Dope Testing - An utter waste of time

Idiots like Davey have recently been doing some arithmetic on the
probability of a rider who tested positive actually being a druggee or
alternatively whether the positive finding was in fact a "False
Positive" and various other deductions made based on same data.

However, these computations were based on the test proceedure having a
very high degree of accuracy. Even at 99 percent the chances that a
positive test result would actually "nail" a doping rider were to say
the least somewhat less than acceptable.

Admittedly the results we were discussing presupposed a "given"
percent of druggees in the universe to be tested - like we were using
an estimated 5 per cent of riders in the Tour de France "Universe"

But along comes a Cocky young Italian who says "Sure I charged up, but
your tests ain't worth **** because I was tested Ten times and came up
Positive only Twice."

Hmmm. Throw out the 98-99 percent effectiveness we were assigning to
the test and change that to 20 percent.

Then revamp the calculations and all but the simple minded will
believe that you have to be awfully unlucky to get caught.

Davey believes it's high time to abandon testing altogether and save
the exhorbitant costs of the flawed testing that is currently being
carried out.

"Anti-Doping" is an Industry in its own right these days. and its
Practitioners will of course Loudly Blow their Trumpets about how
effective they are and what a Stirling Job they are doing.

But Davey says "Bull****, assholes. Get your Snouts and Trotters out of
our Trough. And get back in the Welfare Line."

Sheesh. Ricco should get a medal for his exposure of the Testing Fraud
that the *******s are Socking to Bikies.

--
Davey Crockett

In article ,
Davey Crockett wrote:

Idiots like Davey have recently been doing some arithmetic on the
probability of a rider who tested positive actually being a druggee or
alternatively whether the positive finding was in fact a "False
Positive" and various other deductions made based on same data.

However, these computations were based on the test proceedure having a
very high degree of accuracy. Even at 99 percent the chances that a
positive test result would actually "nail" a doping rider were to say
the least somewhat less than acceptable.

Admittedly the results we were discussing presupposed a "given"
percent of druggees in the universe to be tested - like we were using
an estimated 5 per cent of riders in the Tour de France "Universe"

But along comes a Cocky young Italian who says "Sure I charged up, but
your tests ain't worth **** because I was tested Ten times and came up
Positive only Twice."

Hmmm. Throw out the 98-99 percent effectiveness we were assigning to
the test and change that to 20 percent.

You should stick to reporting about UFOLEP races. Just because Ricco's
8 other tests were reported "negative" that does not mean that the lab
found nothing, only that the rates found were below the positive
threshold. Maybe these thresholds were set a bit high. Any testing
system has to make a compromise between misses and false alarms, whether
you're trying to spot cheaters or to detect obstacles in front a
vehicle. The type of compromise depends on the nature of the problem.
In doping I think most of us would agree that false alarms are simply
unacceptable, so that means that labs have to set the threshold higher
accordingly, and that means in turn that some guys who are charged will
escape detection.

On a long race like the TdF, though, this is less of a problems because
with their new policy of targeting specific riders (I don't remember
reading anything from you on that, btw), then they can put any of the
suspicious non-positives (just below threshold) on their **** list and
keep testing them.

jyh.

On Jul 30, 10:18*am, Davey Crockett wrote:
Idiots like Davey have recently been doing some arithmetic on the
probability of a rider who tested positive actually being a druggee or
alternatively whether the positive finding was in fact a "False
Positive" and various other deductions made based on same data.

Shame on you! Looking for the truth...

However, these computations were based on the test proceedure having a
very high degree of accuracy. Even at 99 percent the chances that a
positive test result would actually "nail" a doping rider were to say
the least somewhat less than acceptable.

Admittedly the results we were discussing presupposed a "given"
percent of druggees in the universe to be tested - like we were using
an estimated 5 per cent of riders in the Tour de France "Universe"

But along comes a Cocky young Italian who says "Sure I charged up, but
your tests ain't worth **** because I was tested Ten times and came up
Positive only Twice."

Hmmm. Throw out the 98-99 percent effectiveness we were assigning to
the test and change that to 20 percent.

Then revamp the calculations and all but the simple minded will
believe that you have to be awfully unlucky to get caught.

Davey believes it's high time to abandon testing altogether and save
the exhorbitant costs of the flawed testing that is currently being
carried out.

"Anti-Doping" is an Industry in its own right these days.

Sure is, see below.

and its
Practitioners will of course Loudly Blow their Trumpets about how
effective they are and what a Stirling Job they are doing.

Sure do, the rhetoric is more than ready to answer "very few caught".

But Davey says "Bull****, assholes. Get your Snouts and Trotters out of
our Trough. And get back in the Welfare Line."

This is Corporate Welfare. Nudge nudge, wink wink! Good Welfare, for
people who know what to do with it!

Sheesh. Ricco should get a medal for his exposure of the Testing Fraud
that the *******s are Socking to Bikies.

(pre-apologies for "long")

"Testing" would be great (ahem, not really*) if it worked, even 99% of
the time, which is very, very bad considering what is at stake-- no,
not HOLY CORPORATE ADVERTISING IMAGE, but the careers and lives of the
athletes ("little people") who are being scapegoated.

*Presumption of guilt v. presumption of innocence. That, in the
context of 50% "false positive" rates with employment-connected drug
screens, and stupendously stupid testing of High School (USA)
athletes, where hundreds or thousands are tested while returning one
or two positives. Don't believe me?

From:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2008-01-10-3430990485_x.htm

(quoting):
The testing program can act as a deterrent, he said, and casting a net
as wide as Texas plans is sure to catch someone, he said.

"If I tested 23,000 people and didn't find anything? Let's be real,"
Uryasz said.
(end quote).

OK, Ur-ass, gettin' real right here on rbr:

From:

http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jul/...ram-nets-puny-
results/

(overview): Over 10,000 students tested. Two "caught", three students
refused to be tested, four "unresolved" (Let's Get a Positive Reader
in Here!!!). Six million $$$.

Mo

(quoting):
Testing was conducted at 195 schools, testing 6,455 boys and 3,662
girls.

More than 3,300 athletes who played football were tested, more than
three times the number of any other sport.

In all, 28 athletes were flagged under one of the following
categories: testing positive; having an unresolved test; missing
testing because of an unexcused absence; refusing testing; or leaving
the testing area. The results, however, do not link the sport to the
specific offense.

Seven were football players, and six were male multisport athletes
whose sports were not identified. Only four of the 28 were female.

Only one male powerlifter was tested, compared with 377 male tennis
players.

Testing began in February after the program was stalled by creating
guidelines and finding a company to implement the program. The
contract was awarded to the National Center for Drug Free Sport, which
also handles testing for the NCAA.

In submitting its results to the UIL, the company wrote, "we must
steer clear of the temptation to use the number of positive cases
generated by this short period of testing to draw any conclusions
about the success, or lack thereof, of this testing initiative."
(end quote)

Minus the seven mentioned above, the "28 flagged" leaves 21.
"Unexcused absence"? My daughter had several of those last year,
because she didn't hand in an excuse (doctor, dentist, illness)
properly, after the procedure had changed, and notification via
surface mail was bureaucratically slow (how are they going to handle
something REALLY IMPORTANT?).

Better, far better, as mentioned in this report, to spend the money
combatting teen drinking. And tobacco smoking, for that matter.
Activities that have a much greater negative impact on _people_, not
Holy Corporate Advertising.

The War on People continues! --D-y

"jean-yves herve" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Davey Crockett wrote:

Idiots like Davey have recently been doing some arithmetic on the
probability of a rider who tested positive actually being a druggee or
alternatively whether the positive finding was in fact a "False
Positive" and various other deductions made based on same data.

However, these computations were based on the test proceedure having a
very high degree of accuracy. Even at 99 percent the chances that a
positive test result would actually "nail" a doping rider were to say
the least somewhat less than acceptable.

Admittedly the results we were discussing presupposed a "given"
percent of druggees in the universe to be tested - like we were using
an estimated 5 per cent of riders in the Tour de France "Universe"

But along comes a Cocky young Italian who says "Sure I charged up, but
your tests ain't worth **** because I was tested Ten times and came up
Positive only Twice."

Hmmm. Throw out the 98-99 percent effectiveness we were assigning to
the test and change that to 20 percent.

You should stick to reporting about UFOLEP races. Just because Ricco's
8 other tests were reported "negative" that does not mean that the lab
found nothing, only that the rates found were below the positive
threshold. Maybe these thresholds were set a bit high. Any testing
system has to make a compromise between misses and false alarms, whether
you're trying to spot cheaters or to detect obstacles in front a
vehicle. The type of compromise depends on the nature of the problem.
In doping I think most of us would agree that false alarms are simply
unacceptable, so that means that labs have to set the threshold higher
accordingly, and that means in turn that some guys who are charged will
escape detection.

On a long race like the TdF, though, this is less of a problems because
with their new policy of targeting specific riders (I don't remember
reading anything from you on that, btw), then they can put any of the
suspicious non-positives (just below threshold) on their **** list and
keep testing them.

indeed, Jean-Yves, while the system is flawed it is still a workable system.
What's more, if a rider gets caught and suspended for two years it will soon
become plain that the possible outcome isn't worth the risk.

On Jul 30, 11:56*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

indeed, Jean-Yves, while the system is flawed it is still a workable system.
What's more, if a rider gets caught and suspended for two years it will soon
become plain that the possible outcome isn't worth the risk.

Landis was not a deterrent for Ricco (perhaps most notably) or
apparently, any of the others who got busted after.

IOW, "you know better".

The deterrent is "don't get caught like Stupid did", not "Oh my
goodness, they are infallible! We must forever henceforth ride the
Tour on mineral water". --D-y

On Jul 30, 11:18 am, Davey Crockett wrote:

Davey believes it's high time to abandon testing altogether and save
the exhorbitant costs of the flawed testing that is currently being
carried out.


dumbass,

it should be abandoned because no one outside the sport cares and
fans either don't care or wish they didn't have to think about it.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 11:56 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

indeed, Jean-Yves, while the system is flawed it is still a workable
system.
What's more, if a rider gets caught and suspended for two years it will
soon
become plain that the possible outcome isn't worth the risk.

Landis was not a deterrent for Ricco (perhaps most notably) or
apparently, any of the others who got busted after.

Do you think that the word will get out overnight? How many Puertos do you
think will start up again?

IOW, "you know better".

I know that vigilance pays off in the end.

The deterrent is "don't get caught like Stupid did", not "Oh my
goodness, they are infallible! We must forever henceforth ride the
Tour on mineral water".

And slowly the penalties will be increased until getting caught is the end
of your professional career. At that point it doesn't pay.

On Jul 30, 8:18*am, Davey Crockett wrote:
Idiots like Davey have recently been doing some arithmetic on the
probability of a rider who tested positive actually being a druggee or
alternatively whether the positive finding was in fact a "False
Positive" and various other deductions made based on same data.

However, these computations were based on the test proceedure having a
very high degree of accuracy. Even at 99 percent the chances that a
positive test result would actually "nail" a doping rider were to say
the least somewhat less than acceptable.

Admittedly the results we were discussing presupposed a "given"
percent of druggees in the universe to be tested - like we were using
an estimated 5 per cent of riders in the Tour de France "Universe"

But along comes a Cocky young Italian who says "Sure I charged up, but
your tests ain't worth **** because I was tested Ten times and came up
Positive only Twice."

Hmmm. Throw out the 98-99 percent effectiveness we were assigning to
the test and change that to 20 percent.

Then revamp the calculations and all but the simple minded will
believe that you have to be awfully unlucky to get caught.

Davey believes it's high time to abandon testing altogether and save
the exhorbitant costs of the flawed testing that is currently being
carried out.

"Anti-Doping" is an Industry in its own right these days. and its
Practitioners will of course Loudly Blow their Trumpets about how
effective they are and what a Stirling Job they are doing.

But Davey says "Bull****, assholes. Get your Snouts and Trotters out of
our Trough. And get back in the Welfare Line."

Sheesh. Ricco should get a medal for his exposure of the Testing Fraud
that the *******s are Socking to Bikies.

When you made assumptions about "98-99 percent
effectiveness" you confused sensitivity and selectivity -
basically the rates of false negatives and false positives.
They don't have to be the same. In fact they are often
anti-correlated. If the test criterion is some number
above a threshold, and you raise the threshold, you
make it more likely to get a false negative, but less
likely to get a false positive.

For example, suppose 30% of the population is positive,
and you have a test with a 20% detection rate (80% false
negative) and 1% false positive rate. If you test 1000
people, of whom 300 are positive, you'll find 60 true
positives and 7 false positives. I made these numbers
up, but if we knew the real numbers we could get a
better idea.

Because false positives are undesirable, test thresholds
tend to be set kind of high, which leads to people not getting
popped on 100% of the tests they take.

What this really proves is that Ricco, taking dope regularly
enough that he feels he should have been busted all
ten times, was too cheap to pay for a good doctor who
would tell him how to microdose it and time the doses.
Forget whether he doesn't deserve to win the TdF because
he's Dirty Ricky the Cheating Doper. He doesn't deserve
to win because he hasn't shown enough respect to
cheat well.

Ben

On Jul 30, 2:29 pm, "

When you made assumptions about "98-99 percent
effectiveness" you confused sensitivity and selectivity -
basically the rates of false negatives and false positives.
They don't have to be the same.

dumbass,

don't argue with rbr statistics. the probability given two outcomes of
a test is 50-50 and one uptick signals a trend.

On Jul 30, 12:29*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:18*am, Davey Crockett wrote:





Idiots like Davey have recently been doing some arithmetic on the
probability of a rider who tested positive actually being a druggee or
alternatively whether the positive finding was in fact a "False
Positive" and various other deductions made based on same data.

However, these computations were based on the test proceedure having a
very high degree of accuracy. Even at 99 percent the chances that a
positive test result would actually "nail" a doping rider were to say
the least somewhat less than acceptable.

Admittedly the results we were discussing presupposed a "given"
percent of druggees in the universe to be tested - like we were using
an estimated 5 per cent of riders in the Tour de France "Universe"

But along comes a Cocky young Italian who says "Sure I charged up, but
your tests ain't worth **** because I was tested Ten times and came up
Positive only Twice."

Hmmm. Throw out the 98-99 percent effectiveness we were assigning to
the test and change that to 20 percent.

Then revamp the calculations and all but the simple minded will
believe that you have to be awfully unlucky to get caught.

Davey believes it's high time to abandon testing altogether and save
the exhorbitant costs of the flawed testing that is currently being
carried out.

"Anti-Doping" is an Industry in its own right these days. and its
Practitioners will of course Loudly Blow their Trumpets about how
effective they are and what a Stirling Job they are doing.

But Davey says "Bull****, assholes. Get your Snouts and Trotters out of
our Trough. And get back in the Welfare Line."

Sheesh. Ricco should get a medal for his exposure of the Testing Fraud
that the *******s are Socking to Bikies.

When you made assumptions about "98-99 percent
effectiveness" you confused sensitivity and selectivity -
basically the rates of false negatives and false positives.
They don't have to be the same. *In fact they are often
anti-correlated. *If the test criterion is some number
above a threshold, and you raise the threshold, you
make it more likely to get a false negative, but less
likely to get a false positive.

For example, suppose 30% of the population is positive,
and you have a test with a 20% detection rate (80% false
negative) and 1% false positive rate. *If you test 1000
people, of whom 300 are positive, you'll find 60 true
positives and 7 false positives. *I made these numbers
up, but if we knew the real numbers we could get a
better idea.

Because false positives are undesirable, test thresholds
tend to be set kind of high, which leads to people not getting
popped on 100% of the tests they take.

What this really proves is that Ricco, taking dope regularly
enough that he feels he should have been busted all
ten times, was too cheap to pay for a good doctor who
would tell him how to microdose it and time the doses.
Forget whether he doesn't deserve to win the TdF because
he's Dirty Ricky the Cheating Doper. *He doesn't deserve
to win because he hasn't shown enough respect to
cheat well.

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought it was a "tracer molecule" that was placed in the C.E.R.A by
the manufacturer that got The Cobra busted. If that is true, and the
molecule wasn't present, it may have been 10 out of 10 escapes and
he'd be on the podium.
--
Marty