Anti-doping tests used at the Olympics and other major sporting events are too often based on faulty science and statistical methods that can yield erroneous results, a researcher charged Wednesday in a leading scientific journal. Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to ferret out
-- Davey Crockett - Welcome to Turd Wurld Britannia.
Hospitals staffed By NHS trusts have reported almost 20,000 incidents of pest infestation in hospitals over the past two years. Outbreaks have included rats in maternity wards, wasps and fleas in neo-natal units and maggots in patients slippers.
At the same time, the latest figures available show a massive rise in foreign workers within the NHS, with the number of foreign trained nurses rising to 43% of the total.
The details - released under the Freedom of Information Act - come from all 171 NHS trusts in England.
Of the 127 which responded, almost all were said to have experienced some problems. There were almost 20,000 reports of pest problems while seven out of 10 trusts said that they had called in pest control officers more than 50 times since January 2006.
> Anti-doping tests used at the Olympics and other major sporting events > are too often based on faulty science and statistical methods that can > yield erroneous results, a researcher charged Wednesday in a leading > scientific journal. Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the > University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to > point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the > problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to > ferret out
Come on Davey. Remember you're putting this out on .racing which is inhabited by experts who believe that the slightest positive should be immediately followed by the death penalty because there's NO WAY that an error could be made in a lab. Just ask Ben or that Asian guy who pretends to be a scientist.....
On Aug 7, 6:53 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Davey Crockett" <r...@azurservers.com> wrote in message
> > Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the > > University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to > > point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the > > problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to > > ferret out
> Come on Davey. Remember you're putting this out on .racing which is > inhabited by experts who believe that the slightest positive should be > immediately followed by the death penalty because there's NO WAY that an > error could be made in a lab. Just ask Ben or that Asian guy who pretends to > be a scientist.....
Lying Tom Kunich,
Please find a post where I said anything like the words you just put in my mouth. I criticized the lab and WADA several times in the Landis case. Back up your smack talk.
Go on your own little rants if you want, but don't drag my name into it and lie to make yourself feel superior.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > On Aug 7, 6:53 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote: >> "Davey Crockett" <r...@azurservers.com> wrote in message
>> > Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the >> > University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis >> > to point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the >> > problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed >> > to ferret out
>> Come on Davey. Remember you're putting this out on .racing which is >> inhabited by experts who believe that the slightest positive should >> be immediately followed by the death penalty because there's NO WAY >> that an error could be made in a lab. Just ask Ben or that Asian guy >> who pretends > to >> be a scientist.....
> Lying Tom Kunich,
> Please find a post where I said anything like the > words you just put in my mouth. I criticized the > lab and WADA several times in the Landis case. > Back up your smack talk.
> Go on your own little rants if you want, but don't > drag my name into it and lie to make yourself > feel superior.
Ben:
In order to save you from the soul-searing agony that comes from knowing Tom has kill-filed you, I beg you to stop taunting him. It's too late to save me, I'm a non-person. But there is still time to save yourself. Agree with Tom, tell him that yes, you think any cycling testing positive, or maybe even looking like they might test positive, especially if they're American because you hate America, should be castrated, disemboweled with that big hook thing they used in Braveheart, and have their head fixed on a pike attached to one of the motos in the Tour so all can see their shame. There are some other things I was going to say you should agree with Tom on, but they seem to have slipped my mind after I got carried away with the first one.
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:n8qdnSuL1vgZYwfVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com... | "Davey Crockett" <r...@azurservers.com> wrote in message | news:87vdyduv4u.fsf@azurservers.com... | > | > Anti-doping tests used at the Olympics and other major sporting events | > are too often based on faulty science and statistical methods that can | > yield erroneous results, a researcher charged Wednesday in a leading | > scientific journal. Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the | > University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to | > point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the | > problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to | > ferret out | | Come on Davey. Remember you're putting this out on .racing which is | inhabited by experts who believe that the slightest positive should be | immediately followed by the death penalty because there's NO WAY that an | error could be made in a lab. Just ask Ben or that Asian guy who pretends to | be a scientist.....
No. What some of us believe is that the "slightest positive" is grounds from removal from an event, *not* something that, by itself, warrants longterm sanctions of any kind whatsoever. Thorough analysis apparently takes too much time to yield meaningful results during a multi-day event, and the very real concern that someone doped up not only has an advantage, but influences the outcome for everyone else, means the risk of leaving someone in the event until due process has run its course is too great.
That's very different from saying that there's no way an error could occur in a lab, or that you should be banned for life based upon the initial finding.
> Anti-doping tests used at the Olympics and other major sporting events > are too often based on faulty science and statistical methods that can > yield erroneous results, a researcher charged Wednesday in a leading > scientific journal. Donald Berry, an expert in biostatistics at the > University of Texas, used the case of American cyclist Floyd Landis to > point up flaws in anti-doping procedures, but cautioned that the > problems he uncovered apply across the board to lab tests designed to > ferret out
> Hospitals staffed By NHS trusts have reported > almost 20,000 incidents of pest infestation in hospitals over the past > two years. Outbreaks have included rats in maternity wards, wasps and > fleas in neo-natal units and maggots in patients slippers.
> At the same time, the latest figures available show a massive rise in > foreign workers within the NHS, with the number of foreign trained > nurses rising to 43% of the total.
> The details - released under the Freedom of Information Act - come > from all 171 NHS trusts in England.
> Of the 127 which responded, almost all were said to have experienced > some problems. There were almost 20,000 reports of pest problems while > seven out of 10 trusts said that they had called in pest control > officers more than 50 times since January 2006.
That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic arguments alone.
William Asher wrote: > In order to save you from the soul-searing agony that comes from knowing > Tom has kill-filed you, I beg you to stop taunting him. It's too late to > save me, I'm a non-person. But there is still time to save yourself. > Agree with Tom, tell him that yes, you think any cycling testing positive, > or maybe even looking like they might test positive, especially if they're > American because you hate America, should be castrated, disemboweled with > that big hook thing they used in Braveheart, and have their head fixed on > a pike attached to one of the motos in the Tour so all can see their > shame. There are some other things I was going to say you should agree > with Tom on, but they seem to have slipped my mind after I got carried > away with the first one.
Why don't you invite him to your next Kun-Anon meeting.
Donald Munro wrote: > William Asher wrote: >> In order to save you from the soul-searing agony that comes from >> knowing Tom has kill-filed you, I beg you to stop taunting him. It's >> too late to save me, I'm a non-person. But there is still time to >> save yourself. Agree with Tom, tell him that yes, you think any >> cycling testing positive, or maybe even looking like they might test >> positive, especially if they're American because you hate America, >> should be castrated, disemboweled with that big hook thing they used >> in Braveheart, and have their head fixed on a pike attached to one of >> the motos in the Tour so all can see their shame. There are some >> other things I was going to say you should agree with Tom on, but >> they seem to have slipped my mind after I got carried away with the >> first one.
> Why don't you invite him to your next Kun-Anon meeting.
> That article is quite consistent with the points I made in my "Where's > the Science" post, except that I was somewhat inaccurate in that post > regarding the probability of a false positive (I assumed that the > samples were taken from a clean population). In other words, I should > have stated that if clean athletes are tested 100 times for a test > which has a 1% chance of a false positive then the probability is > about 62% that a false positive will occur, based on probabilistic > arguments alone.
> -ilan
I'm not competent to understand how this changes things, but testing has moved away from being random and heavily towards targets, meaning that there's a much greater chance that those you test actually are using doping products. So what's happening is that far fewer "clean" athletes are likley to be tested (or so they hope), and far more rigorous testing is being done for those whose profile or bloodwork implies they're more likely to be doping.
But it really might not change anything at all, other than the fact that it's far less likely a clean athlete will have a false positive, because it's far less likely that athlete is being tested in the first place. If he/she is tested, the chances of that individual test reading incorrectly are no different than before. But because of the smaller sample size, it's less likely a bad test will pop up. Even though that false positive might be less likely to be seen, when it does happen, it's little comfort to the individual that they were simply unlucky.
--Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
