::dom:: said:a CYCLIST....!!!!!!!!!!!........woooo hooooo!!!! We really know how to do it... makes you so proud...
Come on dom. Millar always denied doping. Until the police found used Epogen syringes in a search of his home. It was a bit hard for him not to confess at that point. I don't see it as particularly valiant. They had more of a smoking gun than if he had have tested positive.::dom:: said:Does it really matter. I've had so many cycling "heros" since I was a kid and just about every one has been banned at some stage.
I really wanted to believe Landis. Could anyone be dumb enough to take a banned substance and win a stage knowing full well you'll be tested... maybe he did, maybe he didn't... I don't know.
They all scream "I'm innocent"... but you can't believe any cyclist... the only one I believe didn't even get tested... at least he had the guts to put his hands up and admit he'd dopped. Good on you David Millar.
Our sport is the laughing stock... no one outside the sport takes cycling seriously.. and why should they... and then we cap it off at the Olympics by being the first positive... Suuur-prize!
Ahhh... I feel better now.... pass the epitestosterone... I have a 7km commute in the morning
I didn't find that much in the article. He takes a lack of data (provided by WADA and the labs) as meaning they don't have any specificity and sensitivity data. I see it more as them wanting to keep the incidence of doping in the peloton to themselves, which the data would reveal. This guy doesn't say much new. One of the most common applications of Bayes Theorem is in the calculation of probabilities of false positives in drug testing. His implication that these drug labs are unaware of this science is naive IMO. Most of the theory he makes regarding Bayes Theorem and drug testing... I made in a post earlier in the year in this thread (post #15).alienator said:But what does that positive mean? According to Donald Berry, it's possible that cyclist might be doping, and it's also possible that test was done wrong and or interpreted wrong.....and there are more possibilities. Nature doesn't let any Joe Shmoe give commentary, and it's the one journal in which nearly every scientist fantasizes about being published. Of course Don is using fact and logic in his commentary, so that will ******** the foaming at the mouth doping vigilantes who can't wrap their pea brains around doing something correctly to root out doping violations. Facts and logic just ain't in their vocabulary, and besides, facts and logic just get in the way when you're itchin' to see heads roll.
I totally agree with you you. And he was always a bit of a whiner but a read a very frank interview with him and believe that he's now clean... until he's caught again, of courseCrankyfeet said:Come on dom. Millar always denied doping. Until the police found used Epogen syringes in a search of his home. It was a bit hard for him not to confess at that point. I don't see it as particularly valiant. They had more of a smoking gun than if he had have tested positive.
That's why everyone and anyone everywhere cheat in the first place.Bro Deal said:Because it works.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.