Coggan shames rbr [Archive] - Triangle Cycling

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-04-1970, 09:18 PM

On Sep 13, 9:34*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > ilanpsi wrote:
> >> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments
> >> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
> >> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
> >> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the
> >> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is,
> >> as is regularly done here.
>
> > Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
>
> Yup.

Wow. They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
over something as thin as that? I don't know any
details of this case. However: Coggan says that they
filed it to harass Coyle. That is a legitimate interpretation,
but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).

Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
when there is some real evidence, or a result
stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).

Ben

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:18 PM

On Sep 13, 9:35*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
wrote:
> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which really
> > annoyed me.
>
> That must've hurt.

Yes, therefore the title of this thread, a weak attempt to troll him
into flaming me. However, that's unlikely because it's weak, I haven't
had any success in my trolls for a long time, and anyway now that he's
in the limelight he's probably moved on and only expresses himelf in
interviews with reputable news organizations.

-ilan

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 09:19 PM

Donald Munro wrote:
> ilanpsi wrote:
>>>> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments that
>>>> defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
>>>> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which really
>>>> annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the world how
>>>> fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is, as is
>>>> regularly done here.
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Yup.
>
> Seems like he doesn't mind peer reviewing other people's work
> even though he doesn't want his own reviewed.
>

You'd have to be peerless to understand.

Anton Berlin

01-04-1970, 09:22 PM

On Sep 14, 12:59*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:34*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
> wrote:
>
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > ilanpsi wrote:
> > >> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments
> > >> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
> > >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
> > >> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
> > >> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the
> > >> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is,
> > >> as is regularly done here.
>
> > > Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
>
> > Yup.
>
> Wow. *They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
> over something as thin as that? *I don't know any
> details of this case. *However: Coggan says that they
> filed it to harass Coyle. *That is a legitimate interpretation,
> but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
> the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
> through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
> to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
> if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).
>
> Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
> filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
> when there is some real evidence, or a result
> stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).
>
> Ben

David Martin et al aren't dummies. They are the same group that
brought results to the Aussies on the track in recent years and Martin
spent time with Peter Van Handel who published some of the best papers
in cycling back in the mid 80s on periodization and fundamentals of
the new training.

Here's a link to the dispute

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:26 PM

On Sep 14, 10:49*pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 12:59*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 9:34*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > > ilanpsi wrote:
> > > >> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments
> > > >> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
> > > >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
> > > >> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
> > > >> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the
> > > >> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is,
> > > >> as is regularly done here.
>
> > > > Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
>
> > > Yup.
>
> > Wow. *They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
> > over something as thin as that? *I don't know any
> > details of this case. *However: Coggan says that they
> > filed it to harass Coyle. *That is a legitimate interpretation,
> > but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
> > the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
> > through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
> > to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
> > if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).
>
> > Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
> > filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
> > when there is some real evidence, or a result
> > stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).
>
> > Ben
>
> David Martin et al aren't dummies. *They are the same group that
> brought results to the Aussies on the track in recent years and Martin
> spent time with Peter Van Handel who published some of the best papers
> in cycling back in the mid 80s on periodization and fundamentals of
> the new training.
>
> Here's a link to the dispute
>
> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck

"Coyle’s data supporting the assumption that training can improve
cycling
efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears
that other more conventional explanations describing why
Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"

This accusation is written as an understatement for more scientific
impact. But the accusation itself is without merit, especially for a
scientific publication, because absolutely no evidence for it is
given. Like other accusations leveled in print against Armstrong, it
is merely insinuation.

Another problem with the statement is that "the assumption that
training can improve cycling efficiency in an elite cyclist" is
obviously true, as seen in a general improvement in performance level
in professional cyclists as compared to their first year as a
professional (and Armstrong was tested starting with his first year as
a pro in the study). If this assumption were false, then one would
have to find other factors to explain the progression among
professional cyclists, so I suppose it would come down to the "more
conventional explanations" alluded to, and for most professional
cyclists over the history of the sport. Now that is an accusation!

I find it hard to believe that a scientist would write such a
statement, and that a scientific journal would accept it for
publication.

-ilan

Robert Chung

01-04-1970, 09:26 PM

Anton Berlin wrote:
>
> David Martin et al aren't dummies.
>
> Here's a link to the dispute
>
> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck

You're right that David Martin isn't a dummy. However, that's not a direct
link to the new dispute involving Ashenden. That's a link to an old comment
David Martin made about Coyle's paper back in 2005. The two main criticisms
that Martin made back then were that the data points were few and the
ergometer's calibration may have drifted. Coyle responded that he agreed the
data points were few, but the ergometer was the same one and had been
calibrated.

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 09:26 PM

<ilanpsi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e051768f-de26-4930-a20f-435b9fe89a23@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> I find it hard to believe that a scientist would write such a
> statement, and that a scientific journal would accept it for
> publication.

Starting in the late 90's the scientific journals have turned from science
to political meanderings. I've simply stopped bothering with them.

Ryan Cousineau

01-04-1970, 09:26 PM

In article
<e051768f-de26-4930-a20f-435b9fe89a23@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 14, 10:49*pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 12:59*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 13, 9:34*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > > > ilanpsi wrote:
> > > > >> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments
> > > > >> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
> > > > >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
> > > > >> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
> > > > >> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the
> > > > >> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is,
> > > > >> as is regularly done here.
> >
> > > > > Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
> >
> > > > Yup.
> >
> > > Wow. *They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
> > > over something as thin as that? *I don't know any
> > > details of this case. *However: Coggan says that they
> > > filed it to harass Coyle. *That is a legitimate interpretation,
> > > but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
> > > the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
> > > through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
> > > to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
> > > if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).
> >
> > > Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
> > > filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
> > > when there is some real evidence, or a result
> > > stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).
> >
> > > Ben
> >
> > David Martin et al aren't dummies. *They are the same group that
> > brought results to the Aussies on the track in recent years and Martin
> > spent time with Peter Van Handel who published some of the best papers
> > in cycling back in the mid 80s on periodization and fundamentals of
> > the new training.
> >
> > Here's a link to the dispute
> >
> > http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck
>
> "Coyle¹s data supporting the assumption that training can improve
> cycling
> efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears
> that other more conventional explanations describing why
> Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"
>
> This accusation is written as an understatement for more scientific
> impact. But the accusation itself is without merit, especially for a
> scientific publication, because absolutely no evidence for it is
> given. Like other accusations leveled in print against Armstrong, it
> is merely insinuation.

ilan, I'm a bit disappointed in you. It appears to me you missed an
opportunity to propose some LESS conventional explanations why Armstrong
is such a successful cyclist.

For your consideration:

-Chemo gave him mutant powers!
-pre and post weights of Armstrong don't account for substantial missing
testicular and grey matter mass!
-fundamentally knows that he has an Oedipus complex, and in the
mountains he imagines there's a familiar-looking blonde waiting at the
top of the mountain ("sweet pain") and on the TTs he imagines his absent
father is in the team car ("sour pain")!
-Steve Austin. Lance lives in Austin. It's not a coincidence!
-Lance was sent from the future to protect John Connor. But he arrived
20 years earlier than expected, and decided to spend his free time
racing bicycles.
-Some say Lance spends a few weeks a year at Dunsfold Park driving cars
very quickly. Some say he does this whilst wearing a white driving suit
and never speaking. All we know is, they call him The Stig.
-Casartelli's soul also inhabits Lance's body, allowing him to ride with
the strength of two men!

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

01-04-1970, 09:26 PM

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:49 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 12:59 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 9:34 am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>>>> ilanpsi wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments
>>>>>> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
>>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
>>>>>> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
>>>>>> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the
>>>>>> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is,
>>>>>> as is regularly done here.
>>>>> Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
>>>> Yup.
>>> Wow. They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
>>> over something as thin as that? I don't know any
>>> details of this case. However: Coggan says that they
>>> filed it to harass Coyle. That is a legitimate interpretation,
>>> but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
>>> the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
>>> through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
>>> to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
>>> if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).
>>> Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
>>> filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
>>> when there is some real evidence, or a result
>>> stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).
>>> Ben
>> David Martin et al aren't dummies. They are the same group that
>> brought results to the Aussies on the track in recent years and Martin
>> spent time with Peter Van Handel who published some of the best papers
>> in cycling back in the mid 80s on periodization and fundamentals of
>> the new training.
>>
>> Here's a link to the dispute
>>
>> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck
>
> "Coyle’s data supporting the assumption that training can improve
> cycling
> efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears
> that other more conventional explanations describing why
> Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"
>
> This accusation is written as an understatement for more scientific
> impact. But the accusation itself is without merit, especially for a
> scientific publication, because absolutely no evidence for it is
> given. Like other accusations leveled in print against Armstrong, it
> is merely insinuation.
>
> Another problem with the statement is that "the assumption that
> training can improve cycling efficiency in an elite cyclist" is
> obviously true, as seen in a general improvement in performance level
> in professional cyclists as compared to their first year as a
> professional (and Armstrong was tested starting with his first year as
> a pro in the study). If this assumption were false, then one would
> have to find other factors to explain the progression among
> professional cyclists, so I suppose it would come down to the "more
> conventional explanations" alluded to, and for most professional
> cyclists over the history of the sport. Now that is an accusation!
>
> I find it hard to believe that a scientist would write such a
> statement, and that a scientific journal would accept it for
> publication.
>
> -ilan

I agree. It sounds like the "intelligent design" argument--he's so,
so, good that it could only be the result of drugs (or an omnipotent,
omniscient crea...er, intelligence.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:30 PM

On Sep 15, 6:19*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e051768f-de26-4930-a20f-435b9fe89...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> *ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 10:49*pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 14, 12:59*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 13, 9:34*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > > > > ilanpsi wrote:
> > > > > >> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned arguments
> > > > > >> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
> > > > > >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coyle08
> > > > > >> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
> > > > > >> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show the
> > > > > >> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that is,
> > > > > >> as is regularly done here.
>
> > > > > > Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
>
> > > > > Yup.
>
> > > > Wow. *They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
> > > > over something as thin as that? *I don't know any
> > > > details of this case. *However: Coggan says that they
> > > > filed it to harass Coyle. *That is a legitimate interpretation,
> > > > but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
> > > > the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
> > > > through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
> > > > to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
> > > > if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).
>
> > > > Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
> > > > filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
> > > > when there is some real evidence, or a result
> > > > stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).
>
> > > > Ben
>
> > > David Martin et al aren't dummies. *They are the same group that
> > > brought results to the Aussies on the track in recent years and Martin
> > > spent time with Peter Van Handel who published some of the best papers
> > > in cycling back in the mid 80s on periodization and fundamentals of
> > > the new training.
>
> > > Here's a link to the dispute
>
> > >http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck
>
> > "Coyle¹s data supporting the assumption that training can improve
> > cycling
> > efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears
> > that other more conventional explanations describing why
> > Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"
>
> > This accusation is written as an understatement for more scientific
> > impact. But the accusation itself is without merit, especially for a
> > scientific publication, because absolutely no evidence for it is
> > given. Like other accusations leveled in print against Armstrong, it
> > is merely insinuation.
>
> ilan, I'm a bit disappointed in you. It appears to me you missed an
> opportunity to propose some LESS conventional explanations why Armstrong
> is such a successful cyclist.
>
> For your consideration:
>
> -Chemo gave him mutant powers!
> -pre and post weights of Armstrong don't account for substantial missing
> testicular and grey matter mass!
> -fundamentally knows that he has an Oedipus complex, and in the
> mountains he imagines there's a familiar-looking blonde waiting at the
> top of the mountain ("sweet pain") and on the TTs he imagines his absent
> father is in the team car ("sour pain")!
> -Steve Austin. Lance lives in Austin. It's not a coincidence!
> -Lance was sent from the future to protect John Connor. But he arrived
> 20 years earlier than expected, and decided to spend his free time
> racing bicycles.
> -Some say Lance spends a few weeks a year at Dunsfold Park driving cars
> very quickly. Some say he does this whilst wearing a white driving suit
> and never speaking. All we know is, they call him The Stig.
> -Casartelli's soul also inhabits Lance's body, allowing him to ride with
> the strength of two men!
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

You're right, I never considered *any* of those possibilities. And
yet, they seem so obvious once you see them, so I guess this means
I've lost my touch. To make things worse, I have been spending an
enormous amount of time trying to make up a joke about Lance Armstrong
dating Brittany Spears, I know there's something there, but I just
can't seem to find it.

Speaking of wild accusations against Armstrong, things should get good
if Nancy Grace ever gets into it (Armstrong should fry) and loses
interest in the Baby Caylee case. It would also be good news from
Armstrong, as the targets of her righteous indignation usually seem to
be vindicated.

-ilan

Ryan Cousineau

01-04-1970, 09:31 PM

In article
<111b4da1-f5e2-4934-9601-920f78a0ce97@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 15, 6:19*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e051768f-de26-4930-a20f-435b9fe89...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > *ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 14, 10:49*pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 14, 12:59*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 13, 9:34*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > > > > > ilanpsi wrote:
> > > > > > >> Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., an rbr regular gives calm reasoned
> > > > > > >> arguments
> > > > > > >> that defuse a ridiculous interaction between supposed scientists
> > > > > > >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/armstrong_coy
> > > > > > >>le08
> > > > > > >> The worst part is that I could hardly have said it better which
> > > > > > >> really annoyed me. Anyway, he missed a rare opportunity to show
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> world how fattie masters should act during such disputes, that
> > > > > > >> is,
> > > > > > >> as is regularly done here.
> >
> > > > > > > Isn't Ashenden the guy who doesn't like peer reviews ?
> >
> > > > > > Yup.
> >
> > > > > Wow. *They filed a charge of scientific misconduct
> > > > > over something as thin as that? *I don't know any
> > > > > details of this case. *However: Coggan says that they
> > > > > filed it to harass Coyle. *That is a legitimate interpretation,
> > > > > but it is also possible - I'd bet it's likely - that they filed
> > > > > the charges in order to go on a fishing expedition
> > > > > through Coyle's old data, in hopes of finding some stick
> > > > > to club Armstrong (and Coyle, but nobody would bother
> > > > > if it was Coyle and some unknown cyclist).
> >
> > > > > Normally, one would write a paper in refutation;
> > > > > filing a misconduct charge should be reserved for
> > > > > when there is some real evidence, or a result
> > > > > stinks to high heaven (cold-fusion type stuff).
> >
> > > > > Ben
> >
> > > > David Martin et al aren't dummies. *They are the same group that
> > > > brought results to the Aussies on the track in recent years and Martin
> > > > spent time with Peter Van Handel who published some of the best papers
> > > > in cycling back in the mid 80s on periodization and fundamentals of
> > > > the new training.
> >
> > > > Here's a link to the dispute
> >
> > > >http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/1628.pdf?ck=nck
> >
> > > "Coyle¹s data supporting the assumption that training can improve
> > > cycling
> > > efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears
> > > that other more conventional explanations describing why
> > > Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"
> >
> > > This accusation is written as an understatement for more scientific
> > > impact. But the accusation itself is without merit, especially for a
> > > scientific publication, because absolutely no evidence for it is
> > > given. Like other accusations leveled in print against Armstrong, it
> > > is merely insinuation.
> >
> > ilan, I'm a bit disappointed in you. It appears to me you missed an
> > opportunity to propose some LESS conventional explanations why Armstrong
> > is such a successful cyclist.
> >
> > For your consideration:
> >
> > -Chemo gave him mutant powers!
> > -pre and post weights of Armstrong don't account for substantial missing
> > testicular and grey matter mass!
> > -fundamentally knows that he has an Oedipus complex, and in the
> > mountains he imagines there's a familiar-looking blonde waiting at the
> > top of the mountain ("sweet pain") and on the TTs he imagines his absent
> > father is in the team car ("sour pain")!
> > -Steve Austin. Lance lives in Austin. It's not a coincidence!
> > -Lance was sent from the future to protect John Connor. But he arrived
> > 20 years earlier than expected, and decided to spend his free time
> > racing bicycles.
> > -Some say Lance spends a few weeks a year at Dunsfold Park driving cars
> > very quickly. Some say he does this whilst wearing a white driving suit
> > and never speaking. All we know is, they call him The Stig.
> > -Casartelli's soul also inhabits Lance's body, allowing him to ride with
> > the strength of two men!

> You're right, I never considered *any* of those possibilities. And
> yet, they seem so obvious once you see them, so I guess this means
> I've lost my touch. To make things worse, I have been spending an
> enormous amount of time trying to make up a joke about Lance Armstrong
> dating Brittany Spears, I know there's something there, but I just
> can't seem to find it.

BritNEy.

> Speaking of wild accusations against Armstrong, things should get good
> if Nancy Grace ever gets into it (Armstrong should fry) and loses
> interest in the Baby Caylee case. It would also be good news from
> Armstrong, as the targets of her righteous indignation usually seem to
> be vindicated.

Having analyzed Nancy Grace, I think Lance is likely to add Ms. Grace to
his "to do" list.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ted van de Weteringe

01-04-1970, 09:31 PM

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> I've lost my touch. To make things worse, I have been spending an
> enormous amount of time trying to make up a joke about Lance Armstrong
> dating Brittany Spears, I know there's something there, but I just
> can't seem to find it.

"_Baby Hit Me One More Time_: Brittany Spears Lance's Tour Dreams"
(after a fall in the west of France. Yes it still needs work). A stage
around Brest might prove inspirational. How about: "Armstrong Holds
Yellow (Brest, Brittany)."

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:31 PM

On Sep 15, 8:33*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Having analyzed Nancy Grace, I think Lance is likely to add Ms. Grace to
> his "to do" list.

If that's true, then he's going to have a fit when he returns to
France and finds out that Melissa Theuriau
http://ballsiest.com/sportsblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/melissa-theuriau..jpg
married Jamel Debbouze http://sport-trops.com/marocfoot/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/photo-jamel-debbouze.jpg

Oh, wait, what am I talking about. By that time, Carla Bruni will have
gotten bored. Goodbye Nicolas Sarkozy, hello Carla Armstrong! Check it
out, it was predicted here first.

-ilan

Ryan Cousineau

01-04-1970, 09:32 PM

In article
<1d9c7773-0fcd-407b-8f81-f53b0beabaea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 15, 8:33*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Having analyzed Nancy Grace, I think Lance is likely to add Ms. Grace to
> > his "to do" list.
>
> If that's true, then he's going to have a fit when he returns to
> France and finds out that Melissa Theuriau
> http://ballsiest.com/sportsblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/melissa-theuriau.jp
> g
> married Jamel Debbouze
> http://sport-trops.com/marocfoot/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/photo-jamel-debbou
> ze.jpg
>
> Oh, wait, what am I talking about. By that time, Carla Bruni will have
> gotten bored. Goodbye Nicolas Sarkozy, hello Carla Armstrong! Check it
> out, it was predicted here first.
>
> -ilan

Dumbass: these women you speak of: are they blonde?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Michael Press

01-04-1970, 09:32 PM

In article
<1d9c7773-0fcd-407b-8f81-f53b0beabaea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 15, 8:33*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Having analyzed Nancy Grace, I think Lance is likely to add Ms. Grace to
> > his "to do" list.
>
> If that's true, then he's going to have a fit when he returns to
> France and finds out that Melissa Theuriau
> http://ballsiest.com/sportsblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/melissa-theuriau.jpg
> married Jamel Debbouze http://sport-trops.com/marocfoot/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/photo-jamel-debbouze.jpg

This cannot go unpunished.
I am alerting hot chicks with douchebags.
<http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/>

--
Michael Press

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:32 PM

On Sep 15, 10:10*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1d9c7773-0fcd-407b-8f81-f53b0beab...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> *ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 8:33*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Having analyzed Nancy Grace, I think Lance is likely to add Ms. Grace to
> > > his "to do" list.
>
> > If that's true, then he's going to have a fit when he returns to
> > France and finds out that Melissa Theuriau
> >http://ballsiest.com/sportsblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/melissa-th...
> > g
> > married Jamel Debbouze
> >http://sport-trops.com/marocfoot/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/photo-jam...
> > ze.jpg
>
> > Oh, wait, what am I talking about. By that time, Carla Bruni will have
> > gotten bored. Goodbye Nicolas Sarkozy, hello Carla Armstrong! Check it
> > out, it was predicted here first.
>
> > -ilan
>
> Dumbass: these women you speak of: are they blonde?
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Actually, I've thought it over, and, apart from the fact that Carla
Bruni is a brunette, she just goes for "intellectuals". So, amazingly,
I have much better chances with her than Lance does. In fact, I think
I ran into her about a year ago when I was walking my dog. I smiled
and said hi, as I usually do when I see horrible pretentious people
around where I live, and unlike the others who ignore me or treat me
as the local village idiot - only provincials or retards (this is also
considered redundant in Paris) say "hi" in Paris, and yet she looked
me over and eventually responded. My theory is that she noted my
corduroy jacket and reasonably advanced age, and given the area of
Paris (St. Germain-des-Pres) she decided that I might be some
"important" intellectual whom she didn't quite recognize, so couldn't
risk blowing me off.

By the way, her sister Valeria is blonde and smart, which goes to show
how important her father's genes were (Carla was spawned by some guy
her mother cheated around with).

-ilan

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 09:32 PM

ilanpsi wrote:
> By the way, her sister Valeria is blonde and smart, which goes to show how
> important her father's genes were (Carla was spawned by some guy her
> mother cheated around with).

LANCE's father ? To add to the Cousineau conspirancies LANCE is
Darth Vader.

Ryan Cousineau

01-04-1970, 09:32 PM

In article <48cf6833$0$2860$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ilanpsi wrote:
> > By the way, her sister Valeria is blonde and smart, which goes to show how
> > important her father's genes were (Carla was spawned by some guy her
> > mother cheated around with).
>
> LANCE's father ? To add to the Cousineau conspirancies LANCE is
> Darth Vader.

Luke will bring balance to the force?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

LawBoy01

01-04-1970, 09:33 PM

On Sep 16, 9:38*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:47*am, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Worse still, he only recalibrated one set of data and made his
> > argument readily defensible.
>
> Are you referring to Gore et al.? As they indicated in their letter,
> the reason that they only recalculated delta efficiency for 1993 is
> because that's the only original dataset to which they had access.
>
> Andy Coggan

From the Cyclingnews article:

"But Coggan said the letter by Gore, et al. was 'making a mountain out
of a molehill' by raising such serious charges over a minor technical
point. Coyle, in his rebuttal, noted that the Australians had
recalculated Armstrong's 1993 data, but had failed to do the same for
the 1999 value. 'Gore et al. should also realize that their
recalculations of delta efficiency using one selective method for 1993
and another for 1999 is questionable, for obvious reasons, as well as
being potentially biased,' Coyle wrote in his rebuttal."

I guess I'm taking issue with the Australians for so vociferously
questioning the bases of Coyle's argument that maturity increases
efficiency if the Australians were essentially comparing apples (the
1999 data) with oranges (the recalculated 1993 data). The AIS has a
manifestly eveident bias in the discussion of Armstrong; I mean, the
Cyclingnews article tells us that (1) the Australians had all of the
data collected since 1993, and (2) that all of the data except that
from the first trial in 1993 was lost, and were "unavailable" for
analysis. There's nothing to suggest that Coyle flushed the data down
a digital toilet or set it on fire. Nevertheless, the Australians get
to make their point - and discredit Coyle - based solely on their own
(dare I say) unproven method of manipulating the 1993 data.

Andy -- it's clear to me (and is hopefully clear to you) that the AIS
shares the European cynicism inherent in just about anything coming
out of WADA about Armstrong. The governing bodies and organizers in
cycling have never been able to establish that Armstrong doped, and
they feel cheated out of proving that Armstrong cheated. And they are
going to go on and on with the notion that nobody can prove that
Armstrong didn't cheat, as though that's the relevant inquiry. Sure,
it would be nice to know with scientific certainty whether Armstrong's
success had to do with his physical maturity, but I'm not going to
approve of efforts made by a few individuals to ruin another's career
just because they don't want to hear anything that refutes their own
scientifically unsupportable doubt of "The Armstrong Myth".

I'm not naive, and think that Armstrong was always ahead of the doping
game and doing things (at a minimum) that were not yet banned but that
would be if the powers that be found out what he was doing. But I'll
let you in a secret: Armstrong's 7 consecutive TdF wins were achieved
with the aid of 16 oz. of FRS per stage! Go get some at your LBS.

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 09:34 PM

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:6CQzk.242$3e1.55@trnddc02...
> ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that a scientist would write such a
>> statement, and that a scientific journal would accept it for
>> publication.
>
> I agree. It sounds like the "intelligent design" argument--he's so, so,
> good that it could only be the result of drugs (or an omnipotent,
> omniscient crea...er, intelligence.

And yet the average stage speeds haven't changed. Only tiny little sections
of the stages change that are easily attributable to slight physiological
differences between people and we have morons here assuming that anyone that
finishes on the front is absolutely using drugs.

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 09:41 PM

LawBoy01 wrote:
> But I'll let you in a secret: Armstrong's 7 consecutive TdF wins were
> achieved with the aid of 16 oz. of FRS per stage! Go get some at your
> LBS.

FRS mixed with Gerolsteiner mineral water - the **** that will kill them.

Brian Lafferty

01-04-1970, 09:41 PM

LawBoy01 wrote:
> On Sep 16, 9:38 am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 9:47 am, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Worse still, he only recalibrated one set of data and made his
>>> argument readily defensible.
>> Are you referring to Gore et al.? As they indicated in their letter,
>> the reason that they only recalculated delta efficiency for 1993 is
>> because that's the only original dataset to which they had access.
>>
>> Andy Coggan
>
> From the Cyclingnews article:
>
> "But Coggan said the letter by Gore, et al. was 'making a mountain out
> of a molehill' by raising such serious charges over a minor technical
> point. Coyle, in his rebuttal, noted that the Australians had
> recalculated Armstrong's 1993 data, but had failed to do the same for
> the 1999 value. 'Gore et al. should also realize that their
> recalculations of delta efficiency using one selective method for 1993
> and another for 1999 is questionable, for obvious reasons, as well as
> being potentially biased,' Coyle wrote in his rebuttal."
>
> I guess I'm taking issue with the Australians for so vociferously
> questioning the bases of Coyle's argument that maturity increases
> efficiency if the Australians were essentially comparing apples (the
> 1999 data) with oranges (the recalculated 1993 data). The AIS has a
> manifestly eveident bias in the discussion of Armstrong; I mean, the
> Cyclingnews article tells us that (1) the Australians had all of the
> data collected since 1993, and (2) that all of the data except that
> from the first trial in 1993 was lost, and were "unavailable" for
> analysis. There's nothing to suggest that Coyle flushed the data down
> a digital toilet or set it on fire. Nevertheless, the Australians get
> to make their point - and discredit Coyle - based solely on their own
> (dare I say) unproven method of manipulating the 1993 data.
>
> Andy -- it's clear to me (and is hopefully clear to you) that the AIS
> shares the European cynicism inherent in just about anything coming
> out of WADA about Armstrong. The governing bodies and organizers in
> cycling have never been able to establish that Armstrong doped, and
> they feel cheated out of proving that Armstrong cheated. And they are
> going to go on and on with the notion that nobody can prove that
> Armstrong didn't cheat, as though that's the relevant inquiry. Sure,
> it would be nice to know with scientific certainty whether Armstrong's
> success had to do with his physical maturity, but I'm not going to
> approve of efforts made by a few individuals to ruin another's career
> just because they don't want to hear anything that refutes their own
> scientifically unsupportable doubt of "The Armstrong Myth".

Was the remaining urine from 1999 retested under observation by
Armstrong's people as was offered to him by the French sports ministry?
I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.

The people who don't want to accept reality are those in the Armstrong
camp, such as true believer Coggan.

>
> I'm not naive, and think that Armstrong was always ahead of the doping
> game and doing things (at a minimum) that were not yet banned but that
> would be if the powers that be found out what he was doing. But I'll
> let you in a secret: Armstrong's 7 consecutive TdF wins were achieved
> with the aid of 16 oz. of FRS per stage! Go get some at your LBS.

LawBoy01

01-04-1970, 09:41 PM

On Sep 17, 4:04*pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LawBoy01 wrote:
> > But I'll let you in a secret: Armstrong's 7 consecutive TdF wins were
> > achieved with the aid of 16 oz. of FRS per stage! *Go get some at your
> > LBS.
>
> FRS mixed with Gerolsteiner mineral water - the **** that will kill them.

I mix mine with Shiner Bock.

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 09:43 PM

On Sep 18, 6:39*am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> The people who don't want to accept reality are those in the Armstrong
> camp, such as true believer Coggan.

I have never expressed an opinion one way or another as to whether I
believe that Armstrong used EPO, or any other banned substance. All I
have ever done is point out that it is foolish to think that one can
use physiological and/or performance data (e.g., power output) to
prove (or disprove) a charge of doping.

Andy Coggan

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 09:43 PM

On Sep 18, 6:39*am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> * I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.

One wonders why:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Andy Coggan

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4584d989-f361-44e0-9938-041cbc68bc8f@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I think that sums up the problem pretty neatly.

I worked for Beckman Corp. back in the late 80's and we designed ultra
sensitive chromatography equipment - the first of its kind - and we had
contact with many of the world's testing labs. I sat in one of the main
chemists office who would answer questions from all over the world. The
people with the least ability to follow procedure was easily the French by a
rather long margin.

Amit Ghosh

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 10:57*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:39*am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > * I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> > that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> > 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.
>
> One wonders why:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez....
>
> Andy Coggan

dumbass,

yes, this study seems to imply that the rate of positives is lower
than it should be - but it doesn't make any statement about false
positives.

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 7:57*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:39*am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > * I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> > that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> > 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.
>
> One wonders why:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez....
>
> Andy Coggan

That study undermines everything that **** Pound stands for. As far as
WADA is concerned it is spurious. The sad part is that I'm right,
they've even said that they don't believe it.

-ilan

Amit Ghosh

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 11:12*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4584d989-f361-44e0-9938-041cbc68bc8f@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez...
>
> I think that sums up the problem pretty neatly.
>
> I worked for Beckman Corp. back in the late 80's and we designed ultra
> sensitive chromatography equipment - the first of its kind - and we had
> contact with many of the world's testing labs. I sat in one of the main
> chemists office who would answer questions from all over the world. The
> people with the least ability to follow procedure was easily the French by a
> rather long margin.

dumbass,

it's interesting to see Kunich-logic at work here.

so because of some experiences you had 20 years ago with some obscure
techs means the LNDD staff are unreliable ? maybe you can also explain
how they made ricco confess as well.

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 11:08*am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:57*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 6:39*am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > * I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> > > that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> > > 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.
>
> > One wonders why:
>
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez...
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> dumbass,
>
> yes, this study seems to imply that the rate of positives is lower
> than it should be - but it doesn't make any statement about false
> positives.

dumbass,

Actually, it does (they do) - see the Discussion.

Andy Coggan

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

"Amit Ghosh" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdcf4309-be29-4118-a05c-a2af177efb62@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> so because of some experiences you had 20 years ago with some obscure
> techs means the LNDD staff are unreliable ? maybe you can also explain
> how they made ricco confess as well.

I find it interesting that you don't understand that I'm talking about the
technology and the same companies that presently do the drug testing. But
then you've never demonstrated that you have even the faintest clue about
what you talk about.

I was rather shocked when you said you actually ride a bicycle. Certainly
the stuff you publish here demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge about
anything that a real cyclist would have knowledge of.

Ryan Cousineau

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

In article
<fdcf4309-be29-4118-a05c-a2af177efb62@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 18, 11:12*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:4584d989-f361-44e0-9938-041cbc68bc8f@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez...
> >
> > I think that sums up the problem pretty neatly.
> >
> > I worked for Beckman Corp. back in the late 80's and we designed ultra
> > sensitive chromatography equipment - the first of its kind - and we had
> > contact with many of the world's testing labs. I sat in one of the main
> > chemists office who would answer questions from all over the world. The
> > people with the least ability to follow procedure was easily the French by a
> > rather long margin.
>
> dumbass,
>
> it's interesting to see Kunich-logic at work here.
>
> so because of some experiences you had 20 years ago with some obscure
> techs means the LNDD staff are unreliable ? maybe you can also explain
> how they made ricco confess as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudjonsson_suggestibility_scale

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Laura W

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 12:15 pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:08 am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 10:57 am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 6:39 am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> > > > that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> > > > 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.
>
> > > One wonders why:
>
> > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez...
>
> > > Andy Coggan
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > yes, this study seems to imply that the rate of positives is lower
> > than it should be - but it doesn't make any statement about false
> > positives.
>
> dumbass,
>
> Actually, it does (they do) - see the Discussion.
>
> Andy Coggan

Actually, this is another disputed paper.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news

Amit Ghosh

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 12:15*pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:08*am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 10:57*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 6:39*am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > * I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> > > > that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> > > > 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.
>
> > > One wonders why:
>
> > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez...
>
> > > Andy Coggan
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > yes, this study seems to imply that the rate of positives is lower
> > than it should be - but it doesn't make any statement about false
> > positives.
>
> dumbass,
>
> Actually, it does (they do) - see the Discussion.
>
> Andy Coggan

dumbass,

this was discussed here before - my interpretation is that the
detection window was larger in one individual than was expected.

the authors entertain the notion that this might be a false positive
because the subject tested negative on day 30 and positive on day 35.
there's reasons why that might be the case.

the labs might not consistently achieve their target sensitivity and
there might be changes in the amount of synthetic EPO that's excreted
in the urine, with the same effect that the detectability might not
simply decay monotonically with time.

most people who read this study will wonder why there wasn't a control
group. i suspect there probably was but there were no false positives
and for whatever reason that was left out of the paper.

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 11:40*am, Laura W <coffn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:15 pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 11:08 am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 10:57 am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 18, 6:39 am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > * I seem to recall the woman who heads the WADA lab in Montreal saying
> > > > > that EPO found in the 1999 sample was just that--EPO and that she had
> > > > > 100% confidence in the findings from FRANCE.
>
> > > > One wonders why:
>
> > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18583375?ordinalpos=7&itool=Entrez...
>
> > > > Andy Coggan
>
> > > dumbass,
>
> > > yes, this study seems to imply that the rate of positives is lower
> > > than it should be - but it doesn't make any statement about false
> > > positives.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > Actually, it does (they do) - see the Discussion.
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> Actually, this is another disputed paper.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news-

Aye, but you'd expect the "guilty party" to defend themselves, no?
IOW, why haven't other independent scientists jumped on it?

Andy Coggan

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

"Laura W" <coffngrl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f8c092f-c906-4858-b97f-4a2348d36122@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Actually, this is another disputed paper.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news

They can dispute all they want. The problem is that there is more technique
than science in these detection sequences and hence from lab to lab and
worker to worker they're obtaining significantly different results. To use
such things to destroy a man's reputation and keep him from making his
living is very, very wrong.

Of course there are a number of nut cases here who believe that destroying
someone because of a set of unreliable tests is PERFECTLY OK with them. Too
bad someone doesn't do that to them. That's probably the only thing that
will make them understand the impact of poor scientific procedures.

William Asher

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

Andy Coggan wrote:

> On Sep 18, 11:40*am, Laura W <coffn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, this is another disputed
>> paper.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news-
>
> Aye, but you'd expect the "guilty party" to defend themselves, no?
> IOW, why haven't other independent scientists jumped on it?

Because, perhaps, out of all the scientists who could potentially study
this topic and in the grand scheme of all the research topics in the world,
relatively few scientists give a crap about testing atheletes for EPO use?

--
Bill Asher

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 09:44 PM

On Sep 18, 11:51*am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andy Coggan wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 11:40*am, Laura W <coffn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, this is another disputed
> >> paper.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news-
>
> > Aye, but you'd expect the "guilty party" to defend themselves, no?
> > IOW, why haven't other independent scientists jumped on it?
>
> Because, perhaps, out of all the scientists who could potentially study
> this topic and in the grand scheme of all the research topics in the world,
> relatively few scientists give a crap about testing atheletes for EPO use?

You can bet that there are more sports scientists interested in the
details of EPO testing (which applies to all sports, or at least all
endurance sports) than there are in case studies of cycling efficiency
in a former TdF champion (which is really only relevant to cycling).

Andy Coggan

MagillaGorilla

01-04-1970, 09:45 PM

Andy Coggan wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:51 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Andy Coggan wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 18, 11:40 am, Laura W <coffn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Actually, this is another disputed
>>>>paper.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul03news-
>>
>>>Aye, but you'd expect the "guilty party" to defend themselves, no?
>>>IOW, why haven't other independent scientists jumped on it?
>>
>>Because, perhaps, out of all the scientists who could potentially study
>>this topic and in the grand scheme of all the research topics in the world,
>>relatively few scientists give a crap about testing atheletes for EPO use?
>
>
> You can bet that there are more sports scientists interested in the
> details of EPO testing (which applies to all sports, or at least all
> endurance sports) than there are in case studies of cycling efficiency
> in a former TdF champion (which is really only relevant to cycling).
>
> Andy Coggan

So were the EPO tests done by the LNDD on Armstrong's '99 samples
accurate or not?

Thanks,

Magilla

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 10:00 PM

On Sep 21, 10:56*am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

> So were the EPO tests done by the LNDD on Armstrong's '99 samples accurate or not?

I don't know, but based on what has been published re. the
methodology, I can't say that I'd put too much stock in any EPO test
results.

Andy Coggan

MagillaGorilla

01-04-1970, 10:06 PM

Andy Coggan wrote:

> On Sep 21, 10:56 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So were the EPO tests done by the LNDD on Armstrong's '99 samples accurate or not?
>
>
> I don't know, but based on what has been published re. the
> methodology, I can't say that I'd put too much stock in any EPO test
> results.
>
> Andy Coggan

Okay, so all the EPO positives which were validated by WADA and CAS done
by the LNDD (many which led to confessions by riders). But the ONLY EPO
tests that are supposedly wrong are for Lance?

Okay. If that's what you believe...

You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
negatives, not false positives, right?

Magilla

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

On Sep 22, 12:28*pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Andy Coggan wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 10:56 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>So were the EPO tests done by the LNDD on Armstrong's '99 samples accurate or not?
>
> > I don't know, but based on what has been published re. the
> > methodology, I can't say that I'd put too much stock in any EPO test
> > results.
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> Okay, so all the EPO positives which were validated by WADA and CAS done
> by the LNDD (many which led to confessions by riders). *But the ONLY EPO
> tests that are supposedly wrong are for Lance?

What part about the word "any" is it that you don't understand?

> Okay. *If that's what you believe...
>
> You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> negatives, not false positives, right?

Actually, that's not the debate.

Andy Coggan

Amit Ghosh

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

On Sep 22, 1:28*pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

> Okay, so all the EPO positives which were validated by WADA and CAS done
> by the LNDD (many which led to confessions by riders). *But the ONLY EPO
> tests that are supposedly wrong are for Lance?
>

dumbass,

armstrong got hosed not because i don't think the test is valid (it
is) but because it was a retroactive test which is not allowed under
the wada protocol and there was no B sample - not because a B sample
is magic, but that has been the customary standard to always test two
samples.

LawBoy01

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

> You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> negatives, not false positives, right?
>
> Magilla

I am a dumbass on (or at least ignorant about) this distinction. I
would seem to me that either the test works or it doesn't and/or that
the test can be trusted or it can't. Please explain your distinction
to me or at least direct me to an article (online or in print) that
discusses it.

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:339b60e7-0982-4974-bce5-0fd100100eb2@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 12:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, so all the EPO positives which were validated by WADA and CAS done
> > by the LNDD (many which led to confessions by riders). But the ONLY EPO
> > tests that are supposedly wrong are for Lance?
>
> What part about the word "any" is it that you don't understand?

Every part. A fool is always a fool. And let's remember that the only reason
"Magilla" is here is to cause arguments. He couldn't care less about this
sport and has no desire to help the people in it.

> > You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> > negatives, not false positives, right?
>
> Actually, that's not the debate.

Also it's incorrect. But seeing who this is coming from are we surprised
that lies run out of his fingertips like slime from an earthworm?

MagillaGorilla

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

Andy Coggan wrote:

> On Sep 22, 12:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Andy Coggan wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 21, 10:56 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So were the EPO tests done by the LNDD on Armstrong's '99 samples accurate or not?
>>
>>>I don't know, but based on what has been published re. the
>>>methodology, I can't say that I'd put too much stock in any EPO test
>>>results.
>>
>>>Andy Coggan
>>
>>Okay, so all the EPO positives which were validated by WADA and CAS done
>>by the LNDD (many which led to confessions by riders). But the ONLY EPO
>>tests that are supposedly wrong are for Lance?
>
>
> What part about the word "any" is it that you don't understand?
>
>
>>Okay. If that's what you believe...
>>
>>You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
>>negatives, not false positives, right?
>
>
> Actually, that's not the debate.
>
> Andy Coggan

So if you believe the WADA labs are so corrupt/incompetent, why would
Lance take out a license again and subject himself to the same false
positives of these supposed corrupt labs like the LNDD?

How come Tyler Hamilton, Floyd, and Lance aren't afraid of testing
(false) positive again because of these supposedly corrupt labs?

Any idea?

It's amazing to me how these guys take out a license and never ask for
reforms in the testing after claiming the labs cannot be trusted. You'd
think Tyler Hamilton would be losing sleep over the fact that he could
turn up as a false positive again on the blood doping test, no?
Especially since they supposedly did it so easily the first time.

But for some reason all these guys seem to take out a license and don't
seem to worry. I've never seen a single quote from Hamilton or Floyd or
Lance that they are concerned about testing (false) positive again.

Funny how that is. It's almost as if they KNOW the tests are accurate
as hell and their little act of crying 'incompetent labs' is just that -
a big act.

Take care Dr. Coggan,

Magilla

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

On Sep 22, 10:45*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Actually, that's not the debate.
>
> Andy Coggan

I disagree, that's not the debate.

-ilan

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

On Sep 22, 1:07*pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

> So if you believe the WADA labs are so corrupt/incompetent

Did I say that I believed that?

>, why would
> Lance take out a license again and subject himself to the same false
> positives of these supposed corrupt labs like the LNDD?

The same reason that anyone does anything: the perceived benefits
outweigh the perceived risks.

Andy Coggan

Michael Press

01-04-1970, 10:07 PM

In article <27qdnfaSN912Q0rVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@ptd.net>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@zoo.com> wrote:

> Andy Coggan wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 12:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Andy Coggan wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sep 21, 10:56 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>So were the EPO tests done by the LNDD on Armstrong's '99 samples accurate or not?
> >>
> >>>I don't know, but based on what has been published re. the
> >>>methodology, I can't say that I'd put too much stock in any EPO test
> >>>results.
> >>
> >>>Andy Coggan
> >>
> >>Okay, so all the EPO positives which were validated by WADA and CAS done
> >>by the LNDD (many which led to confessions by riders). But the ONLY EPO
> >>tests that are supposedly wrong are for Lance?
> >
> >
> > What part about the word "any" is it that you don't understand?
> >
> >
> >>Okay. If that's what you believe...
> >>
> >>You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> >>negatives, not false positives, right?
> >
> >
> > Actually, that's not the debate.
> >
> > Andy Coggan
>
>
> So if you believe the WADA labs are so corrupt/incompetent, why would
> Lance take out a license again and subject himself to the same false
> positives of these supposed corrupt labs like the LNDD?
>
> How come Tyler Hamilton, Floyd, and Lance aren't afraid of testing
> (false) positive again because of these supposedly corrupt labs?
>
> Any idea?
>
> It's amazing to me how these guys take out a license and never ask for
> reforms in the testing after claiming the labs cannot be trusted. You'd
> think Tyler Hamilton would be losing sleep over the fact that he could
> turn up as a false positive again on the blood doping test, no?
> Especially since they supposedly did it so easily the first time.
>
> But for some reason all these guys seem to take out a license and don't
> seem to worry. I've never seen a single quote from Hamilton or Floyd or
> Lance that they are concerned about testing (false) positive again.
>
> Funny how that is. It's almost as if they KNOW the tests are accurate
> as hell and their little act of crying 'incompetent labs' is just that -
> a big act.

I would explain it to you, but you can work it out for yourself.

--
Michael Press

Andy Coggan

01-04-1970, 10:08 PM

On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 22, 10:45*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, that's not the debate.
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> I disagree, that's not the debate.

Still haven't caught up on your reading, have you?

Andy Coggan

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 10:08 PM

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f2e77bc7-bc3f-47c4-9dce-d5d80b5b7251@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 1:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >, why would
> > Lance take out a license again and subject himself to the same false
> > positives of these supposed corrupt labs like the LNDD?
>
> The same reason that anyone does anything: the perceived benefits
> outweigh the perceived risks.

Plus he has already said that he would have all sorts of backup lab reports
in case LNDD stepped out of line which seems to be their permanent practice.

MagillaGorilla

01-04-1970, 10:08 PM

Andy Coggan wrote:

> On Sep 22, 1:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So if you believe the WADA labs are so corrupt/incompetent
>
>
> Did I say that I believed that?
>
>
>>, why would
>>Lance take out a license again and subject himself to the same false
>>positives of these supposed corrupt labs like the LNDD?
>
>
> The same reason that anyone does anything: the perceived benefits
> outweigh the perceived risks.
>
> Andy Coggan

Bull****. There's nothing stopping them from reforming the system if
they were in fact being framed by bad tests and corrupt labs. The real
answer is they all know the tests are accurate as hell, and they can't
live the lie they tell the public 24/7.

Tyler knows what he did. So did the rest. And they all know the tests
are accurate.

Magilla

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 10:08 PM

On Sep 22, 12:58*pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 10:45*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, that's not the debate.
>
> > > Andy Coggan
>
> > I disagree, that's not the debate.
>
> Still haven't caught up on your reading, have you?
>
> Andy Coggan

By answering my previous post you proved me correct since this
completely shifted the debate to the question of the subject of the
debate.

-ilan

LawBoy01

01-04-1970, 10:08 PM

On Sep 22, 2:58*pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 10:45*am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, that's not the debate.
>
> > > Andy Coggan
>
> > I disagree, that's not the debate.
>
> Still haven't caught up on your reading, have you?
>
> Andy Coggan

Would you mind sending me some information about the EPO test, its
pitfalls and benefits?

MagillaGorilla

01-04-1970, 10:08 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:f2e77bc7-bc3f-47c4-9dce-d5d80b5b7251@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Sep 22, 1:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>> >, why would
>> > Lance take out a license again and subject himself to the same false
>> > positives of these supposed corrupt labs like the LNDD?
>>
>> The same reason that anyone does anything: the perceived benefits
>> outweigh the perceived risks.
>
>
> Plus he has already said that he would have all sorts of backup lab
> reports in case LNDD stepped out of line which seems to be their
> permanent practice.
>

Back-up lab reports? Yeah, just like every athlete who goes before CAS
and LOSES their case.

Maybe he can use Landis' witnesses. The million dollar dream team got a
3-0 CAS loss and a $100k fine.

Magilla

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-04-1970, 10:09 PM

On Sep 22, 3:16*pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> > negatives, not false positives, right?
>
> > Magilla
>
> I am a dumbass on (or at least ignorant about) this distinction. *I
> would seem to me that either the test works or it doesn't and/or that
> the test can be trusted or it can't. *Please explain your distinction
> to me or at least direct me to an article (online or in print) that
> discusses it.

Dumbass,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity

It's what it sounds like. A false negative is a
negative result on a person who is actually positive.
A false positive is a positive result on a person who is
actually negative. This applies to any kind of test,
not just EPO tests - for example, tests for diseases,
antibodies.

People often assume that the false +ve and -ve error
rates are similar, but that is very wrong.
Many tests have some kind of threshold
above which a sample must score to be "positive."
If you raise the threshold, the test declares fewer
people +ve, so it will have a lower false +ve rate
and a higher false -ve rate. More specificity, less
sensitivity.

Ben

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 10:10 PM

"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjweiner@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c5b6f35-b188-4e77-89f8-d52330042568@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you raise the threshold, the test declares fewer
> people +ve, so it will have a lower false +ve rate
> and a higher false -ve rate. More specificity, less
> sensitivity.

But NO test only gives false positives OR false negatives alone.

LawBoy01

01-04-1970, 10:10 PM

On Sep 22, 8:13*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 3:16*pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> > > negatives, not false positives, right?
>
> > > Magilla
>
> > I am a dumbass on (or at least ignorant about) this distinction. *I
> > would seem to me that either the test works or it doesn't and/or that
> > the test can be trusted or it can't. *Please explain your distinction
> > to me or at least direct me to an article (online or in print) that
> > discusses it.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
>
> It's what it sounds like. *A false negative is a
> negative result on a person who is actually positive.
> A false positive is a positive result on a person who is
> actually negative. *This applies to any kind of test,
> not just EPO tests - for example, tests for diseases,
> antibodies.
>
> People often assume that the false +ve and -ve error
> rates are similar, but that is very wrong.
> Many tests have some kind of threshold
> above which a sample must score to be "positive."
> If you raise the threshold, the test declares fewer
> people +ve, so it will have a lower false +ve rate
> and a higher false -ve rate. *More specificity, less
> sensitivity.
>
> Ben

Dumbass,

I get the theory of the proposition, now how about answer my question
from a substantive point of view rather than giving my the theoretical
overview of something I learned in the statistics class I took in
college ten years ago?

I bet you can't.

-Philip

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-04-1970, 10:12 PM

On Sep 22, 9:28*pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:13*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 3:16*pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> > > > negatives, not false positives, right?
>
> > > > Magilla
>
> > > I am a dumbass on (or at least ignorant about) this distinction. *I
> > > would seem to me that either the test works or it doesn't and/or that
> > > the test can be trusted or it can't. *Please explain your distinction
> > > to me or at least direct me to an article (online or in print) that
> > > discusses it.
>
> > Dumbass,
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
>
> > It's what it sounds like. *A false negative is a
> > negative result on a person who is actually positive.
> > A false positive is a positive result on a person who is
> > actually negative. *This applies to any kind of test,
> > not just EPO tests - for example, tests for diseases,
> > antibodies.
>
> > People often assume that the false +ve and -ve error
> > rates are similar, but that is very wrong.
> > Many tests have some kind of threshold
> > above which a sample must score to be "positive."
> > If you raise the threshold, the test declares fewer
> > people +ve, so it will have a lower false +ve rate
> > and a higher false -ve rate. *More specificity, less
> > sensitivity.
>
> > Ben
>
> Dumbass,
>
> I get the theory of the proposition, now how about answer my question
> from a substantive point of view rather than giving my the theoretical
> overview of something I learned in the statistics class I took in
> college ten years ago?
>
> I bet you can't.
>
> -Philip

John Lawman,

If you wanted to know the sensitivity and specificity
of the EPO test, you could have asked "What are the
sensitivity and specificity of the EPO test?" You
didn't, so I assumed that you were interested in
an answer to the question you did ask. My bad.

I don't know the sensitivity and specificity of the
as-used EPO test and how it varies with time after
dosage. I'm not sure anyone does. That article Coggan
is worked up about tried to test one aspect of it,
but all they came up with was a partial measurement
of false negative rate. It's not easy to do this
without a large sample. WADA and their labs
might have carried out the necessary testing
and not told anyone the results. But I don't think
they've done all that. It's not really how they
operate.

Ben

LawBoy01

01-04-1970, 10:13 PM

On Sep 23, 3:54*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 9:28*pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 8:13*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 22, 3:16*pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You do realize that the debate with the EPO test is they give off false
> > > > > negatives, not false positives, right?
>
> > > > > Magilla
>
> > > > I am a dumbass on (or at least ignorant about) this distinction. *I
> > > > would seem to me that either the test works or it doesn't and/or that
> > > > the test can be trusted or it can't. *Please explain your distinction
> > > > to me or at least direct me to an article (online or in print) that
> > > > discusses it.
>
> > > Dumbass,
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
>
> > > It's what it sounds like. *A false negative is a
> > > negative result on a person who is actually positive.
> > > A false positive is a positive result on a person who is
> > > actually negative. *This applies to any kind of test,
> > > not just EPO tests - for example, tests for diseases,
> > > antibodies.
>
> > > People often assume that the false +ve and -ve error
> > > rates are similar, but that is very wrong.
> > > Many tests have some kind of threshold
> > > above which a sample must score to be "positive."
> > > If you raise the threshold, the test declares fewer
> > > people +ve, so it will have a lower false +ve rate
> > > and a higher false -ve rate. *More specificity, less
> > > sensitivity.
>
> > > Ben
>
> > Dumbass,
>
> > I get the theory of the proposition, now how about answer my question
> > from a substantive point of view rather than giving my the theoretical
> > overview of something I learned in the statistics class I took in
> > college ten years ago?
>
> > I bet you can't.
>
> > -Philip
>
> John Lawman,
>
> If you wanted to know the sensitivity and specificity
> of the EPO test, you could have asked "What are the
> sensitivity and specificity of the EPO test?" *You
> didn't, so I assumed that you were interested in
> an answer to the question you did ask. *My bad.
>
> I don't know the sensitivity and specificity of the
> as-used EPO test and how it varies with time after
> dosage. *I'm not sure anyone does. *That article Coggan
> is worked up about tried to test one aspect of it,
> but all they came up with was a partial measurement
> of false negative rate. *It's not easy to do this
> without a large sample. *WADA and their labs
> might have carried out the necessary testing
> and not told anyone the results. *But I don't think
> they've done all that. *It's not really how they
> operate.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fair enough. I was really just having fun with the whole RBR-*******
"Dumbass" thing. I could have been more clear. Thanks for taking a
stab at my question. But as John Lawman, I have had to depose experts
and strike them on the Daubert factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Daubert):

"In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that federal trial judges are the
“gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Under the Daubert standard,
therefore, trial judges must evaluate proffered expert witnesses to
determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”, a
two-pronged test of admissibility.

"The relevancy prong: The relevancy of a testimony refers to whether
or not the expert’s evidence “fits” the facts of the case. For
example, you may invite an astronomer to tell the jury if it had been
a full moon on the night of a crime. However, the astronomer would not
be allowed to testify if the fact that the moon was full was not
relevant to the issue at hand in the trial.

"The reliability prong: The Supreme Court explained that in order for
expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must have
derived his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The Court
offered "general observations" of whether proffered evidence was based
on the scientific method, although the list was not intended to be
used as an exacting checklist: [a] Empirical testing: the theory or
technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable; [b] Subjected
to peer review and publication; [c] Known or potential error rate and
the existence and maintenance of standards concerning its operation;
and [d] Whether the theory and technique is generally accepted by a
relevant scientific community."

This is how I view the validity of scientific opinion, for better or
for worse; at least it's the only way I know how to do that. So when
you opined that "WADA and their labs might have carried out the
necessary testing and not told anyone the results", I cringe because
that means they aren't showing their cards and proving the strength of
their hand before they play games with riders' careers. In short,
WADA et al. all the testing in the world, but don't publish the that
backs up their claims, then the scientific community cannot validate
their tests. That is a small part of the motive behind the Angry
Australians (who really want Lance decapitated).