About That $800,000 Mr. Jacobs

B Lafferty said:

He's just doing his job. From the Denver Post article on Hamilton's
hearing:

"His lawyer, Howard Jacobs, said the problem is that the test is used
primarily for organ transplants and pregnant women. It just started being
used in cycling last year. Phonak, Hamilton's Swiss-based team, has pumped
$800,000 into researching the case."

"A Phonak-funded panel of five experts apparently split two for the validity
of the test and two against, with the fifth suggesting there were
insignificant anomalies in the procedure."
http://www.loopdiloop.com/folderol/2004/12/cycling-tyler-hamiltons-least-fave.asp

"Phonak set up its own panel of experts to judge the validity of the test,
and at the UCI hearing on Nov. 22, the team's lawyer Alessandro Celli
indicated that, "a provisional report from their experts did not enable them
to reach significant conclusions, two of these experts considering that the
Lausanne and Athens laboratory tests were invalid, a third having detected
certain errors which, however, did not cast doubt upon their reliability,
and two others having found nothing abnormal in these
tests."http://www.ridezine.com/phonak_drops_hamilton.htm

No doubt Howard knew all of this before speaking to the Denver Post.

I hate to tell you Brian, but having 2 out of 5 scientists say the test
is not reliable is a HUGE percentage of doubt (40% if you break out your
wooden abacass).

Having 40% of scientists say a test isn't valid does not reconcile with
that Aussie scientist Assenhole's claim of 100% accuracy and infallibility.

As for the scientists that didn't find any errors on the panel, maybe
they just weren't that bright. But what you didn't say is that the
scientists who said they didn't find any errors did not invalidate the
scientists who did.

We don't know if they were independent conclusions. But 40%
disagreement is a serious problem that you don't seem to realize.

In fact, it's a great number for Tyler and his defense, and a very bad
omen for WADA.

WADA tests should be 99.99% reliable, not 60%.

Take care,

Magilla

Haven,

Perhaps you could give us an example of any test at all that is 99.99%
reliable...

And having 2 out of 5 scientists HIRED BY & PAID BY PHONAK say that it
is unreliable does not mean a whole lot. You could find two
"scientists" to show lack of reliability in any test at all. Especially
if you are paying them to say that.

You clearly don't understand the definition of reliability of a test if
you think 2/5 dissenting scientists means the test is 60% reliable.

Patricio Carlos said:

Haven,

Perhaps you could give us an example of any test at all that is

99.99%

Quoted message said:

reliable...

Dumbass -

The RBR Dumbass Test is 100% reliable.

Anyone who posts here is unquestionably a dumbass. There are no
exceptions.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Patricio Carlos said:

And having 2 out of 5 scientists HIRED BY & PAID BY PHONAK say that it
is unreliable does not mean a whole lot.

Hmmm. What if scientists hired and paid for by the WADA say that it is
reliable?

B Lafferty said:

No doubt Howard knew all of this before speaking to the Denver Post.

Probably both sides know all this.

Two reviewers thinking that there serious flaws in the reliability of a
test is troubling unless, of course, the two reviewers publish either for
Tech Central Station or the AEI.

Patricio Carlos said:

Haven,

Perhaps you could give us an example of any test at all that is 99.99%
reliable...

And having 2 out of 5 scientists HIRED BY & PAID BY PHONAK say that it
is unreliable does not mean a whole lot. You could find two
"scientists" to show lack of reliability in any test at all. Especially
if you are paying them to say that.

You clearly don't understand the definition of reliability of a test if
you think 2/5 dissenting scientists means the test is 60% reliable.

It doesn't matter if the scientists are being paid or not.

They will argue and disagree. It's academic.

Patricio Carlos said:

Haven,

Perhaps you could give us an example of any test at all that is 99.99%
reliable...

And having 2 out of 5 scientists HIRED BY & PAID BY PHONAK say that it
is unreliable does not mean a whole lot. You could find two
"scientists" to show lack of reliability in any test at all. Especially
if you are paying them to say that.

You are aware that the scientists who came up with he blood doping test
were fully funded by WADA, right?

The knife cuts both ways, dumbass. Think before you post next time.

Magilla

You are the ultimate hypocrite.
You say that we cannot believe Ashenden because he has a vested
interest.
Yet you say we should believe the 2 scientists of the 5 that Phonak
paid to say the test was bad!

When you are paying these 5 the big bucks to say it is a dud test and
only 2 of them do so, things are looking pretty bad for Tyler.

Patricio Carlos said:

You are the ultimate hypocrite.
You say that we cannot believe Ashenden because he has a vested
interest.
Yet you say we should believe the 2 scientists of the 5 that Phonak
paid to say the test was bad!

When you are paying these 5 the big bucks to say it is a dud test and
only 2 of them do so, things are looking pretty bad for Tyler.

If they were paid to say the test was bad, how come 3 of them didn't say
that? Are you saying they didn't get paid?

Goddamn you are stupid. Maybe one of the stupidest people in here.

Magilla

I could never take that mantle away from you.

They were paid by Phonak to critique the test. Phonak obviously has a
big interest in the test being shown to be unreliable.

Even with Phonak selecting the scientists and paying their fees, still
only 2 of the 5 were not happy with the test. The other 3 were
satisfied with it. These 3 still get paid but Phonak probably wishes
they selected more malleable scientists.

Obviosly you're very stressed with your husband being in the CAS court
at the moment, but try to think things through a bit more. You have not
come up with a single sensible argument.