Doping In Athletics

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

but do we not have three from this athlete...which gives us 1 in every 1000000000...????

That depends on whether we believe or assume those samples are truly independent of each other. If they are not independent, blindly multiplying the probabilities as if they were independent will, probably greatly, underestimate the probably of observing three such samples in a random individual. However, finding more and more "abnormal" values would indeed decrease the probability of them occurring naturally.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must state that I'm not that interested in bringing this or that athlete to justice, as it not only it reeks of sensationalism and the love of scandals to me, but will actually cloud any serious discussing on the issue of doping in sports. As it's quite hard, both legally and scientifically, to successfully establish the guilt of individual athletes based on the published data, focussing on that only leads us astray as we probably won't get anywhere. As you can clearly see, the defenders of, in this case, athletics can still claim that there is no actual proof for doping in individual cases and that you can't use this data with absolute certainty for individuals.

The better path would to regard the data on the group level to establish that something terribly strange is going on in athletics, but that the current anti-doping regime clearly failed to highlight any of it. Even if we now find some strange singularity, a truly unique natural oddity that explains all of those abnormal values for all of those athletes, it's very strange that the system has not brought this situation to light and there was no initiative to investigate it whatsoever. Instead of arguing over individual athletes and whether or not this or that number suggests, proves or denies the use of doping, look at the whole pattern of values over the whole group of athletes and conclude that the pattern is not normal, that something is going on. We don't need to identify individual dopers to conclude that doping seems to be problem in athletics.

To me, the conclusion would be that the current anti-doping regime in athletics is worthless. It's not able to catch dopers, it's not even able to highlight a very evident pattern of abnormal values on a group level. (The latter, the group level, is much easier to analyse than the former, the individual level.)

The discussion over the validity of the bio passport is not the discussion. The issue right now is the transparency. If you want to have a discussion about the reliability of the passport, I suggest that you first read some old posts on the subject, or do some research beyond a BBC article mentioning 99.9% in passing.

...

Radcliffe cannot claim to be clean, while refusing to give evidence to the fact.

First, there are no sanctions that can happen in a public release of blood data. See Horner, Kreuziger, Wiggans, Ryder, and every other dodgy profile we have seen released. No action against their wins, and hardly a court-of-public-opinion sanction that didn't exist before.

Second, the release itself can be manipulated, as with Pavey and Farah. Releasing just the off-score eliminates what Radcliffe claims as the reason not to: misinterpretation. Not doing so only implies that Radcliffe has at least one abnormal off-score.

Most importantly, is Radcliffe's turnaround. She wanted her data released in the past, but is now refusing to do so. The only change is that now her name is under scrutiny, whereas before she was the golden girl.

All this adds up to the fact that Radcliffe would rather face the scrutiny of hypocrisy and secrecy, instead of actually letting anyone look at her data. If that's her choice, the alternative must be damning.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

To me, the conclusion would be that the current anti-doping regime in athletics is worthless. It's not able to catch dopers, it's not even able to highlight a very evident pattern of abnormal values on a group level. (The latter, the group level, is much easier to analyse than the former, the individual level.)

To clarify and possibly agree with you, it's not worthless in principle. The regime were able to identify this doper, but unwilling. Likewise the widespread cheating leaked to the Times, experts were perfectly able to identify the pattern, but the IAAF has been unwilling.

I agree with you, as it may well be a matter of semantics. What do you actually regard as the anti-doping system, just the testing regime in place or the broader organisation it is embedded in? The basic mechanisms were in place, but quite frankly, were rendered useless as the organisation and system they were used in were meant not to catch dopers, but to protect the sport and sponsors. With regards to anti-doping, the system employed in athletics is a joke or, at least, not meant as "anti-doping".

Moreover, while experts were able to identify patterns, I think this was despite there not being anything in the system designed to catch such patterns. It was certainly not because of the design of athletics' anti-doping system that the pattern was caught. I would argue that group-level analysis should be standard procedure, with periodic reports on the current state of affairs in a given sport. Those analysis should be carried out by independent organisations, with no ties to the federation in question.

In the current situation, we just don't even have proper baseline data, as we cannot guarantee generalizability between the general population, amateurs and professional athletes to obtain stable estimates of "normal ranges for non-doped athletes". There's no easy way to solve this, but there would be a way around this. If we would employ the tactic described above, periodic reports on athlete's biological parameters, we could identify strange differences between sports, despite similarities in the required athletic abilities.

Oh, well, let's keep on dreaming. Maybe one day the athlete's biological passport is going to live up to its potential as well, but given the current state of investment in it, I doubt that.

 

[Texeng]

An interesting and balanced (at least to me) summary of the facts and pitfalls around the IAAF scandal for those that want to read it https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com...dal-of-blood-doping-in-athletics/#comment-686. Covers a lot of the main points (including libel in social media)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

An interesting and balanced (at least to me) summary of the facts and pitfalls around the IAAF scandal for those that want to read it https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com...dal-of-blood-doping-in-athletics/#comment-686. Covers a lot of the main points (including libel in social media)

I like Mark but he is not really impartial on the matters.

 

[Bronstein]

An interesting and balanced (at least to me) summary of the facts and pitfalls around the IAAF scandal for those that want to read it https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com...dal-of-blood-doping-in-athletics/#comment-686. Covers a lot of the main points (including libel in social media)

From another article by Dr. Burnley:

Quite a few people have asked David Walsh, the man who was instrumental in taking down Armstrong, why he is not asking Sky and Froome tough questions. I personally think that is wrong-headed. Armstrong’s transformation post-cancer was mind-blowing, whereas Froome’s ascent has been more incremental. Add to that the accumulation of damning evidence throughout Armstrong’s career, covered up by Armstrong with the help of the UCI, and in that case Walsh could ask questions about tangible things in Armstrong’s closet. Froome’s closet is bare by comparison, save for a TUE and some stunning performances on the road. So there was good reason to pursue Armstrong, but much less to pin on Froome and Sky.

(https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/data-transparency-in-cycling-necessary-utopian-and-a-complete-can-of-worms/)


Dr. Burnley seems to be living in a parallel universe.

 

[Texeng]

An interesting and balanced (at least to me) summary of the facts and pitfalls around the IAAF scandal for those that want to read it https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com...dal-of-blood-doping-in-athletics/#comment-686. Covers a lot of the main points (including libel in social media)

From another article by Dr. Burnley:

Quite a few people have asked David Walsh, the man who was instrumental in taking down Armstrong, why he is not asking Sky and Froome tough questions. I personally think that is wrong-headed. Armstrong’s transformation post-cancer was mind-blowing, whereas Froome’s ascent has been more incremental. Add to that the accumulation of damning evidence throughout Armstrong’s career, covered up by Armstrong with the help of the UCI, and in that case Walsh could ask questions about tangible things in Armstrong’s closet. Froome’s closet is bare by comparison, save for a TUE and some stunning performances on the road. So there was good reason to pursue Armstrong, but much less to pin on Froome and Sky.

(https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/data-transparency-in-cycling-necessary-utopian-and-a-complete-can-of-worms/)


Dr. Burnley seems to be living in a parallel universe.

Interesting viewpoint - are the items you've emboldened your reason for making the comment? If so, that was a cycling article which is another topic entirely. Which part of the athletics blog did you find to be from a parallel universe?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Texeng, do you know Burnley's stance on the possibillity Radcliffe dopings?

 

[Bronstein]

Interesting viewpoint - are the items you've emboldened your reason for making the comment? If so, that was a cycling article which is another topic entirely. Which part of the athletics blog did you find to be from a parallel universe?

The opinions he expressed in the cycling article are relevant with respect to his objectivity and credibility.

As to the athletics article:

The issue the experts in the Sunday Times/ARD story took with the IAAF was that suspicious findings did not seem to be followed up. The IAAF did have procedures in place to do so. The allegation that they did not is, therefore, very serious. I am in no position to say whether this is true or not, but on other points of the story I have some sympathy for the IAAF. Much of the focus in the original story was on the World Championships in Helsinki in 2005. But the sanctioning of athletes using the ABP did not come into force in athletics until 2009.

Ashenden said some of the blood values were “grotesque in their extremity" and “quite easily the worst I have ever seen”. Yet Burnley can only offer an 'I don't know' on the core issue of whether the suspicious findings were followed up by the IAAF. Even though the relevant time period is 2001-2012, Burnley still has sympathy for the IAAF without offering an explanation for the lack of follow up on samples from the 2009-2012 period.

It seems as though Burnley doesn't understand that various governing bodies (IAAF, UCI, FIFA, etc) have been and continue to be more interested in 'managing' doping controversy as opposed to protecting clean athletes by genuinely targeting dopers.

 

[Texeng]

Re:

Texeng, do you know Burnley's stance on the possibillity Radcliffe dopings?

Apart from what I've read on his site, no. He does highlight the issues with releasing data into the public without context. Do you know what his stance is?

 

[armchairclimber]

Formidable performance by Farah today....clean or otherwise.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Texeng, do you know Burnley's stance on the possibillity Radcliffe dopings?

Apart from what I've read on his site, no. He does highlight the issues with releasing data into the public without context. Do you know what his stance is?

Yes I do, do you think I would have adressed this if I hadnt? I am no schoolboy Tex.

If you want to know his exact words you can PM me, I am not going to use ones personal words in a public forum.

I am not saying he is wrong, he just seems not impartial.

 

[Texeng]

Interesting viewpoint - are the items you've emboldened your reason for making the comment? If so, that was a cycling article which is another topic entirely. Which part of the athletics blog did you find to be from a parallel universe?

The opinions he expressed in the cycling article are relevant with respect to his objectivity and credibility.

As to the athletics article:

The issue the experts in the Sunday Times/ARD story took with the IAAF was that suspicious findings did not seem to be followed up. The IAAF did have procedures in place to do so. The allegation that they did not is, therefore, very serious. I am in no position to say whether this is true or not, but on other points of the story I have some sympathy for the IAAF. Much of the focus in the original story was on the World Championships in Helsinki in 2005. But the sanctioning of athletes using the ABP did not come into force in athletics until 2009.

Ashenden said some of the blood values were “grotesque in their extremity" and “quite easily the worst I have ever seen”. Yet Burnley can only offer an 'I don't know' on the core issue of whether the suspicious findings were followed up by the IAAF. Even though the relevant time period is 2001-2012, Burnley still has sympathy for the IAAF without offering an explanation for the lack of follow up on samples from the 2009-2012 period.

It seems as though Burnley doesn't understand that various governing bodies (IAAF, UCI, FIFA, etc) have been and continue to be more interested in 'managing' doping controversy as opposed to protecting clean athletes by genuinely targeting dopers.

I disagree. In the blog, he mentions Ashenden making a compelling argument against the IAAF. I would have thought this to mean he believed the argument? On the I don't know comment - Ashenden has seen and reviewed the data in its raw form. I don't know whether Burnley has had the same level of access.
On you last comment about the political response of the governing bodies - he dedicates the last para about what the IAAF could do better in the future but also points out testing is very limited in identifying cheats. He also mentions Coe's response as a way not to manage a crisis (something I think we are all in agreement with).

On your views about his credibility and objectivity regarding cycling - well that subject is entirely another polarizing debate that I'm sure will continue for decades to come

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

Texeng, do you know Burnley's stance on the possibillity Radcliffe dopings?

Apart from what I've read on his site, no. He does highlight the issues with releasing data into the public without context. Do you know what his stance is?

Yes I do, do you think I would have adressed this if I hadnt? I am no schoolboy Tex.

If you want to know his exact words you can PM me, I am not going to use ones personal words in a public forum.

I am not saying he is wrong, he just seems not impartial.

Not sure why you felt anyone is accusing you of being a schoolboy?

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

The discussion over the validity of the bio passport is not the discussion. The issue right now is the transparency. If you want to have a discussion about the reliability of the passport, I suggest that you first read some old posts on the subject, or do some research beyond a BBC article mentioning 99.9% in passing.

I haven't read the BBC-article, sorry. The 99.9% I referenced came from some articles on the background of the Bayesian networks used to evaluate evidence in the haematological part of the athlete's blood passport. If you actually want to read something on how that works, statistically, and how inferences can and cannot be made, I recommend starting here: Bayesian network for the evaluation of blood doping. If you need any help with the statistics, just let me know, as the articles on that website are fairly basic and, while they do mention important limitations of using the Bayesian variant of confidence intervals, they don't really explain the why and how of it.

Don't assume that you're the expert while everyone else are just peasants. Your arrogance leads to false interpretations and pseudo-science, as you fail to separate what can and cannot be inferred from empirical data.

Radcliffe cannot claim to be clean, while refusing to give evidence to the fact.

So, you're guilty of every crime, too, before proving that your innocence? I'm sorry, it does not work that and I'm really sorry it does not work that way, as the assumption of innocence severely limits the power of the ABP. (Why? Well, the prior probability of doping is set to zero, as we assume someone is innocent, unless proven guilty.)

First, there are no sanctions that can happen in a public release of blood data. See Horner, Kreuziger, Wiggans, Ryder, and every other dodgy profile we have seen released. No action against their wins, and hardly a court-of-public-opinion sanction that didn't exist before.

Second, the release itself can be manipulated, as with Pavey and Farah. Releasing just the off-score eliminates what Radcliffe claims as the reason not to: misinterpretation. Not doing so only implies that Radcliffe has at least one abnormal off-score.

Most importantly, is Radcliffe's turnaround. She wanted her data released in the past, but is now refusing to do so. The only change is that now her name is under scrutiny, whereas before she was the golden girl.

All this adds up to the fact that Radcliffe would rather face the scrutiny of hypocrisy and secrecy, instead of actually letting anyone look at her data. If that's her choice, the alternative must be damning.

So, what does one out-of-range off-score prove? Unfortunately, no so much. In the Bayesian network behind the haematological passport, such an out of range score will heighten the posterior probability (the probability after presenting the evidence to the network) of doping, if none of the other independent variables can explain the deviation. The actual delta or change in posterior probability of doping is, however, dependent on a lot of factors, including the time-series leading up to the sample, the size of the deviation and changes in other variables in the network.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

I haven't read the BBC-article, sorry. The 99.9% I referenced came from some articles on the background of the Bayesian networks used to evaluate evidence in the haematological part of the athlete's blood passport. If you actually want to read something on how that works, statistically, and how inferences can and cannot be made, I recommend starting here: Bayesian network for the evaluation of blood doping. If you need any help with the statistics, just let me know, as the articles on that website are fairly basic and, while they do mention important limitations of using the Bayesian variant of confidence intervals, they don't really explain the why and how of it.

Don't assume that you're the expert while everyone else are just peasants. Your arrogance leads to false interpretations and pseudo-science, as you fail to separate what can and cannot be inferred from empirical data.

We agree with each other, but we are speaking different languages. First, everything I said is in the context of Radliffe and her data.

And when I say guilty, I mean guilty in the court of the (informed) public opinion. Like Horner's blood data, Contador's steak, or Lashawn Merrit's male-enhancement pills. I begrudingly accept the reality that you do well to explain: that the burden of proof for actual guilt/sanctions is much higher.

But because this conversation is about transparency, the court of public opinion will do just fine...

Your first post was an accurate observation that artificial but clean fluctuations (altitude, for example) may trigger an abnormal result. I went on to discuss that public opinion court could be won in spite of that (give the scores, and the context), and you spoke about the universals of the protocol. I'm not interested in that strand. I get what you're saying, and you're right. But it's not relevant. to the ongoing discussion.

So, in that context, let's talk make sure we're both talking about Paula.

Paula is worried about her data being misinterpreted. Fair enough. But that could only be the case if she had an abnormal score, whether or not it is explainable. She wouldn't worry if her data looked like Mo's or Jo's.

So, what does one out-of-range off-score prove? Unfortunately, no so much. In the Bayesian network behind the haematological passport, such an out of range score will heighten the posterior probability (the probability after presenting the evidence to the network) of doping, if none of the other independent variables can explain the deviation. The actual delta or change in posterior probability of doping is, however, dependent on a lot of factors, including the time-series leading up to the sample, the size of the deviation and changes in other variables in the network.

Okay. You're right of course. Releasing naked numbers that seemingly indict you can be misleading. No one looked at Farah or Pavey and changed their mind to say "well, that clearly shows doping". If Paula had an explainable abnormal result, it could...

But then you release the context. Like you say, the naked numbers are useless. In fact, that was the frustration with the Brits so far, that there were no dates, no whereabouts, and no way to line it up with their training/racing. Or JV's machine calibration error. If we (court of public opinion...) could see the supposed population of miscalibrated results, it would give us context to say, "Okay, maybe Wiggans/Ryder passport doesn't show doping."

At this point, we're not talking statistics. Because whether it is public opinion or ABP panel, it is still a logical evaluation of the facts and situation.

Do you need to be an "expert"? You haven't said explicitly, but I'm guessing your answer is yes. Mine is no.

It doesn't take much to get the basics. Every bio passport case has included information about the specifics, and given enough for the reader to understand the cause for suspicion. More thorough learning may take/has taken a while, but is very possible.

This is not brain surgery. And even if the most complex passport case approaches it the case of Paula Radcliffe is not one of them: we can assume from her reluctance to release any data that something is amiss. We can assume from her protectionism that it is not a nominal failing (otherwise it would be easy to give the context). And even more, SHE DOESN'T EVEN WANT EXPERTS LOOKING AT IT.

Radcliffe cannot claim to be clean, while refusing to give evidence to the fact.

So, you're guilty of every crime, too, before proving that your innocence? I'm sorry, it does not work that and I'm really sorry it does not work that way, as the assumption of innocence severely limits the power of the ABP. (Why? Well, the prior probability of doping is set to zero, as we assume someone is innocent, unless proven guilty.)

Yes. "It" does not work that way. Radcliffe will not be banned based on what is public knowledge right now. But the problem with "innocent until proven guilty" is that it ignores when someone is pretty damn close to being proven guilty. Radcliffe is, and has not offered any evidence to the contrary (and even been rumored to block further evidence proving her guilt...).

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

I haven't read the BBC-article, sorry. The 99.9% I referenced came from some articles on the background of the Bayesian networks used to evaluate evidence in the haematological part of the athlete's blood passport. If you actually want to read something on how that works, statistically, and how inferences can and cannot be made, I recommend starting here: Bayesian network for the evaluation of blood doping. If you need any help with the statistics, just let me know, as the articles on that website are fairly basic and, while they do mention important limitations of using the Bayesian variant of confidence intervals, they don't really explain the why and how of it.

Don't assume that you're the expert while everyone else are just peasants. Your arrogance leads to false interpretations and pseudo-science, as you fail to separate what can and cannot be inferred from empirical data.

We agree with each other, but we are speaking different languages. First, everything I said is in the context of Radliffe and her data.

And when I say guilty, I mean guilty in the court of the (informed) public opinion. Like Horner's blood data, Contador's steak, or Lashawn Merrit's male-enhancement pills. I begrudingly accept the reality that you do well to explain: that the burden of proof for actual guilt/sanctions is much higher.

But because this conversation is about transparency, the court of public opinion will do just fine...

Your first post was an accurate observation that artificial but clean fluctuations (altitude, for example) may trigger an abnormal result. I went on to discuss that public opinion court could be won in spite of that (give the scores, and the context), and you spoke about the universals of the protocol. I'm not interested in that strand. I get what you're saying, and you're right. But it's not relevant. to the ongoing discussion.

So, in that context, let's talk make sure we're both talking about Paula.

Paula is worried about her data being misinterpreted. Fair enough. But that could only be the case if she had an abnormal score, whether or not it is explainable. She wouldn't worry if her data looked like Mo's or Jo's.

So, what does one out-of-range off-score prove? Unfortunately, no so much. In the Bayesian network behind the haematological passport, such an out of range score will heighten the posterior probability (the probability after presenting the evidence to the network) of doping, if none of the other independent variables can explain the deviation. The actual delta or change in posterior probability of doping is, however, dependent on a lot of factors, including the time-series leading up to the sample, the size of the deviation and changes in other variables in the network.

Okay. You're right of course. Releasing naked numbers that seemingly indict you can be misleading. No one looked at Farah or Pavey and changed their mind to say "well, that clearly shows doping". If Paula had an explainable abnormal result, it could...

But then you release the context. Like you say, the naked numbers are useless. In fact, that was the frustration with the Brits so far, that there were no dates, no whereabouts, and no way to line it up with their training/racing. Or JV's machine calibration error. If we (court of public opinion...) could see the supposed population of miscalibrated results, it would give us context to say, "Okay, maybe Wiggans/Ryder passport doesn't show doping."

At this point, we're not talking statistics. Because whether it is public opinion or ABP panel, it is still a logical evaluation of the facts and situation.

Do you need to be an "expert"? You haven't said explicitly, but I'm guessing your answer is yes. Mine is no.

It doesn't take much to get the basics. Every bio passport case has included information about the specifics, and given enough for the reader to understand the cause for suspicion. More thorough learning may take/has taken a while, but is very possible.

This is not brain surgery. And even if the most complex passport case approaches it the case of Paula Radcliffe is not one of them: we can assume from her reluctance to release any data that something is amiss. We can assume from her protectionism that it is not a nominal failing (otherwise it would be easy to give the context). And even more, SHE DOESN'T EVEN WANT EXPERTS LOOKING AT IT.

Radcliffe cannot claim to be clean, while refusing to give evidence to the fact.

So, you're guilty of every crime, too, before proving that your innocence? I'm sorry, it does not work that and I'm really sorry it does not work that way, as the assumption of innocence severely limits the power of the ABP. (Why? Well, the prior probability of doping is set to zero, as we assume someone is innocent, unless proven guilty.)

Yes. "It" does not work that way. Radcliffe will not be banned based on what is public knowledge right now. But the problem with "innocent until proven guilty" is that it ignores when someone is pretty damn close to being proven guilty. Radcliffe is, and has not offered any evidence to the contrary (and even been rumored to block further evidence proving her guilt...).

She isn't even remotely close to being proven guilty, in any way shape or form. She's smiling on TV every day at the moment. She may be guilty in your head....but, thankfully, that's a place only you inhabit. She may get busted eventually....who knows, but at the moment many, many people fall outside of the small constituency who think she dopes. Some of us aren't daft or ill-informed either.

 

[The Hitch]

Daft Ill informed or extremely naive. Or all 3 together. You have to be one of the above to actually think radcliffe was clean. She has perhaps the most ridiculous world record in the history of sport, accomplished it during a time when athletics was a doping free for all, flip flops on transparency when it's asked of her, and throws her weight behind omerta. There's one thing to say -I don't know for 100% she dopes, and another to actually say one thinks the above athlete is more likely to be clean than doped.

Also I can't forget how you said that you think bolt is clean because he is tall, an argument that mstr put down quite easily as it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

So, you're guilty of every crime, too, before proving that your innocence? I'm sorry, it does not work that and I'm really sorry it does not work that way, as the assumption of innocence severely limits the power of the ABP. (Why? Well, the prior probability of doping is set to zero, as we assume someone is innocent, unless proven guilty.)

If you are advocating that athletes should be assumed guilty, WillemS, then this would go against the grain of almost every legal system in the world today. While it may be the case it limits the effectiveness of the testing, that is not a reason to change the principle, surely? We are dealing with people's careers here and many of them have no other source of income. If you were the athlete concerned, how would you feel about this principle being changed? I would also argue that it would take forever to change this principle due to the legal challenges any sporting body would face.
Easier to change the testing regime or thresholds

 

[The Hitch]

lol at people using the words "legal system" as if was some divine supernatural moral code everyone in the world is supposed to bow before.

The things are flawed as ***. Its common knowledge that they massively favour certain groups of people, especially the rich and those who the government supports (and guess what, sportstars fit nicely into both catergories).

Its a system where even if I'm guilty I can just hire assasins to kill all the wintesses or threaten the judge and I immediately become innocent.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The point was, and it's clear from this reply that you've missed it, that even off scores outside of the "allowable" range may have a normal origin, without needing any special reason for falling outside of that range. The width of the range is calculated, statistically, so that it would encompass 99.9% of all normal samples. So, on average, 0.1% of all normal samples will be outside of the defined range. (That is, on average, for every 1000 "normal" samples, no doping or any other special circumstances like illness, 1 tends to fall outside of the range.)

I am sorry but I disagree entirely.

To be outside the allowable range you would need a Hgb of 18 g/dl or more with a retic % of 0.6% or less.

Or 0% - 0.2% retics.

If you have a high Hct exemption, you can easily mention it.

Otherwise, your off-score being outside the allowable range is dodgy, plain and simple.

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

lol at people using the words "legal system" as if was some divine supernatural moral code everyone in the world is supposed to bow before.

The things are flawed as ****. Its common knowledge that they massively favour certain groups of people, especially the rich and those who the government supports (and guess what, sportstars fit nicely into both catergories).

Its a system where even if I'm guilty I can just hire assasins to kill all the wintesses or threaten the judge and I immediately become innocent.

or alternatively get yourself a super injunction.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The point was, and it's clear from this reply that you've missed it, that even off scores outside of the "allowable" range may have a normal origin, without needing any special reason for falling outside of that range. The width of the range is calculated, statistically, so that it would encompass 99.9% of all normal samples. So, on average, 0.1% of all normal samples will be outside of the defined range. (That is, on average, for every 1000 "normal" samples, no doping or any other special circumstances like illness, 1 tends to fall outside of the range.)

I am sorry but I disagree entirely.

To be outside the allowable range you would need a Hgb of 18 g/dl or more with a retic % of 0.6% or less.

Or 0% - 0.2% retics.

If you have a high Hct exemption, you can easily mention it.

Otherwise, your off-score being outside the allowable range is dodgy, plain and simple.

Keeping in mind: we're talking about someone performing very well in a competition -- not someone laid up in bed, sick.

 

[Texeng]

Re:

lol at people using the words "legal system" as if was some divine supernatural moral code everyone in the world is supposed to bow before.

The things are flawed as ****. Its common knowledge that they massively favour certain groups of people, especially the rich and those who the government supports (and guess what, sportstars fit nicely into both catergories).

Its a system where even if I'm guilty I can just hire assasins to kill all the wintesses or threaten the judge and I immediately become innocent.

Any system is flawed and open to manipulation by those that have the knowledge or capability to do so. As far as I know, its what we have and is fairly common across countries. If you feel there is a better "system" that would protect people from being assessed as guilty before its proven I'd be interested to hear your opinion? And "divine supernatural moral code" is your assessment of the system, not mine.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

Daft Ill informed or extremely naive. Or all 3 together. You have to be one of the above to actually think radcliffe was clean. She has perhaps the most ridiculous world record in the history of sport, accomplished it during a time when athletics was a doping free for all, flip flops on transparency when it's asked of her, and throws her weight behind omerta. There's one thing to say -I don't know for 100% she dopes, and another to actually say one thinks the above athlete is more likely to be clean than doped.

Also I can't forget how you said that you think bolt is clean because he is tall, an argument that mstr put down quite easily as it doesn't make much sense.

Hitch, either you don't read my posts properly or you choose to mis-represent them. Please don't. My arguments regarding Bolt were more involved, as well you know. Perhaps if you stopped trying to be an internet badass you'd function better as a critic. Thanks in advance.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Daft Ill informed or extremely naive. Or all 3 together. You have to be one of the above to actually think radcliffe was clean. She has perhaps the most ridiculous world record in the history of sport, accomplished it during a time when athletics was a doping free for all, flip flops on transparency when it's asked of her, and throws her weight behind omerta. There's one thing to say -I don't know for 100% she dopes, and another to actually say one thinks the above athlete is more likely to be clean than doped.

Also I can't forget how you said that you think bolt is clean because he is tall, an argument that mstr put down quite easily as it doesn't make much sense.

Hitch, either you don't read my posts properly or you choose to mis-represent them. Please don't. My arguments regarding Bolt were more involved, as well you know. Perhaps if you stopped trying to be an internet badass you'd function better as a critic. Thanks in advance.

Any news from Jamaica? Last I saw you were going to confirm a few things but then nothing more eventuated?