Good News For Armstrong
B. Lafferty
Rogge wants new investigation into Armstrong
IOC chairman Jacques Rogge wants a new investigation in the Armstrong case
to conclusively determine if he used doping substances or not. With this,
Rogge wants to end the fighting between the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)
and the International Cycling Union (UCI). On top of that, two IOC members
have also asked for a sanction against the WADA lab that analysed
Armstrong's samples.
Jacques Rogge is tired of the quarrelling between the UCI, WADA and the IOC
and shared his opinion with a journalist from Belgian Newspaper De Morgen.
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do this.
Only then the discussion will stop."
Bill C
This paragraph is self cotradictory and highlights the exact problem
here:
I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all
parties," the IOC boss said. "The IOC wants to retro-actively have the
urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this.
Only then the discussion will stop."
<end quote>
How can it be independent if Wada is determining and designing the
procedures to be used in the investigation when Wada's procedures and
policies are a serious part of the questions being raised? This needs
to be farmed out to several university research departments for
independent totally disconnected research and testing on the tests
themselves, the validity of testing for old frozen samples, and just
what the limits and error rates for these tests are.
Wada has provided what I consider to be a solid theoretical procedure
that needs further research and confirmation in these exact
applications from other sources to verify the testing, and to find it's
limits before we start taking people's careers away for a minimum of 2
years.
I have zero faith in any of these groups to investigate themselves and
reach honest conclusions. There have been way too many incidents in the
past that would seem to indicate that they either can't, or won't be
objective in cleaning up their own houses and will be seeking a
whitewash.
This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to stop the bad PR
they are all getting and not much more.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
"Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127656485.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bill, WADA is being asked to set the standards for testing the B samples as
they set the standards for all testing. That is to say, they will set the
procedure in consultation with their stakeholders. Once that is done, an
EPO test to be used will be agreed upon and, presumably, a UCI/WADA
accredited lab will do all the testing. I'm certain there will be
consultations with some of the University professors you'd like to see
involved. Perhaps it will be the three methodology test used by the French
lab, perhaps not. The bottom line is that Rogge has called for finding out
the truth about Armstrong and the others who came up positive that L'Equipe
and the other French paper discovered. The focus really needs, IMO, to be
on the substance of the tests as opposed to getting the leaker(s). If this
process is done openly with the UCI and riders representative present, it
should clear any cloud of an alleged French conspiracy. Do you think
Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?
Bill C
I don't think they will, and they have the excuse of using the fact
that Wada which has been terrible will be calling the shots on it
again. This gives them a very valid reason to refuse to cooperate. Wada
has created such huge questions about their objectivity, reliability,
and honesty that THEY can't lead the charge to clean this up without
first reestablishing some credibility.
I'm with you 100% on the idea of this happening, but we don't even
know if it's possible to do this accurately and I'm not willing to take
anything Wada and the labs it certifies as reliable and accurate.
Just who leaked this shit is immaterial, what is material is that the
system off justice in the sport has HUGE problems from one end to the
other, and is refusing to address them in any meaningful way.
First the testing methods need to be independently validated for the
purposes in which they are being used, the limits of reliable,
reproducible reasults need to be found, mitigating/contaminating
factors need to be identified and procedures to deal with them
incorporated before we even beging retesting what are a limited amount
of samples. I DO NOT want to see the remaining samples destroyed by
being used in a questionable manner of testing. If they are we'll be in
exactly the same place we are now with no way to go back and find out
the truth.
They rushed these tests into use before they were thoroughly tested,
and certified questionable methodology to get results as fast as
possible, and you know as well as I do that when you rush shit that's
this complex and sensitive there are going to be major problems most of
the time. There are this time and rather than try to deal with them
honestly they are all finger pointing and denying the problems. This
kills any crediblity they did have.
THEY have to be above reproach, both ethically and technically for any
of this to be credible. I think people would cut them some slack if
they had been seen to be making every effort to be as reliable,
responsible, and open as they could. Instead they have done NONE of
that and gone with the "We're right and know it, so shut the fuck up"
route. They've gone the spinmeister route and are ignoring or working
to discredit anyone who has valid questions. This doesn't make me have
much faith in them.
Until they get their act together I'm firmly on the riders side.
Justice perverted, is justice denied, and it's being badly perverted by
the people responsible for dispensing it.
Bill C
Michael Press
<4nvZe.4623$q1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
Rogge sees a party going on and wants in.
--
Michael Press
Andy Coggan
news:nwAZe.3756$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Do you think Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?
Given the serious questions that have been raised about the EPO test, only a
fool would submit to any testing that wasn't required of them.
Andy Coggan (who is thankful to be off USADA's radar)
B. Lafferty
"Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:30DZe.3016$zQ3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Well, we've been around a few times on that one. As to being required,
recall that Armstrong has stated that his urine should be stored and tested
by new technology as it develops. IIRC, the UCI warned that samples were
being frozen for possible future testing. Given that the samples are the
property of the UCI, the riders may not have any choice in the matter.
Any positives found now would probably not lead to a sanction. We'd simply
know many more of the peloton liars. Six positives in 1999 + the
revelations of former employees and teammates with more to come. I wonder
who the other 35 or so from 1999 are. And then there's 1998..........
Bill C
Brian how the fuck can you continue to use a seriously flawed test,
and system
as evidence of anything?!! I KNOW you want them to be found guilty, but
let's get it done in something resembling a reliable form.
SHIT the Patriot Act is more fair than this shit! Let's have some REAL
results and decisions, not rigged BS. This is where you make me crazy.
You are so concious of the rights of the accused and due process in 90%
of the situations, and I agree, then you go off and discard all of it.
If the Bushies had done anything even approaching this level of BS
you'd be screaming. There was more reliable evidence for WMD in Iraq
than is being created by WADA now, and they are just as arrogant about
the results. You are, rightly, raising hell about one but defending
another. That doesn't do you justice.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
The research done by the Châtenay-Malabry did not simply rely on the test in
use by WADA. It used three methodologies and only if the three came
positive was a positive finding made. No one has far, to my knowledge,
shown that the results of this research is riddled with false positives.
Doctor Christiane Ayotte of the WADA lab in Montreal has stated that she has
no doubt that Châtenay-Malabry found EPO. Her criticism centered on the
ethics of the results becoming known. Further, Dr Iñigo Mujika noted in
his report on problems relating to urinary protein content for the current
WADA test (not the research being done by the Paris lab), "In view of the
efforts of the different accredited laboratories (particularly those of
Châtenay-Malabry in the outskirts of Paris, Oslo and Barcelona) to eliminate
proteins not related with EPO present in the urine samples, particularly
after intense exercise performed in competition, it is clear that those in
charge of the application of the urinary rEPO detection test are fully aware
of the fact that there is a lack of specificity problem with the test in
urine samples with a high protein content."
Does Armstrong's urine have the excess protein of a Rutger Beke. Probably
not, as he never failed a drug test for EPO.
I think Bill that you have a suspicion of all authority bordering on
paranoia. Be critical and cynical, but don't simply refuse to accept
anything that those in authority do--particularly if it involves Dick Pound
and WADA. It isn't as black and white as that.
Tim Lines
> Any positives found now would probably not lead to a sanction. We'd simply
> know many more of the peloton liars. Six positives in 1999 + the
> revelations of former employees and teammates with more to come. I wonder
> who the other 35 or so from 1999 are. And then there's 1998..........
Seriously? Does somebody have a freezer full of vintage 1998 urine
somewhere?
B. Lafferty
"Tim Lines" <line...@No.Spam.Edu> wrote in message
news:Jt6dnYqG9JJ...@comcast.com...
Bill C
from alone. You keep bringing up the three methods of analysis, but I
haven't seen any info on the validity of any of those tests. If Wada
had that It'd be front page news for L'Equippe, yet there is nothing
other than "We did three types of tests and they were all positive." No
description of the tests, no peer reviews of the tests, no published
papers on the reliability of the tests, no support from people outside
the system.
You can bet your ass I'm skeptical about anything leadership has to
say unless they can provide serious credible evidence from independent
sources to back it up. I don't consider that paranoid I consider it my
duty as a citizen of a democracy.
You know how much I disagree with MoveOn.org etc.., but they are
demanding the same things I am, and rightfully so. If any leadership
say the KoolAid is sfae they better damn well prove it before I'm
drinking it.
I'm also able to change my positions based on the evidence. I
supported intervention in Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint. I had
little doubt about the WMD. I've been proven wrong and have done what I
can to hold them accountable for the falsified evidence. I don't think
that Wada has done any better job backing up thier evidence than Bush
did.
What do you think of the NGB's caving and tossing up a white flag
after the UCI election? I think it's BS. Bush's election was a whole
lot more valid than McQuade's but I don't see any comparable backlash
and outrage, especially from those who I would've expected it from.
How is it wrong to demand that the people with the power over people's
life and livelihood be open, honest and transparent in a democratic
organization?
If they, and you are going to stand by the three seperate
methodologies please provide links to just what they were, peer
reviewed articles endorsing the science, and details of how they wwere
developed, and all the stats on the accuracy of all three methods.
Three flawed methods aren't any better than one flawed method. The
people in charge of justice need to prove their case.
Innocent until proven guilty, and I don't see anything that leads me
to believe in the guilt established by either the EPO tests or the
transfusion test.
If it's out there they've done a lousy job presenting the credentials
of the testing and I'm not going to accept it until they scientifically
verify it.
Bill C
Patricio Carlos
As every single test in existence has false positives, why aren't you
arguing for every other test to be thrown out also? Should we also stop
doing pregnancy tests, HIV tests, cancer detection tests, all PED
detection tests just in case 1 in every 1000 of those positive results
is a false positive?
D. Ferguson
wrote:
If a positive pregnancy test meant your career is ruined....
Forget it. It's not as if you aren't smart enough to know how stupid
you are but rather you just don't want to see it.
Steve
others posts without end ?news:1127688542.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Patricio Carlos
around majorly?
What about false positives with every single other PED test?
Patricio Carlos
Is Beke's career ruined? He was able to show it was a false +ve. Sure
he had a bad few months but his career is not ruined.
The numbers of false +ve's is very, very low.
The numbers of false -ve's is far, far higher (eg David Millar).
Asking for a test that has no false +ve's is asking for no tests to be
done. Is this how we clean up drugs in sports like cycling?
B. Lafferty
"Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:30DZe.3016$zQ3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> news:nwAZe.3756$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Do you think Armstrong and the others will go along with such testing?
>
> Given the serious questions that have been raised about the EPO test, only
> a fool would submit to any testing that wasn't required of them.
Armstrong has no choice, nor do any of the other riders:
See:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep26news4 article on
the French Sports Minister.
B. Lafferty
"Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127708160.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Be careful! You're being too logical for rbr.
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>You don't think a false positive HIV or cancer test could stuff you
>around majorly?
>
>What about false positives with every single other PED test?
Dumbass
Does that information go directly to the whole world or is it private?
Is it a test that can be repeated an indefinite number of times?
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>D. Ferguson,
Dumbass-
"He was able to show it was a false +ve" so that wouldn't really apply
now would it? How many are going to be able to prove it was a false
positive. It is exactly the point of your original post..... few are
going to believe that it is a false positive.
As for "asking for a test that has no false +ves"(not possesive so no
apostrophe) is obviously stupid and was never my point. My point was
that you are a dumbass for comparing these tests to HIV and pregnancy
tests and their false positives.
If a test with a "very, very low" probability of false positives comes
up positive. I generally consider the person guilty. So don't turn the
subject into something it isn't.
trg
1127708160.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> D. Ferguson,
>
> Is Beke's career ruined? He was able to show it was a false +ve. Sure
> he had a bad few months but his career is not ruined.
Stupid argument. The main problem of false positives isn't necessarily the
ones we eventually detect (although that's no walk in the park for someone
falsely accused), it's the false positives we don't detect. BTW, you're'
being very cavalier with someone else's career and life. Ask Beke what the
false positive meant to him.
>
> The numbers of false +ve's is very, very low.
Please show us the science behind this before you expect us to treat it as
anything but a statement of faith.
>
> The numbers of false -ve's is far, far higher (eg David Millar).
Again, show us the science behind this before you expect us to treat it as
anything but a statement of faith. We have no way of knowing that David
Millar was a false negative since the test is only good testing for the
presence of rEPO during a short window. If Millar tested negative outside of
that window, then it was a true negative.
D. Ferguson
wrote:
No, he's being EXACTLY logical for rbr..... by throwing up a
strawman/red herring combo and ending with a begging the question
fallacy.
Beke's situation was resolved and does not apply.
Pointing out that there are few false +s and many false -s doesn't
contradict anything I said or believe.
Stating that you can't have a test with no false +s doesn't eliminate
the stupid HIV and Pregnancy test comparison.
Asking "is this how we clean up drugs" is on a whole other subject
which we would both agree on but he will present as if we are on
opposite sides.
But I'm not surprised you considered his post a logical argument as
you are the third dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
B. Lafferty
"D. Ferguson" <Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote in message
news:c2mfj153qglnbki5s...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:57:54 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1127708160.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> D. Ferguson,
>>>
>>> Is Beke's career ruined? He was able to show it was a false +ve. Sure
>>> he had a bad few months but his career is not ruined.
>>>
>>> The numbers of false +ve's is very, very low.
>>>
>>> The numbers of false -ve's is far, far higher (eg David Millar).
>>>
>>> Asking for a test that has no false +ve's is asking for no tests to be
>>> done. Is this how we clean up drugs in sports like cycling?
>>>
>>
>>Be careful! You're being too logical for rbr.
>>
>
>
> No, he's being EXACTLY logical for rbr..... by throwing up a
> strawman/red herring combo and ending with a begging the question
> fallacy.
>
> Beke's situation was resolved and does not apply.
You can't have it both ways.
> Pointing out that there are few false +s and many false -s doesn't
> contradict anything I said or believe.
> Stating that you can't have a test with no false +s doesn't eliminate
> the stupid HIV and Pregnancy test comparison.
> Asking "is this how we clean up drugs" is on a whole other subject
> which we would both agree on but he will present as if we are on
> opposite sides.
>
> But I'm not surprised you considered his post a logical argument as
> you are the third dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
He's posed questions which you have yet to coherently answer.
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>
>"D. Ferguson" <Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote in message
>news:c2mfj153qglnbki5s...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:57:54 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1127708160.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>> D. Ferguson,
>>>>
>>>> Is Beke's career ruined? He was able to show it was a false +ve. Sure
>>>> he had a bad few months but his career is not ruined.
>>>>
>>>> The numbers of false +ve's is very, very low.
>>>>
>>>> The numbers of false -ve's is far, far higher (eg David Millar).
>>>>
>>>> Asking for a test that has no false +ve's is asking for no tests to be
>>>> done. Is this how we clean up drugs in sports like cycling?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Be careful! You're being too logical for rbr.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, he's being EXACTLY logical for rbr..... by throwing up a
>> strawman/red herring combo and ending with a begging the question
>> fallacy.
>>
>> Beke's situation was resolved and does not apply.
>
>You can't have it both ways.
The number of false positives is extremely small. The number of people
who can prove theirs is a false positive, even if it is, is even
smaller. Beke's situation would not fall into the category of false
positives which weren't proven wrong. Most would not be so lucky.
>
>> Pointing out that there are few false +s and many false -s doesn't
>> contradict anything I said or believe.
>> Stating that you can't have a test with no false +s doesn't eliminate
>> the stupid HIV and Pregnancy test comparison.
>> Asking "is this how we clean up drugs" is on a whole other subject
>> which we would both agree on but he will present as if we are on
>> opposite sides.
>>
>> But I'm not surprised you considered his post a logical argument as
>> you are the third dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
>
>He's posed questions which you have yet to coherently answer.
>
He didn't pose a question. He made a dumbass statement with a question
mark on the end.
But to reply to that remark..... yes, I certainly think we need drug
testing. Even with all it's flaws.
You fucking dumbasses just don't get it. I'm not arguing against the
test. I'm pointing out that comparing false positives from these drug
tests to false positives from a pregnancy test is absurd.
You must be a real estate attorney.
B. Lafferty
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:26:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"D. Ferguson" <Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>You can't have it both ways.
>
>
> The number of false positives is extremely small. The number of people
> who can prove theirs is a false positive, even if it is, is even
> smaller.
And just how might you "know" this? .
> Beke's situation would not fall into the category of false
> positives which weren't proven wrong.
Really?!
>Most would not be so lucky.
How do you know this?
>
>>
>>> Pointing out that there are few false +s and many false -s doesn't
>>> contradict anything I said or believe.
>>> Stating that you can't have a test with no false +s doesn't eliminate
>>> the stupid HIV and Pregnancy test comparison.
>>> Asking "is this how we clean up drugs" is on a whole other subject
>>> which we would both agree on but he will present as if we are on
>>> opposite sides.
>>>
>>> But I'm not surprised you considered his post a logical argument as
>>> you are the third dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
>>
>>He's posed questions which you have yet to coherently answer.
>>
>
>
> He didn't pose a question. He made a dumbass statement with a question
> mark on the end.
They look like interrogatories (litigation lawyer speak) to me:
"As every single test in existence has false positives, why aren't you
arguing for every other test to be thrown out also? Should we also stop
doing pregnancy tests, HIV tests, cancer detection tests, all PED
detection tests just in case 1 in every 1000 of those positive results
is a false positive?"
>
> But to reply to that remark..... yes, I certainly think we need drug
> testing. Even with all it's flaws.
>
> You fucking dumbasses just don't get it. I'm not arguing against the
> test. I'm pointing out that comparing false positives from these drug
> tests to false positives from a pregnancy test is absurd.
>
> You must be a real estate attorney.
Now that's funny!
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>> Beke's situation would not fall into the category of false
>> positives which weren't proven wrong.
>
>Really?!
>
>>Most would not be so lucky.
>
>How do you know this?
You would argue that most people who have a false positive drug test
in professional cycling would be able to prove that theirs was a false
positive?
>
>They look like interrogatories (litigation lawyer speak) to me:
>
>"As every single test in existence has false positives, why aren't you
>arguing for every other test to be thrown out also? Should we also stop
>doing pregnancy tests, HIV tests, cancer detection tests, all PED
>detection tests just in case 1 in every 1000 of those positive results
>is a false positive?"
>
The reason no one is arguing for all the other tests to be thrown out
is that they can be easily repeated and the original results are not
made public without consent.
I'm not even arguing that the EPO tests should be thrown out. I'm just
pointing out how fucking dumb that comment is.
B. Lafferty
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:00:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Beke's situation would not fall into the category of false
>>> positives which weren't proven wrong.
>>
>>Really?!
>>
>>>Most would not be so lucky.
>>
>>How do you know this?
>
> You would argue that most people who have a false positive drug test
> in professional cycling would be able to prove that theirs was a false
> positive?
They should have that opportunity and they do.
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>
>"D. Ferguson" <Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote in message
>news:hu2gj1tr5nghb0eg1...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:00:45 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Beke's situation would not fall into the category of false
>>>> positives which weren't proven wrong.
>>>
>>>Really?!
>>>
>>>>Most would not be so lucky.
>>>
>>>How do you know this?
>>
>> You would argue that most people who have a false positive drug test
>> in professional cycling would be able to prove that theirs was a false
>> positive?
>
>They should have that opportunity and they do.
>
Dumbass
How hard do you think that is? To prove that your drug test was a
false positive. Especially if the B sample is positive. Proteinuria
being the recent dicussion, how are you going to prove that is the
cause of your positive tests?
You've just graduated to the second dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
B. Lafferty
One would think that if one were subject to proteinuria, one would be able
to demonstrate that condition after significant exercise. Additionally, if
one were "suffering" this condition, other false positives would have shown
up, particularly if one is the most tested athlete in the sport.
>
> You've just graduated to the second dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
Congratulations. You're now the dumbest mother fucker on rbr. :-)
D. Ferguson
wrote:
>>
>> Dumbass
>>
>> How hard do you think that is? To prove that your drug test was a
>> false positive. Especially if the B sample is positive. Proteinuria
>> being the recent dicussion, how are you going to prove that is the
>> cause of your positive tests?
>
>One would think that if one were subject to proteinuria, one would be able
>to demonstrate that condition after significant exercise. Additionally, if
>one were "suffering" this condition, other false positives would have shown
>up, particularly if one is the most tested athlete in the sport.
>
No, dumbass. Inherent in being the most tested is you are the most
winning. Which either means you are more talented or more drugged.
Maybe both. But if you are more talented it takes less exertion to win
than it does for others.
Proving you can "demonstrate that condition" may take a level of
exertion you are not going to get in a laboratory. Only on the road.
But there is no point in arguing all of the possible false positives.
If you think it's easy to prove that a false positive is a false
positive I will just leave it at that so you can sit in your own
stink. There is nothing left to debate from there.
>>
>> You've just graduated to the second dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
>
>Congratulations. You're now the dumbest mother fucker on rbr. :-)
>
It's like the patient telling his psychiatrist that he's crazy. Though
it doesn't make you wrong, you are just in no position to judge.
I would certainly agree that I'm a candidate for the postion. If for
no other reason than I have been continuing to debate with the likes
of you.
B. Lafferty
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:56:17 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Dumbass
>>>
>>> How hard do you think that is? To prove that your drug test was a
>>> false positive. Especially if the B sample is positive. Proteinuria
>>> being the recent dicussion, how are you going to prove that is the
>>> cause of your positive tests?
>>
>>One would think that if one were subject to proteinuria, one would be able
>>to demonstrate that condition after significant exercise. Additionally,
>>if
>>one were "suffering" this condition, other false positives would have
>>shown
>>up, particularly if one is the most tested athlete in the sport.
>>
>
> No, dumbass. Inherent in being the most tested is you are the most
> winning. Which either means you are more talented or more drugged.
> Maybe both. But if you are more talented it takes less exertion to win
> than it does for others.
I see. So a guy like Armstrong doesn't exercise enough during a race to
trigger Proteinuria becuase he's so talented that he wins by not exerting
himself enough to trigger the condition. Interesting. .
>
> Proving you can "demonstrate that condition" may take a level of
> exertion you are not going to get in a laboratory. Only on the road.
Fool, all you have to do is sample his urine after a long, hard stage and
see if he exhibits Proteinuria. I'll even predict that Armstrong doesn't
based on his not having tested positive for EPO during any of the Tours
since the test was introduced.
>
> But there is no point in arguing all of the possible false positives.
> If you think it's easy to prove that a false positive is a false
> positive I will just leave it at that so you can sit in your own
> stink. There is nothing left to debate from there.
>
>>>
>>> You've just graduated to the second dumbest mother fucker on rbr.
>>
>>Congratulations. You're now the dumbest mother fucker on rbr. :-)
>>
>
> It's like the patient telling his psychiatrist that he's crazy. Though
> it doesn't make you wrong, you are just in no position to judge.
>
> I would certainly agree that I'm a candidate for the postion. If for
> no other reason than I have been continuing to debate with the likes
> of you.
ROTFL!
D. Ferguson
Damn you are one obsessed freak.
B. Lafferty
> Who said a single fucking word about Lance Armstrong.
>
> Damn you are one obsessed freak.
Well excuse me for pointing out the elephant in the room.
Jim Flom
> Who said a single fucking word about Lance Armstrong.
>
> Damn you are one obsessed freak.
Ferguson,
Are you starting to get it?
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
B. Lafferty
"Jim Flom " <jimREM...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:I3XZe.250506$9A2.82537@edtnps89...
jmt
Dear Lafftrack;
So Now you gotta problem with LA a n d elephants?
(Dumbo Must be on EPO, his ears are flappin' too fast);
jmt(ape)
>
>
B. Lafferty
"jmt" <j...@shawneelink.net> wrote in message
news:saCdnVdx8tjIzKXe...@shawneelink.net...
You got it. That's why Pantani had his ears fixed.
jmt
Dear LaffertyAMinute;
There is a rather distinct Irony here; LA May well be one of the
Few winners of the tdf who Wasn't Drugged out of his tree.
Now Don't you feel silly?;
jmt
>
>
B. Lafferty
Apparently not, you silly man.
jmt
Dear ItIsToLafferty;
Being an Ape is its own reward...
(I'm not silly, you're silly);
jmt
>
>
D. Ferguson
<jimREM...@telus.net> wrote:
>"D. Ferguson" <Zeds_...@yahooremove.com> wrote in message
>news:4adgj114ohsejvo8i...@4ax.com...
>> Who said a single fucking word about Lance Armstrong.
>>
>> Damn you are one obsessed freak.
>
>Ferguson,
>
>Are you starting to get it?
>
>JF
If I'd have been smart enough to realize this was a Armstrong
discussion I could have just said "yes, I think Armstrongs tests were
positive and it's up to him to prove that they were false positives".
I might have saved myself a few minutes and Laffturdy a couple hours
of hawking over his computer waiting for me to post something.
Patricio Carlos
The reason for mentioning other tests was to remind people that testing
is not this perfect world "only true +ve's & true -ve's thing". It was
not a comparison of effect on career etc. People who demand only
PED-detection tests that have no false +ve's obviously don't know what
they're talking about.
But if you want to talk about effects on careers, what about the
effects on careers of those athletes who couldn't make it because they
didn't want to dope? What about the effects on the lives of those
athletes & their families when they die young from doping products they
felt forced to take to be able to compete?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Well I guess you missed the point D. Ferguson,
>
> The reason for mentioning other tests was to remind people that testing
> is not this perfect world "only true +ve's & true -ve's thing". It was
> not a comparison of effect on career etc. People who demand only
> PED-detection tests that have no false +ve's obviously don't know what
> they're talking about.
I bet there are studies of the false positive rate of
pregnancy, HIV, etc tests and maybe even of the causes
of false positives on these tests. If Dick Pound would admit
that doing such a study on his tests was worthwhile, he might
have some credibility.
> But if you want to talk about effects on careers, what about the
> effects on careers of those athletes who couldn't make it because they
> didn't want to dope? What about the effects on the lives of those
> athletes & their families when they die young from doping products they
> felt forced to take to be able to compete?
Dumbass,
Asking WADA to live up to standards of fairness is not excusing
doping. Even a guilty man can be framed.
B. Lafferty
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1127774783.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As a prosecutor once told a jury, "We don't indict innocent people."
B. Lafferty
Patricio Carlos
changes depending on who is being tested. For example - a +ve pregnancy
test on a male is pretty much guaranteed to be false +ve. A +ve HIV
test on a 90 yo nun is much, much more likely to be a false +ve than a
+ve result on a Nairobi prostitute. Yet the sensitivity & specificity
of the test are identical regardless of who it is being tested upon. It
is affected by the pre-test probability in the subject being tested. So
there is generally no standard rate of false +ve's for a test.
>From WADA's website, they did ~4229 urine tests for Epo in 2003 and got
28 +ve. Some reasons for false +ve's are known from the Beke situation:
exertion-induced loss of alpha 1 ACT & bacterial contamination of the
sample due to improper storage. Both of these are relatively easy to
test for even in a stored sample so someone unlucky enough to be
falsely +ve can prove these without much difficulty.
So for an elite athlete competing at the highest level, which is more
likely (a) doping like maybe 90% of the peloton as Benjo believes or
(b) a rare renal condition plus improper storage of the urine specimen
in a very unlucky athlete? The chances of (b) are very slim, especially
if they've tested +ve on, say, 6 occasions.
Many studies have been/are being done regarding rEpo detection. From a
PubMed search, you can see some of these:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=15228161
Just because you & I don't know the sensitivity, specificity & positive
predictive value doesn't mean that hasn't been studied.
Donald Munro
>> Being an Ape is its own reward...
>>
>> (I'm not silly, you're silly);
>>
>> jmt
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Whatever.
Whatever happened to snores and hugs ?
B. Lafferty
"Donald Munro" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.27....@invalid.invalid...
Donald Munro
>>>> Being an Ape is its own reward...
B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> Whatever.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Whatever happened to snores and hugs ?
B. Lafferty wrote:
> A wide awake hug for you....Hug.
Time to cut back on those caffeine suppositories.
B. Lafferty
"Donald Munro" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.27....@invalid.invalid...
> jmt wrote:
>>>>> Being an Ape is its own reward...
>
>>>> Whatever.
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> A wide awake hug for you....Hug.
>
>
Yeah, they're nowhere near as good as French roast.
Howard Kveck
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
A French roast suppository?
--
tanx,
Howard
Butter is love.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Bill C
Lots of people in the business have questions:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/epotest_problems
I don't think I've seen anyone say "let the dopers off". The people
who are insisting on testing right now are going to do more to let
dopers off the hook than the rest of us. If they retest Lance's samples
right now, you'll still have the same controversy, and no samples. What
changes, not a damn thing.
My point is and always has been that they need to wait, open up the
research to some of the groups asking questions, verify a method by
solid concensus of researchers for the exact purpose, and then, and
only then retest the old samples.
The damn things are already 6 years old, what's another 6 months or
year to make sure that when they are retested there's a whole lot less
room to spin the results.
If what we are after is a never ending stream of tabloid crap to keep
the doping discussion going then the way it's been happening is
perfect, but if we want finality they need to get the house in order,
and I don't see where that would take all that long if they used all
the available resources.
Bill C
Bob Schwartz
> Studies of the rates of false +ve's are all well and good but the rate
> changes depending on who is being tested. For example - a +ve pregnancy
> test on a male is pretty much guaranteed to be false +ve. A +ve HIV
> test on a 90 yo nun is much, much more likely to be a false +ve than a
> +ve result on a Nairobi prostitute. Yet the sensitivity & specificity
> of the test are identical regardless of who it is being tested upon. It
> is affected by the pre-test probability in the subject being tested. So
> there is generally no standard rate of false +ve's for a test.
Well, that's total horseshit. But other than that it's dead on.
This sounds like a Lafferty argument: If you test X pro racers
for EPO there will not be any false positives because they are
all on the shit.
If I start with equal numbers of HIV negative nuns and Nairobi
prostitutes, explain to me how the rate of false positive HIV
tests will be different.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Jim Flom
>
> Whatever happened to snores and hugs ?
Now THAT was funny.
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Patricio Carlos wrote:
> Studies of the rates of false +ve's are all well and good but the rate
> changes depending on who is being tested. For example - a +ve pregnancy
> test on a male is pretty much guaranteed to be false +ve. A +ve HIV
> test on a 90 yo nun is much, much more likely to be a false +ve than a
> +ve result on a Nairobi prostitute. Yet the sensitivity & specificity
> of the test are identical regardless of who it is being tested upon. It
> is affected by the pre-test probability in the subject being tested. So
> there is generally no standard rate of false +ve's for a test.
Sure there's no standard. But since we don't know
anything about the reliability of the test, we don't know
what rate it would meet or not.
> Many studies have been/are being done regarding rEpo detection. From a
> PubMed search, you can see some of these:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=15228161
> Just because you & I don't know the sensitivity, specificity & positive
> predictive value doesn't mean that hasn't been studied.
WADA doesn't know either. Because they say that it's
not necessary to know. If they had studies (not just of
the EPO test, but the Ty-Ty test for example) they could
reference them. Again, I don't think false positives are
that common, but I'm not impressed by WADA's head in the sand
attitude. They are not like scientists, but like prosecutors
that want the evidence for a conviction and don't really
care what the cops do to get it; then if it starts to look
like the evidence was made up they come up with the "If you
don't support us the dopers win" line.
Michael Press
<1127772578.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well I guess you missed the point D. Ferguson,
>
> The reason for mentioning other tests was to remind people that testing
> is not this perfect world "only true +ve's & true -ve's thing". It was
> not a comparison of effect on career etc. People who demand only
> PED-detection tests that have no false +ve's obviously don't know what
> they're talking about.
>
> But if you want to talk about effects on careers, what about the
> effects on careers of those athletes who couldn't make it because they
> didn't want to dope?
Same as anyone in any career who chooses not to chisel,
back stab, or thieve to "get ahead." They make a good
career of it, enjoy the gratification of a job well done,
and do not have to devote energy to living a lie.
> What about the effects on the lives of those
> athletes & their families when they die young from doping products they
> felt forced to take to be able to compete?
They are dupes, and are old enough to assume
responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Leading other people astray to accumulate power is not
confined to professional cycling.
--
Michael Press
Patricio Carlos
We don't know the HIV status of the nun and the Nairobi prostitute.
Both get tested. Both give +ve results.
The odds that either +ve result is a false +ve is very different for
the two subjects. The Nairobi prostitute is almost certainly true +ve
whereas the nun may well be a false +ve. (HIV negative Nairobi
prostitute is an oxymoron).
Yet either way, the test itself has a >99% sensitivity and about 97%
specificity.
Similarly, the chance of a Tour rider not doping but having 6 false +ve
results for Epo and a +ve result for corticosteroids in the one Tour
are pretty damn slim.
Andy Coggan
news:WfFZe.4881$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The research done by the Châtenay-Malabry did not simply rely on the test
> in use by WADA. It used three methodologies and only if the three came
> positive was a positive finding made. No one has far, to my knowledge,
> shown that the results of this research is riddled with false positives.
Wrong: only one test was performed, with three different criteria used to
define what constitutes a positive result. Given the apparent lack of
specificity of the antibody used, this provides no real increase in the
confidence in the results.
> Doctor Christiane Ayotte of the WADA lab in Montreal has stated that she
> has no doubt that Châtenay-Malabry found EPO. Her criticism centered on
> the ethics of the results becoming known. Further, Dr Iñigo Mujika
> noted in his report on problems relating to urinary protein content for
> the current WADA test (not the research being done by the Paris lab), "In
> view of the efforts of the different accredited laboratories (particularly
> those of Châtenay-Malabry in the outskirts of Paris, Oslo and Barcelona)
> to eliminate proteins not related with EPO present in the urine samples,
> particularly after intense exercise performed in competition, it is clear
> that those in charge of the application of the urinary rEPO detection test
> are fully aware of the fact that there is a lack of specificity problem
> with the test in urine samples with a high protein content."
Exactly: the problem (one of them, actually) is and has been common
knowledge, but WADA continues to use the same test while failing to address
the issue.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
news:1127692409.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Andy,
>
> As every single test in existence has false positives, why aren't you
> arguing for every other test to be thrown out also? Should we also stop
> doing pregnancy tests, HIV tests, cancer detection tests, all PED
> detection tests just in case 1 in every 1000 of those positive results
> is a false positive?
Because 1) in other cases, the incidence of false positives has usually been
carefully established, and 2) different situations call for different
standards (i.e., you wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusion re.
risk/reward for a test used for medical diagnoses and possible treatment as
for one used for drug enforcement in sports).
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
> The numbers of false +ve's is very, very low.
>
> The numbers of false -ve's is far, far higher (eg David Millar).
That's your *opinion* - but what are the actual *facts* of the matter?
Andy Coggan
Bill C
are buried and I definitely went and took a hard new look based on the
things you had to say, and found you were pretty much right on the
money, but I just don't see a lot of people here actually making the
effort to look at everything involved in this question objectively.
It's a whole hell of a lot easier to be a zealot, no thought required.
Anyway I want to thank you for making me go take a hard look at ALL
the info out there that I could find.
Bill C
Bob Schwartz
> Similarly, the chance of a Tour rider not doping but having 6 false +ve
> results for Epo and a +ve result for corticosteroids in the one Tour
> are pretty damn slim.
Let's say you go to a convent and test the residents for HIV.
A 90 year old nun comes up positive. You test her again and
she comes up positive again. Everyone else is negative.
You test her ten times and she comes up positive each time.
This is a new test and you haven't done any research, none
at all, into the rate of false positives. In other words, you
skipped the step where you were supposed to have administered
the test to known HIV negative nuns and Nairobi prostitutes.
You test a Nairobi prostitute and she comes up positive.
At this point, what do you have? How do you know there is
no systematic error in your test?
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Patricio Carlos wrote:
> The odds that either +ve result is a false +ve is very different for
> the two subjects. The Nairobi prostitute is almost certainly true +ve
> whereas the nun may well be a false +ve. (HIV negative Nairobi
> prostitute is an oxymoron).
>
> Yet either way, the test itself has a >99% sensitivity and about 97%
> specificity.
But you only know that because somebody bothered to
do tests to measure those numbers.
> Similarly, the chance of a Tour rider not doping but having 6 false +ve
> results for Epo and a +ve result for corticosteroids in the one Tour
> are pretty damn slim.
You're still arguing that you don't need to know the
false positive rate because Tour riders are a bunch of
likely dopers. This is the Dick Pound round up the usual
suspects argument. But the conclusion doesn't follow
from the premise. It's precisely _because_ Tour riders
are a bunch of stinking no good lousy dopers that you
have a duty to measure the false positive rate. If they
were all clean as whistles, you could just write off the
positives to chance, like the nuns.
This has little to do with LANCE's specific case, and more
to do with what standards an enforcement agency should
expect of itself.
Patricio Carlos
Repeated positivity in the nun would make it more likely it is true
positive and you would ask about transfusions, previous possible
exposures etc and do confirmatory tests - just as was done with Beke &
his rEPO test - to decide whether it is true or false. It wouldn't take
too much work to be able to either reassure the nun or give her the bad
news.
A laboratory scientist doing such tests will be able to tell you
endless ways about how a subject can give false +ves and how to
differentiate them. Much of this information is never published. That
doesn't mean it is not widely known and scientifically accepted.
Plenty of research has been done into this area (rEPO testing). Do a
PubMed search. It is not like WADA or IOC or whoever just came up with
this out of the blue recently. Just because people on RBR don't know
about it doesn't mean the info isn't out there!
Patricio Carlos
confirm proteinuria (even specific alpha 1 ACT proteinuria) and
bacterial contamination to see if it is false. This can be done on the
initial +ve specimen and then repeated on fresh specimens.
So rather than ditch the test, wouldn't it be better to use the test
then confirm those occasional +ve results?
However, this is all a bit academic now as the athletes & teams now
know about micro-dosing that avoids detection anyway.
Patricio Carlos
work being done on this!
Just because Dick Pound (or Twat Slam, whatever his name is) doesn't
tell them to the press, doesn't mean that real scientists haven't
established this.
As most journalists have no scientific training, trying to explain
sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) & negative
predictive value of a test is impossible and gets re-produced
incorrectly anyway. If they are told 99% PPV, they'll write about the
1% even though the 99% is very high.
Patricio Carlos
Let's say there is a systematic error in the rEpo test. If an athlete
tested positive 6 times in one tour, then you would expect them to test
positive again at future tours. If all their subsequent tests were
negative, then it would make a systematic error the wrong explanation
for those 6 positive results.
B. Lafferty
"Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1Bl_e.240$4h2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
> news:WfFZe.4881$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> The research done by the Châtenay-Malabry did not simply rely on the test
>> in use by WADA. It used three methodologies and only if the three came
>> positive was a positive finding made. No one has far, to my knowledge,
>> shown that the results of this research is riddled with false positives.
>
> Wrong: only one test was performed, with three different criteria used to
> define what constitutes a positive result. Given the apparent lack of
> specificity of the antibody used, this provides no real increase in the
> confidence in the results.
Mea culpa for using the word methodology instead of criteria. The point is
that they were using refined criteria.
>
>> Doctor Christiane Ayotte of the WADA lab in Montreal has stated that she
>> has no doubt that Châtenay-Malabry found EPO. Her criticism centered on
>> the ethics of the results becoming known. Further, Dr Iñigo Mujika
>> noted in his report on problems relating to urinary protein content for
>> the current WADA test (not the research being done by the Paris lab),
>> "In view of the efforts of the different accredited laboratories
>> (particularly those of Châtenay-Malabry in the outskirts of Paris, Oslo
>> and Barcelona) to eliminate proteins not related with EPO present in the
>> urine samples, particularly after intense exercise performed in
>> competition, it is clear that those in charge of the application of the
>> urinary rEPO detection test are fully aware of the fact that there is a
>> lack of specificity problem with the test in urine samples with a high
>> protein content."
>
> Exactly: the problem (one of them, actually) is and has been common
> knowledge, but WADA continues to use the same test while failing to
> address the issue.
WADA apparently has addressed the issue in two ways; 1. by changing the
criteria used, as the Madrid lab was instructed and 2. by initiating
additional research as in the Châtenay-Malabry research.
It's easy enough to determine if Armstrong or any rider has a valid
proteinuria defense. Apparently Dr. Ayotte does not share your scepticism
as to the findings of the Malabry lab. I suggest that you contact her
immediately and set her straight.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
Bob Schwartz
> Repeated positivity in the nun would make it more likely it is true
> positive and you would ask about transfusions, previous possible
> exposures etc and do confirmatory tests - just as was done with Beke &
> his rEPO test - to decide whether it is true or false. It wouldn't take
> too much work to be able to either reassure the nun or give her the bad
> news.
But that's not an accurate analogy for dope testing. An accurate
analogy would be for the person administering the test to tell
the nun she is positive and that's that. All the effort to
confirm or refute the result is up to the nun, the tester doesn't
care.
> Plenty of research has been done into this area (rEPO testing). Do a
> PubMed search. It is not like WADA or IOC or whoever just came up with
> this out of the blue recently. Just because people on RBR don't know
> about it doesn't mean the info isn't out there!
Yes, and no doubt all this work dates from the late 1990s so that
it was incorporated into the test when they started using it to
flush people.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Bob Schwartz
> Just because Dick Pound (or Twat Slam, whatever his name is) doesn't
> tell them to the press, doesn't mean that real scientists haven't
> established this.
Twat Slam, I like that.
> As most journalists have no scientific training, trying to explain
> sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) & negative
> predictive value of a test is impossible and gets re-produced
> incorrectly anyway. If they are told 99% PPV, they'll write about the
> 1% even though the 99% is very high.
If you read through the judgements on riders like Bergman and Sbeih
you'll see the numbers they gave for the probabilty of error. They're
pretty astronomically low. In Sbeih's decision the quoted figure
for a false positive for a BAP of 80% was 1 in 500,000. If the
calculation was similar for Beke then his number was also pretty low.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Bob Schwartz
Good point. But I don't care.
My beef is that the dope cops no longer care about the integrity of
the process. Even if a guy has hired a coach that has become a
millionaire designing doping programs for cyclists, you still have
to respect the process. If you are going to cut corners like the
dope cops appear to be willing to do, it becomes harder to have
confidence in the results.
I'll give you an example where I think this matters. One of the things
we discovered with the Bergman decision is that there is no set
definition of what constitutes an EPO positive. They look at the
numbers and make a decision to pursue a sanction or not. This is a
response to the microdosing you mentioned in another part of this
thread. If you don't know where the bar is, you don't know what you
have to do to stay under it.
There was a rumor last year that six guys had come up positive for
EPO at the Tour of Georgia. At the time no one knew about the 'I
know it when I see it' testing standard so when nothing came of it
everyone assumed Decanio was full of shit.
I think a rumor like that would have a lot more legs today given
what we now know about the way that organizations like the USADA
and WADA work. More questions, less concrete resolution. Better
rumor legs.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Jeff Jones
>
> There was a rumor last year that six guys had come up positive for
> EPO at the Tour of Georgia. At the time no one knew about the 'I
> know it when I see it' testing standard so when nothing came of it
> everyone assumed Decanio was full of shit.
>
the TdG.
As far as the test goes, it's disquieting that WADA has known it to be
unreliable for at least two years. The non-specificity of the antibody is an
even more serious problem than proteinuria.
Jeff
photos...@gmail.com
what standards an enforcement agency should expect of itself. "
Which brings me to a question that perhaps should have been asked years
ago:
What is WADA's actual job or role, and what is NOT their job? I have
assumed that the role was to develop tests and certify labs. But Dick
Pound is an attorney, and so are most of his cohorts at WADA. So is
his job "prosecutor"?
I feel a bit lost.
Stu Fleming
The question you should be asking is: Where is Father Murphy?
Bob Schwartz
> As far as the test goes, it's disquieting that WADA has known it to be
> unreliable for at least two years. The non-specificity of the antibody is an
> even more serious problem than proteinuria.
Speaking of disquieting...
In the 'Qualitative or quantitative?' section you discuss the change
in the EPO test from the 80% standard to a qualitative one, effective
in Jan 2005.
Adam Bergman's case was already under way at this time. He never hit
80%. He was close to be sure. But he didn't exceed 80%. His hearing
was Jan 27, 2005.
So it looks like they switched the test criteria in such a way as
to change his result from negative to positive, just before the
hearing.
Equally disquieting is seeing someone like Don Catlin testify to a
false positive rate of 1 per 500,000 when he certainly knew that
wasn't true.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Dan Connelly
> If you read through the judgements on riders like Bergman and Sbeih
> you'll see the numbers they gave for the probabilty of error. They're
> pretty astronomically low. In Sbeih's decision the quoted figure
> for a false positive for a BAP of 80% was 1 in 500,000. If the
> calculation was similar for Beke then his number was also pretty low.
>
These probabilities are typically based on an assumption of a normally distributed result,
an assumption which is a poor one unless one has anticipated all contributing factors
to a result.
For example, if I design a test and conduct it only on adult males, then a test
a juvenile female, is there reason to believe the statistics apply?
Generally, assuming something is normal is over-optimistic.
Dan
Patricio Carlos
this is turned into a +ve or -ve result. You have to have a certain
quantity of anti-HIV antibodies to get a result of HIV positive for
example. The criteria for the cutoff for many tests do change as you
get more experience with the test. It is not that unusual to start off
with the cutoff high but then realize with other testing that you are
getting too many false negatives and then lower the cutoff to reduce
that number.
The statistical test that helps with this is called "Receiver Operator
Curve" Analysis. This was developed by the British army in WW2 when
they were trying to improve their radar's ability to detect German
bombers. If they made the radar too sensitive, they would pick up
flocks of birds and waste the time & energy of the anti-aircraft guys.
If they had the sensitivity too low, the radars would miss some bombers
and well, you can guess the rest. So they developed the ROC test to
optimise the sensitivity and specificity to try to be as accurate as
possible at detecting bombers (true +ve) and not detecting birds (false
+ve) and not missing bombers (false -ve). The same test is used now
with any new test to try to work out the ideal cutoff.
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>The statistical test that helps with this is called "Receiver Operator
>Curve" Analysis. This was developed by the British army in WW2 when
>they were trying to improve their radar's ability to detect German
>bombers. If they made the radar too sensitive, they would pick up
>flocks of birds and waste the time & energy of the anti-aircraft guys.
Would appear to work best when you know what are birds and what are
planes. Doesn't seem to be so clear cut when they are all birds and
they are arguing that they don't want big pigeons, but they do want
smal crows.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Bob Schwartz
> The statistical test that helps with this is called "Receiver Operator
> Curve" Analysis. This was developed by the British army in WW2 when
> they were trying to improve their radar's ability to detect German
> bombers. If they made the radar too sensitive, they would pick up
> flocks of birds and waste the time & energy of the anti-aircraft guys.
> If they had the sensitivity too low, the radars would miss some bombers
> and well, you can guess the rest. So they developed the ROC test to
> optimise the sensitivity and specificity to try to be as accurate as
> possible at detecting bombers (true +ve) and not detecting birds (false
> +ve) and not missing bombers (false -ve). The same test is used now
> with any new test to try to work out the ideal cutoff.
That's a neat story, but what does it have to do with what WADA
did? They didn't refine the cutoff, they changed the nature of the
test entirely. They changed from 80% BAP to a multi-level I-know-
it-when-I-see-it. And they did it just in time to nail someone that
didn't make the 80% cutoff.
And remember, this is a test where they had known for TWO YEARS
that things they were evaluating were suspect.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Patricio Carlos
raising sensitivity - ie improving pick up - and lowering specificity -
ie increasing rate of false positives. (If you raise one, you will
always drop the other).
Michael Press
Donald Munro
> WADA is always looking for pigeons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/3666210.stm
Michael Press
<pan.2005.10.03....@invalid.invalid>,
Donald Munro <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
110% is a tough standard to meet.
--
Michael Press