Heras and Faith in the testers



J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed
>>> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really
>>> believe that it's unnecessary?

>>
>> Where did I say that?

>
> Well, I didn't want to do an exhaustive search, but the very first item
> found by the Google Groups search http://tinyurl.com/8mpb3 is a post in
> which you claim it unnecessary to evaluate the error rate for the
> homologous blood doping test. But perhaps I misunderstood, and you really
> do think it's important to know error rates.


I agree with the writers of the report (or rather: they convinced me) that
the homologous blood doping test does not need validation studies.

Where did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were
developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

>
> --
> 1153 days until the next inaugural.
>
>
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Of course not. I believe that all tests, whether they were developed
>>> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Do you really
>>> believe that it's unnecessary?

>>
>> Where did I say that?

>
> And here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708


There is a difference between 'one test' and 'all tests'. Your links do not
provide an answer to my question, but I've repeated it already.
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>>
>> Where did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were
>> developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

>
> Well, as I said, I haven't done an exhaustive search but you say that
> here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/858efa82060fb6db
>
> And here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708
>
> And here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0fe37ca2c64aeee
>
>


Those do not provide an answer. I said that I do not think there is an
evaluation necessary for the test for homologous blood doping, which is
different from saying that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Where did
I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were developed
early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?
 
F

Fred Marx

Guest
It's final, and of course it was positive, was there any doubt after
the "uh it's not definative" from Monday? What a serious crock of
****. Three months to publish erm leak the positive A sample and then
this stupidity of a non definative B ssampole then oh look he's positve
after all. Sucks **** all the way around.
 
B

Bill C

Guest
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >>
> >> Where did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were
> >> developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

> >
> > Well, as I said, I haven't done an exhaustive search but you say that
> > here:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/858efa82060fb6db
> >
> > And here:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708
> >
> > And here:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0fe37ca2c64aeee
> >
> >

>
> Those do not provide an answer. I said that I do not think there is an
> evaluation necessary for the test for homologous blood doping, which is
> different from saying that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
> were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Where did
> I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were developed
> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

As near as we can tell you're saying that "The tests I believe in
don't need to be evaluated." That's some pretty shaky ground. You been
talking with Bush and co. to get some tips on how to evaluate
information?
Bill C
 
K

Kyle Legate

Guest
Fred Marx wrote:
> It's final, and of course it was positive, was there any doubt after
> the "uh it's not definative" from Monday? What a serious crock of
> ****. Three months to publish erm leak the positive A sample and then
> this stupidity of a non definative B ssampole then oh look he's positve
> after all. Sucks **** all the way around.
>

Not really. Considering the profile of the case the scientists were just
being careful in thier interpretation.
 
B

Bill C

Guest
Kyle Legate wrote:
> Fred Marx wrote:
> > It's final, and of course it was positive, was there any doubt after
> > the "uh it's not definative" from Monday? What a serious crock of
> > ****. Three months to publish erm leak the positive A sample and then
> > this stupidity of a non definative B ssampole then oh look he's positve
> > after all. Sucks **** all the way around.
> >

> Not really. Considering the profile of the case the scientists were just
> being careful in thier interpretation.


Kyle you may very well be right, but the way it played out sure as
hell doesn't look good to the public, or generate a lot of faith in the
testing system. If that was the case, they need to be doing some
serious PR work right now, but instead they are blustering.
Bill C
 
M

Mad Dog

Guest
Bill C says...

>Kyle you may very well be right, but the way it played out sure as
>hell doesn't look good to the public, or generate a lot of faith in the
>testing system.


All this talk about faith makes me feel like I'm in a small Southern Baptist
church listening to some preacher tell me I'm goin' ta hell. At least with
religion, I've got a choice to swallow it or turn away. With dope testing,
you're stuck with a political system that has the power. Like it or not, some
of those powerful people were involved in the Armstrong/Equipe fiasco. But in
the Heras case, they appear to have followed protocol to a much higher degree.
Or did they? Is it OK to slow the system down because you're on the verge of
stripping a champion's trophy?

I really don't get too worked up regardless. At this point, I'm just waiting
for it all to shake out so I can hear all the deep and insightful
post-crucifixion interviews. I wonder if I can make up a little plastic cross
with Roberto's likeness nailed to it and sell them in Spain...

>If that was the case, they need to be doing some
>serious PR work right now, but instead they are blustering.


They are blustering because this is politics, not science.
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> Where
>> did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were
>> developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

>
> here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/858efa82060fb6db
>
> And here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708
>
> And here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0fe37ca2c64aeee


Those messages do not say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. I conclude
that you have no argument to back up the statement I ever argued it. It's
rather silly to think that these links provide an answer to my question.
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Where did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
>> >> were
>> >> developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?
>> >
>> > Well, as I said, I haven't done an exhaustive search but you say that
>> > here:
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/858efa82060fb6db
>> >
>> > And here:
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708
>> >
>> > And here:
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0fe37ca2c64aeee
>> >
>> >

>>
>> Those do not provide an answer. I said that I do not think there is an
>> evaluation necessary for the test for homologous blood doping, which is
>> different from saying that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
>> were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Where
>> did
>> I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were developed
>> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

> As near as we can tell you're saying that "The tests I believe in
> don't need to be evaluated." That's some pretty shaky ground.


I read the report and thought it was convincing.

> You been
> talking with Bush and co. to get some tips on how to evaluate
> information?
> Bill C
>
 
B

Bill C

Guest
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
> >> >> were
> >> >> developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?
> >> >
> >> > Well, as I said, I haven't done an exhaustive search but you say that
> >> > here:
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/858efa82060fb6db
> >> >
> >> > And here:
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708
> >> >
> >> > And here:
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0fe37ca2c64aeee
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Those do not provide an answer. I said that I do not think there is an
> >> evaluation necessary for the test for homologous blood doping, which is
> >> different from saying that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
> >> were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate. Where
> >> did
> >> I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were developed
> >> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?

> > As near as we can tell you're saying that "The tests I believe in
> > don't need to be evaluated." That's some pretty shaky ground.

>
> I read the report and thought it was convincing.
>

Lot's of people, including those who would normally be opposed, read
the intel leading up to voting to attack Iraq. Same problem applies
here, you have one group almost totally controlling the information
flow on this testing. So you are convinced by what they gave you?
That's fine, and in the end it'll all come out, but a lot of people who
do this kind of science, and research it, aren't convinced. Without a
solid, freely peer reviewed and verified system I won't be convinced.
As long as the UCI and Wada keep acting like they are hiding something,
I'm going to believe that they are.
Bill C
 
B

Bill C

Guest
Mad Dog wrote:
> Bill C says...
>
> >Kyle you may very well be right, but the way it played out sure as
> >hell doesn't look good to the public, or generate a lot of faith in the
> >testing system.

>
> All this talk about faith makes me feel like I'm in a small Southern Baptist
> church listening to some preacher tell me I'm goin' ta hell. At least with
> religion, I've got a choice to swallow it or turn away. With dope testing,
> you're stuck with a political system that has the power.

Yep, and they are asking us to take their system based on faith in
their word, not independently verified and researched results. So all
they can do is try to sell the pig in a barrel sight unseen based on
"believe us".

> I really don't get too worked up regardless. At this point, I'm just waiting
> for it all to shake out so I can hear all the deep and insightful
> post-crucifixion interviews. I wonder if I can make up a little plastic cross
> with Roberto's likeness nailed to it and sell them in Spain...
>
> >If that was the case, they need to be doing some
> >serious PR work right now, but instead they are blustering.

>
> They are blustering because this is politics, not science.


They are denying science in fact by not opening everything up for open
review and research. Must have some Kansas lobbyists helping them
decide on their science policy.
Bill C
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> >
>> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> >> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]
>> >> > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where did I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they
>> >> >> were
>> >> >> developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, as I said, I haven't done an exhaustive search but you say
>> >> > that
>> >> > here:
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/858efa82060fb6db
>> >> >
>> >> > And here:
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b1c0aeadec54a708
>> >> >
>> >> > And here:
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0fe37ca2c64aeee
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Those do not provide an answer. I said that I do not think there is an
>> >> evaluation necessary for the test for homologous blood doping, which
>> >> is
>> >> different from saying that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether
>> >> they
>> >> were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate.
>> >> Where
>> >> did
>> >> I say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether they were
>> >> developed
>> >> early or late, should be evaluated for error rate?
>> > As near as we can tell you're saying that "The tests I believe in
>> > don't need to be evaluated." That's some pretty shaky ground.

>>
>> I read the report and thought it was convincing.
>>

> Lot's of people, including those who would normally be opposed, read
> the intel leading up to voting to attack Iraq.


Well, perhaps the next hearing will prove me wrong. It's not such a big deal
and it doesn't answer my question.

> Same problem applies
> here, you have one group almost totally controlling the information
> flow on this testing. So you are convinced by what they gave you?
> That's fine, and in the end it'll all come out, but a lot of people who
> do this kind of science, and research it, aren't convinced. Without a
> solid, freely peer reviewed and verified system I won't be convinced.
> As long as the UCI and Wada keep acting like they are hiding something,
> I'm going to believe that they are.
> Bill C
>
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Well, perhaps the next hearing will prove me wrong. It's not such a big
> deal and it doesn't answer my question.


The problem is that if the UCI and WADA prefer not to tell anyone what
they're doing then no hearing is going to give anything but propaganda.
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:

> Those messages do not say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether
> they were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate.
> I conclude that you have no argument to back up the statement I ever
> argued it. It's rather silly to think that these links provide an
> answer to my question.


Oh Jonathan. Grow up.
 
J

Jonathan v.d. Sluis

Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>
>> Those messages do not say that it's unnecessary that all tests, whether
>> they were developed early or late, should be evaluated for error rate.
>> I conclude that you have no argument to back up the statement I ever
>> argued it. It's rather silly to think that these links provide an
>> answer to my question.

>
> Oh Jonathan. Grow up.


That's saying even less. If you have an argument, say so. If not then take
your own advice.