Re: Re:
Well, you shouldn't. With enough blood samples, the Bayesian method is excellent. A nice example and explanation is here: http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/57/5/762.full
Pay careful attention to this graphic and the explanation: https://d9aqs07uebq07.cloudfront.net/content/clinchem/57/5/762/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1 BTW, you should notice they found unenforced positives.
It's not the science, it's the people.
One facet of the Russian scandal was RUSADA officials changing scores in ADAMS. (Covered in one of Seppelt's many stories) We know the IAAF was demanding, and getting, bribes to never test positive. We know cycling seemed to have done something similar.
The science is sound. It's the people running the system that are the problem.
yaco said:That's fine - I still have my reservations about the accuracy of ABP profiles - There have been a few cases where the cases have been thrown out at Anti-Doping Tribunals.
Well, you shouldn't. With enough blood samples, the Bayesian method is excellent. A nice example and explanation is here: http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/57/5/762.full
Pay careful attention to this graphic and the explanation: https://d9aqs07uebq07.cloudfront.net/content/clinchem/57/5/762/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1 BTW, you should notice they found unenforced positives.
It's not the science, it's the people.
One facet of the Russian scandal was RUSADA officials changing scores in ADAMS. (Covered in one of Seppelt's many stories) We know the IAAF was demanding, and getting, bribes to never test positive. We know cycling seemed to have done something similar.
The science is sound. It's the people running the system that are the problem.