Where's the science?

Nobody wrote:
You mean Dick Pound famous porn actor?

You're probably thinking of Bill Asher. His producer
is the rbr expert on global warming.

On Jul 21, 12:11*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
wrote in ...

|
| | This is not the time for technicalities
|
| Who yielded the floor to the honorable senator from Wisconsin??
|
| Mark

Try Kalifornia.

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

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.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com







wrote in message ...
On Jul 21, 12:11 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
wrote in ...

|
| | This is not the time for technicalities
|
| Who yielded the floor to the honorable senator from Wisconsin??
|
| Mark

Try Kalifornia.

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 wrote:
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

On Jul 21, 9:14*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
| | This is not the time for technicalities

I hope you wrote the "technicalities" post in a moment of anger and
will consider your position further.


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? .....

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 ****" 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

Bob Schwartz a écrit profondement:

| 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.

On Jul 19, 3:51 pm, wrote:

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.

"Amit Ghosh" wrote in message
...

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.

If I could only figure out why my newsreader won't indent or "" your
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



wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 12:14 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

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

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
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.