was going to get in a lather about doping in sport, I gotta
tell you, the Tour would not be the source of that lather.
Bob Schwartz
Carl Sundquist
"Bob Schwartz" <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVE.global.net> wrote in message
news:dmwhk.6469$cn7...@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> When Pantani got tossed from the Giro it was Ivan Gotti that
> benefited. Ivan Gotti! If they had tossed Pedro Delgado from the
> Tour then the ultra-clean Rooks would have won.
>
I don't know if you mean "ultra-clean Roooks" sincerely or sarcastically.
Wasn't Rooks on the PDM squad that pulled out of the Tour en masse because
of a "spoiled batch of intralipids"?
bjwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is that people, including you,
keep elevating doping to the status of a sin,
a crime against morality. It isn't. It's cheating,
a violation of ethical standards. It should be
punished as such.
To use another example, when students cheat
or plagiarize, we don't search their dorm rooms
and jail them. We just fail them. At most places,
they have to really incontrovertibly screw up to
get kicked out for just a semester. A side benefit
of this is that failing a class is not the death
penalty, so although they fight and whine, they
rarely engage in two-year legal battles.
A small number of very severe penalties will
never win the War on Dopes. An even smaller
number of punishments of doping labs will never
get them to straighten out either. Treat doping
as a sporting penalty. When a rider tests positive,
penalize him 30 minutes and take away his stage
wins, and penalize all his teammates 10 minutes,
to give them a reason not to tolerate excessive
doping (and so leaders suffer if their domestiques
get caught). Do twice as many tests so they're
more likely to get caught.
To be a little radical, you could afford more tests
by making the penalty contingent on the A sample
and forgetting about B samples. That would make
the whole process a lot cheaper. Occasionally,
someone would get mistakenly popped, but since
the penalty is smaller, it wouldn't be such a life
or death issue. Currently, the B sample doesn't
protect the rider anyway.
Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
| tell you, the Tour would not be the source of that lather.
|
| Bob Schwartz
The funny thing about all this is that it does nothing to diminish my interest in the spectacle that is the TdF. The doping issues become bigger than life in cycling simply because the rest of the world (especially journalists) act as if cyclists are *uniquely* nothing but dopers & cheaters, and turn a blind eye towards other sports. At least in cycling more of the cards are out on the table, and even a layman can engage in sporting speculation as to what's going on (who's clean, who's not, the "Millar" line, etc).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Bob Schwartz" <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVE.global.net> wrote in message news:dmwhk.6469$cn7...@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
Consider me naive. Just as I was when I raced, and many around me were doing amphetamines. I never considered they were cheating; I considered that it was an extension of their recreational drug use (this was the 70s, after all).
In any event, we're talking about the rights of an individual cyclist who has a slight possibility of being falsely accused and removed from the race, vs the rights of many others to have a level playing field. This isn't a capital punishment issue. The falsely-accused cyclist is removed from an opportunity to profit, and in the event of a bogus test, should have the ability to sue for damages.
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You speak of slight possibility. Do you understand what
Davey wrote on quantifying the evidence of a positive
test? Did you see my follow up giving the details? We do
not know the accuracy of the tests: the true positive
rate and the true negative rate; _both_ of which are
necessary to quantify the weight we may honestly assign
to a positive test. The tests are a closed book to us.
This analysis of test results applies everywhere. Do you
submit to medical screening tests? You owe it to yourself
to understand, thoroughly understand, the meaning of a
screening test, the exact weight of evidence that can
reliably be assigned. Do not give up. This is elementary
probability theory with a big win if you persist.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem>
The executive summary: even with a 99% accurate test
a positive test does not overwhelmingly prove that
the syndrome is present.
--
Michael Press
Bob Schwartz
Yes, those damn intralipids. And poor Sean Kelly who hadn't
partaken of intralipids but had to pull out anyway in order
to maintain the story.
I was being sarcastic.
Bob Schwartz
dusto...@mac.com
> You speak of slight possibility. Do you understand what
> Davey wrote on quantifying the evidence of a positive
> test? Did you see my follow up giving the details? We do
> not know the accuracy of the tests: the true positive
> rate and the true negative rate; _both_ of which are
> necessary to quantify the weight we may honestly assign
> to a positive test. The tests are a closed book to us.
The tests are a closed book because this whole business is a cynical
pie-in-the-sky scheme to sell big-money advertising in the form of
corporate sponsorship. In which athletes are scapegoats, fans are
tools.
Read about the bad police labs. Anyone who Believes in Testing is
sadly mistaken. --D-y
Michael Press
<9c879f3d-ae7e-483c...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
Even good testing has subtleties. An accurate test need
not have the weight we might naively assign to it. The
point of this thread. Setting aside other questions, and
assuming the EPO test has reasonable accuracy for its
kind, the weight of a positive test would be sufficient
to raise the probability that a testee is a doper from a
population of doping rate of 5% up to 83%, leaving a 17%
probability that the testee is not doping.
--
Michael Press