Where's the science?

In article ,
DC wrote:

Shawn said the following on 20/07/2008 1:14 PM:

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.

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?

On Jul 20, 7:14 am, Shawn wrote:

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

Shawn wrote:
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

On Jul 20, 2:42*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Shawn wrote:
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

They just might herd 'em into a cathedral and light it anyway. That's
the tradition isn't it?
Bill C

| This is not the time for technicalities

Who yielded the floor to the honorable senator from Wisconsin??

Mark

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" 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

wrote in message ...
|
| | 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-- 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.

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" wrote in message ...
| On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:55:41 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
| wrote:
|
| "Shawn" wrote in message . ..
| | 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.
|
|

| 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

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" wrote in message ...
| In article ,
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" 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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:37:02 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote:

Nobody wrote:
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.

You mean Dick Pound famous porn actor?