Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-12-12, 18:44
cocteau_ireland cocteau_ireland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: belfast
Posts: 685
Default

But just remember that the world we live in is not always easily passed through with binary logic, and just because you turn one switch off, doesn't mean you have to turn another identical one on. [Borrowed from someone's recent blog].
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-12-12, 19:11
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Default

Wiggins - history of anti doping - history of winning clean - not Italian/Spanish/American/Australian - CLEAN
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-12-12, 19:16
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Queued View Post
My point was your observation was correct, but it could not and does not infer that the test itself was likely to produce any false EPO positive.
Not being loaded or derogatory, but I think this quote is the flip side of the statement you made to Krebs. It shows that in many cases lawyers don't understand science (or the limits of what scientists are able to do while sticking to good science) and so don't understand the significance of issues around method validation.

Having dealt with many lawyers on both sides of criminal law over the years, very, very few have had anything more than a high school level grasp of the science underlying arguments they have been making. I've almost slapped myself sometimes with the stupidity of lines of questioning, both when sitting in court listening to testimony and when being questioned.

However, I think whether scientists are offering what they consider good scientific arguments/answers, or lawyers are looking at legal aspects, rarely are either of these groups the ultimate decision makers about the introduction of a test. There are a lot of groups/people involved and each of them has an important part to play.

The scientists have to be pedantic about the science because that's the role they are expected to play; and it's different (but complimentary) to the role that the lawyers are expected to play.

When executive management finally make a decision to introduce a test, it's on the basis of all of the information they have and not on any single one perspective (but all of the perspectives are needed).

I would add though, that your experience that scientists get hung up on academic arguments, perhaps shows a limited experience in dealing with scientists. Outside the academic community (eg. in industry), scientists are almost always very practically focused (but those same scientists will become very conservative in a court of law and generally stick to factual statements rather than give opinion evidence unless accepted by the courts as an expert and asked to provide opinion evidence).

That last part of the last sentence I have often found also to be true when providing answers to questions about test introduction. When asked for an answer relating to science, scientists stick to scientifically valid answers. Most are able to offer an opinion, but the questions are rarely framed that way.

Last edited by peterst6906; 11-12-12 at 19:28.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-12-12, 19:28
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Default

Proof is, by its very nature, incontrovertible.
To prove that a rider is doping you either need positive tests of multiple corroborated witness testimonies, backed by secondary paper trails.

It's why the clinic is never going to be much more than entertainment. Sure, some good questions are asked and good debates had but beyond that, it's immaterial. The constituency is tiny. Beyond these four cyber walls, no-one gives a monkey's about Hog's, Benotti's, Dr M's, mine or anyone else's opinion.

There are some who mean something outside of here: Race Radio and acoggan for instance. That'll be because they are actually well enough informed to be relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-12-12, 19:37
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armchairclimber View Post
Wiggins - history of anti doping - history of winning clean - not Italian/Spanish/American/Australian - CLEAN
Bit overconfident in those jingoistic assertions. I would have thought MJM's and hogs ruminations might have given you a little food for thought.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-12-12, 20:01
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armchairclimber View Post
Proof is, by its very nature, incontrovertible.
To prove that a rider is doping you either need positive tests of multiple corroborated witness testimonies, backed by secondary paper trails.

It's why the clinic is never going to be much more than entertainment. Sure, some good questions are asked and good debates had but beyond that, it's immaterial. The constituency is tiny. Beyond these four cyber walls, no-one gives a monkey's about Hog's, Benotti's, Dr M's, mine or anyone else's opinion.

There are some who mean something outside of here: Race Radio and acoggan for instance. That'll be because they are actually well enough informed to be relevant.
You spent the first half of your post giving what is a legal basis for 'proof' and how it is derived.

Then the rest giving out about an online forum - which, hate to break it to you is not a legal setting.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-12-12, 20:10
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterst6906 View Post
Not being loaded or derogatory, but I think this quote is the flip side of the statement you made to Krebs. It shows that in many cases lawyers don't understand science (or the limits of what scientists are able to do while sticking to good science) and so don't understand the significance of issues around method validation.

Having dealt with many lawyers on both sides of criminal law over the years, very, very few have had anything more than a high school level grasp of the science underlying arguments they have been making. I've almost slapped myself sometimes with the stupidity of lines of questioning, both when sitting in court listening to testimony and when being questioned.

However, I think whether scientists are offering what they consider good scientific arguments/answers, or lawyers are looking at legal aspects, rarely are either of these groups the ultimate decision makers about the introduction of a test. There are a lot of groups/people involved and each of them has an important part to play.

The scientists have to be pedantic about the science because that's the role they are expected to play; and it's different (but complimentary) to the role that the lawyers are expected to play.

When executive management finally make a decision to introduce a test, it's on the basis of all of the information they have and not on any single one perspective (but all of the perspectives are needed).

I would add though, that your experience that scientists get hung up on academic arguments, perhaps shows a limited experience in dealing with scientists. Outside the academic community (eg. in industry), scientists are almost always very practically focused (but those same scientists will become very conservative in a court of law and generally stick to factual statements rather than give opinion evidence unless accepted by the courts as an expert and asked to provide opinion evidence).

That last part of the last sentence I have often found also to be true when providing answers to questions about test introduction. When asked for an answer relating to science, scientists stick to scientifically valid answers. Most are able to offer an opinion, but the questions are rarely framed that way.
1. I agree. Completely

2. Perhaps I oversimplified in my earlier post. I have a tremendous amount of experience with scientists in business, however.

There is often a huge gap between scientists and engineers. When it comes to the practical focus you suggest, this is what typically distinguishes engineering (and business) from science. Scientists have theorems, engineers have design tables and safety factors, while business people have Profit and Loss.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-12-12, 20:28
silverrocket silverrocket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 286
Default

There is currently a bit of a revolution in how scientists/statisticians are evaluating "proof". It has traditionally been very binary: a result is either "statistically significant" or not. This has been based on an arbitrary numerical threshold that tries to balance the odds against getting either a false positive or a false negative. Typically this balance has been adjusted to account for whether the consequences of a false positive were "worse" than those of a false negative. For example, when determining whether a chemical will damage ecosystems when dumped into our environment it is generally considered more important to avoid a false negative: i.e. erring on the side of caution. For doping thresholds clearly the greater concern is false positives, since they are career destroying compared to false negatives, which allow cheating.

The binary approach is changing, however, and "weight of evidence" approaches are becoming more in fashion. This avoids the yes/no approach to proof, and provides comparisons that allow a more holistic approach to evaluating evidence and probabilities. I believe this approach is more in line with how people naturally assess evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-12-12, 20:42
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Queued View Post
There is often a huge gap between scientists and engineers. When it comes to the practical focus you suggest, this is what typically distinguishes engineering (and business) from science. Scientists have theorems, engineers have design tables and safety factors, while business people have Profit and Loss.
Yes, absolutely huge differences between all three groups, even when ultimately working towards the same goals.

Particularly in industry they all work within the same basic framework, trying to maintain profitability within a regulatory regime imposed by government and an ethical regime imposed by senior management and the industry sector.

I think all 3 groups regularly make compromises to achieve the required end. A chemist for example might change a reagent to a cheaper raw material even if the yield from a reaction is lower if that ultimately still makes more profit. Engineers might accept less than optimal reaction conditions in a process if that saves operating costs and/or a business analyst might accept higher costs associated with a safety measure, in order to ultimately protect lives and the company reputation.

Last edited by peterst6906; 11-12-12 at 20:51.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-12-12, 21:38
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
You spent the first half of your post giving what is a legal basis for 'proof' and how it is derived.

Then the rest giving out about an online forum - which, hate to break it to you is not a legal setting.
That was precisely my point. It isn't a legal setting. It's froth. Fun, sometimes interesting but froth. What constitutes "proof" here is a moveable and meaningless feast.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.