Michael Rogers positive for clenbuterol

[thehog]

Not a specific reply to your post, if anyone bothered to read WADA's standards would realize the system has an *enormous* bias for controlling false positives.

Particular to Rogers, clenbuterol does not occur naturally in the body, so any amount is sufficient for a positive.

Correct. If they applied a threshold limit athletes would abuse the drug within those parameters and testing windows.

 

[thehog]

This is an example of useful information. So about 0.035% of tests for CB were positive. I assume many, perhaps most, of the athletes involved were tested multiple times. Let’s assume on average, an athlete was tested three times during the year, some more, some less. So perhaps 0.1% of athletes tested positive, or one in a thousand. Maybe the exact numbers are available, I don’t know.

So let's say Contador really ate contaminated meat. I don't believe it, but let's say he did. He still kept four GT titles, won another after his sanction, and is still racing today, albeit in poorer form than before (and I wonder why that is?). Contrast this with Bassons, whose career never got off the ground. Who do you think lost more, the alleged victim of a false positive or the victim of false negatives?

MI I won't pretend to understand the following but I did like the thought that went into this blog post. Think it fits in with your brainwaves?

http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/tag/clenbuterol/

 

[Merckx index]

No offense meant, MI, and I truly love your scientific input in the discussion but we had this discussion about law before in the AC-case and from your posts now it shows again that although you might be a good scientific thinker, you seem to have no clue when legal (or connected ethical or moral) issues are involved. No problem, to each his own,but to argue that law and the rules of evidence is all about statistics is actually complete and utter BS. It might be sometimes and the cases I have seen in my country where it was all about statistics the system got it wrong, very wrong, every time.

Care to provide a counter-example? Again, I'm not talking about actual conscious intentional use of statistics, but a process of weighing probabilities. If you think legal cases don't hinge on this, what in the world do they involve?

Dear Wiggo has put it well:

In the same way, yes there is due process and evidence and laws and all that stuff. But despite all that, people on the jury still go in to the deliberation with different ideas as to guilt or innocence - it's not always a slam dunk. Hung juries are a reality. The people on the jury / panel / whatever are filtering all that stuff through their life experience, learning, etc, and judging whether the person is guilty or innocent, subjectively. And that process essentially boils down to: what's the likelihood (ie probability) that this person did this thing. Statistics.

This is what the human mind does when it reasons. Of course, we are all irrational in some respects, and in some areas of life that irrationality may even be a blessing, something that improves life. But when we are trying to determine what exactly happened in some case, who did what, and when and where and how, and why--I think and hope you agree with me that we want to stick to reason. And reason does involve statistics. None of us is even aware of how much statistical processing our brains carry out when we reason. We are at the end where some decision pops out, but not to get too technical here, that decision is the outcome of millions of neurons weighing billions of incoming messages, which code for various factors that we are actually aware of.

He is not saying that at all. He is saying that any judicial system be it in "normal" life or in sports life should go out of it's way to make sure that people don't get punished innocently. I happen to agree with that even if it means some guilty people get off.

And I wasn’t arguing otherwise. I simply pointed out that if one uses the one set of relevant numbers that has so far been furnished in this discussion, and takes them as an upper bound on the number of false positives, even that worst case scenario does not look very bad.

I was NOT saying that we should be satisfied with a system where a few false positives were inevitable. I was NOT saying that if only one in a thousand athlete tests positive falsely, we should pat ourselves on the back. To repeat, I was saying that using all the positives, and assuming all of them are innocents—which unquestionably overexaggerates the situation—the situation STILL approaches that we have with other drugs, none of which Franklin was complaining about. I didn’t hear him moaning about how unfair the bio-passport is, how unfair the EPO test is, etc, but the likelihood of a false positive in those tests is probably in the range of the WORST CASE SCENARIO of CB. Get it?

I was also saying, though, and I think this is what you object to, that a few false positives probably are inevitable. Because there is a well-known inverse relationship between false positives and false negatives, such that to get zero % of one you effectively have to open the floodgates to the other. So in that sense, yes, you could say the system is not doing everything it could to eliminate false positives. But everything it could means, letting everyone off.

Hog, the Budden blog was discussed here during the Contador case. His analysis is very good (though one could get the same general conclusion through a much simpler analysis), and I agree with the rough amount ingested he calculated. The only mistake he made was in interpreting that as indicating contaminated meat. In Mexico or China, yes, it could have been, but AC would have had to eat more than 10 lb of Spanish meat to get that level, assuming it was below the inspection standard.

CAS effectively came to the same conclusion as Budden, and accepting that Spanish meat is generally safe, determined that contaminated meat was not the most likely source of his CB.

 

[Kicker661]

I don't think there is any question over any false positives for this. If an athlete gives a pos they argue it's 'accidental', never that the test is incorrect.

I've seen some of the articles on meat testing and Merckx has some great posts but i think it's easiest to just look at the biggest test sample ever done.....

2008 samples - 274,000
Clen pos - 73

2009 samples 228,000
Clen pos - 67

2010 samples - 258,000
Clen pos 116

2011 samples - 243,000
Clen pos - 129

2012 samples - 285,000
Clen pos - 98


Total samples - 1,334,000
Clen pos 483

A sample is an individual event and should be treated as such.

Athletes travel and are exposed to food all over the world.

Does the total positives for Clen - 483 - on a sample size of 1,334,000 tell you that there is widespread food contamination causing mass positives across the sporting world, bringing the foundation of drug testing to it's very knees?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Are you able to link to your source, Kicker661?

 

[Kicker661]

Are you able to link to your source, Kicker661?

It's all straight from the WADA releases.

 

[Merckx index]

Does the total positives for Clen - 483 - on a sample size of 1,334,000 tell you that there is widespread food contamination causing mass positives across the sporting world, bringing the foundation of drug testing to it's very knees?

I have to defend Franklin a little here. He isn’t saying that, he’s saying there is a danger of someone testing positive as a result of eating meat in Europe. Not often, but maybe once in a while. I still dispute that, of course.

Looking over the figures now (2012), I see the total tests have to be revised downward a little bit, because these include blood tests and the passport, which don’t test for CB. But that doesn’t affect the results much. Instead of 285,000 tests for 2012, there were about 252,000 urine tests. The 98 CB positives are still very low, less than 0.04%.

Moreover, a footnote on p. 7 says these reported AAF are not the same as sanctions, so it appears that the 98 positives for this year (and positives listed for other years, of course) does include cases where the athletes got off by arguing contamination. I don’t know how many cases this would amount to, but we have heard recently of numerous athletes making this argument successfully, e.g., five or so Mexican soccer players, and at least two cyclists, whose names I’ve forgotten, who tested positive in Mexico. That ping-pong player. And at least one boxer, Erik Morales, who is Mexican. These are only the ones I know off the top of my head, I’m sure there are others.

But in any case, that figure is very low, considering that it includes testing in places like Mexico and China.What I’d really like to see are data for CB in Europe and the U.S., but these are not presented in this report.

Edit: This is all I could get at USADA site, for 2012:

8490 tests, 73 positives for all substances, 19 pending cases, 33 sanctions, 21 not sanctioned.

36 cases resolved in 2012, none listed as CB, one listed as an anabolic agent, so it could be CB, but probably not. So while these 36 cases probably include ones begun before 2012, we can conclude that there are roughly 8500 tests every year, and for the most recent year, no more than one CB positive, if that.

If contamination is a major source of CB positives, one would expect more of these positives in places such as China and Mexico. Another thing to consider, though, is that standards of detection vary considerably from lab to lab. I guess, though I'm not sure, that labs in Europe (Koln for sure) and U.S. probably can detect lower levels than those in third world countries.

 

[thehog]

That will probably trigger a positive.

 

[blackcat]

I have to defend Franklin a little here. He isn’t saying that, he’s saying there is a danger of someone testing positive as a result of eating meat in Europe. Not often, but maybe once in a while. I still dispute that, of course.

Looking over the figures now (2012), I see the total tests have to be revised downward a little bit, because these include blood tests and the passport, which don’t test for CB. But that doesn’t affect the results much. Instead of 285,000 tests for 2012, there were about 252,000 urine tests. The 98 CB positives are still very low, less than 0.04%.

Moreover, a footnote on p. 7 says these reported AAF are not the same as sanctions, so it appears that the 98 positives for this year (and positives listed for other years, of course) does include cases where the athletes got off by arguing contamination. I don’t know how many cases this would amount to, but we have heard recently of numerous athletes making this argument successfully, e.g., five or so Mexican soccer players, and at least two cyclists, whose names I’ve forgotten, who tested positive in Mexico. That ping-pong player. And at least one boxer, Erik Morales, who is Mexican. These are only the ones I know off the top of my head, I’m sure there are others.

But in any case, that figure is very low, considering that it includes testing in places like Mexico and China.What I’d really like to see are data for CB in Europe and the U.S., but these are not presented in this report.

Kicker661, sound rationale.

but in terms of contamination, it really matters not if it is 1 or 1 million. out of those 1million+ samples. And the factor of half life and deteriorating legacy metabolites is still infused into those number of positives. Coupled with halflife metabolite degeneration, it may not be the significant problem for WADA, but is it a problem with a roided up herd at upton sinclairs jungle?

 

[thehog]

That will probably do it.

 

[Kicker661]

I have to defend Franklin a little here. He isn’t saying that, he’s saying there is a danger of someone testing positive as a result of eating meat in Europe. Not often, but maybe once in a while. I still dispute that, of course.

Moreover, a footnote on p. 7 says these reported AAF are not the same as sanctions, so it appears that the 98 positives for this year (and positives listed for other years, of course) does include cases where the athletes got off by arguing contamination. I don’t know how many cases this would amount to, but we have heard recently of numerous athletes making this argument successfully, e.g., five or so Mexican soccer players, and at least two cyclists, whose names I’ve forgotten, who tested positive in Mexico. That ping-pong player. And at least one boxer, Erik Morales, who is Mexican. These are only the ones I know off the top of my head, I’m sure there are others.

But in any case, that figure is very low, considering that it includes testing in places like Mexico and China.What I’d really like to see are data for CB in Europe and the U.S., but these are not presented in this report.

I have the data below for you for China and US. Hope that helps you.

FYI The table tennis guy was for cocaine. Said he kissed someone in a nightclub. It might sound possible but this is a sport where amphetamines would be extremely beneficial, just like in Darts because of the increased focus and stability.



Beta Agonist category is pretty much made up of 95% positives for Clen.

2009 Beijing
Total samples - 15,634
Positives for Beta Agonists - 5

2010 Beijing
Total samples - 14,738
Positives for Beta Agonists - 4

2011 Beijing
Total samples - 13,275
Positives for Beta Agonists - 7

2012 Beijing
Total samples - 11,358
Positives for Beta Agonists - 1

Total Beijing samples - 55,005
Total positives for Beta Agonists - 17 / 0.03%


2009 US
Total samples - 72,016
Positives for Beta Agonists - 11

2010 US
Total samples - 55,564
Positives for Beta Agonists - 12

2011 US
Total samples - 54,788
Positives for Beta Agonists - 8

2012 US
Total samples - 56,381
Positives for Beta Agonists - 1

Total US samples - 238,749
Total positives for Beta Agonists - 32 / 0.013%

 

[Merckx index]

I have the data below for you for China and US. Hope that helps you.

Where did you get the U.S. data? As I added in my previous post, USADA reported about 8500 tests in 2012, not 56,000.

However, if your data are correct, there is a slightly lower incidence of CB positives in the U.S. Given the large numbers of tests, I think, though I'm not sure, the difference is significant. As I noted in my edit above, testing is probably more sensitive in the U.S, so taking that into account, the difference would be even more significant.

This could reflect that some of the positives in China were due to contamination, assuming that the data include those. But actually, the incidence in China is about the same as world-wide, whereas in the U.S. it is lower. But in any case, the U.S. incidence reinforces the argument that even if all positives were in fact due to contamination, and all were sanctioned (the worst case scenario), the problem is quite minor.

One interesting thing about those data, though, is that they are roughly constant in both countries until 2012, when they drop dramatically, to just one case. Why? I don't think it's chance, given it happens in both countries. Were they meat eating cases, and suddenly athletes became more careful about eating meat? I don't think so, because I don't think athletes are more careful about that in the U.S. Could it reflect that dopers are more careful post-Contador, because of greater sensitivity of testing, and concern that meat eating will no longer get them off?

FYI The table tennis guy was for cocaine. Said he kissed someone in a nightclub. It might sound possible but this is a sport where amphetamines would be extremely beneficial, just like in Darts because of the increased focus and stability.

I think you mean a tennis player (Gasquet), not a table tennis player. A table tennis or ping-pong player (Ovtcharov) definitely did test for CB about the same time of the AC case. It was widely discussed here.

 

[Kicker661]

Where did you get the U.S. data? As I added in my previous post, USADA reported about 8500 tests in 2012, not 56,000.

I think you mean a tennis player (Gasquet), not a table tennis player.

It's WADAs data from Los Angeles and Salt Lake City labs. Total urine and blood samples. Urine is roughly 90% of the total samples number.

Ahh sorry i got mixed up. I was reading something the other day and it was a cocaine test where the player was let off.

 

[Merckx index]

It's WADAs data from Los Angeles and Salt Lake City labs. Total urine and blood samples. Urine is roughly 90% of the total samples number.

OK, I get the 56,381 number for 2012, just from urine samples. But CB is listed by WADA as an anabolic agent, not as a beta2-agonist. The two U.S. labs reported a total of 144 positives for anabolic agents. We don't know how many of those positives were from CB, but we can make a good guess from the overall data. There were 2279 positives for anabolic agents world-wide that year, of which 98 were for CB, or 4.3%, If we assume the same proportion for the U.S., we get about 6 positives for CB, or 0.01 %. This is in the range of the world-wide proportion of 0.03%, though slightly lower.

The same revised analysis for Beijing shows virtually the identical result, 0.01%. Based on this, I'm not sure there was a big drop in CB positives in 2012, but I'm not going to go through the other years to establish this. It does seem that the proportion of CB positives for U.S. and China was the same, but remember, this assumes the same proportion of anabolic agents is CB in each country, which may not be the case. If they are the same, and if one accepts that meat is safer to eat in the U.S. than in China, then this supports the contention that most of the positives are due to doping, not to contamination.

If China and the U.S. have rates lower than the world-wide average, what countries have a higher rate? I checked New Delhi, because of recent reports that doping is especially heavy in India. Sure enough, they have a rate of CB positives (again, making that assumption about anabolic agents) of 0.15%, or about 15 times higher than China or the U.S. They also have the highest overall rate of AAFs of all the labs, of 3.34%. The fact that a high rate of CB positives is correlated with a high rate of other positives is at least consistent with the conclusion that most of these CB positives are from doping.

Just one thing I'm not clear about. Most of the tests in the two U.S. labs are reported as non-ADAMS, but all the positives are reported as ADAMS. i assume these include positives in non-ADAMS? If not, the U.S. rate would be sky high, which doesn't make sense.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

In the age of science, every educated person understands that reason is based on statistics. If you come to the conclusion that someone is innocent, you do it on the basis of statistics, whether you recognize that you are doing this or not. Just because you don't present cold, hard numbers doesn't mean that this isn't what the human brain is doing. You are weighing various factors, which is a statistical process. You are asking yourself how likely something is, which is probability, which leads to statistics.

Thank you for your considered reply. I regret I have to continue to take issue with your misunderstanding of the concept of reasonable doubt. I also have a degree in psychology and I have enough 4th year level statistics, neuropsychology and cognitive psychology courses under my belt to understand that the human brain does not process information in the statistical manner you suggest.

There are a myriad of means about how the brain can best solve a problem such as the proof beyond a reasonable doubt problem. These include how the problem is represented in the mind, or as the Gestaltist's would have it by restructuring the problem or by using "initial stage-goal stage" thinking exemplified by the Tower of Hanoi problem or means-end analysis or analogical transfer etc.

One of the fundamental obstacles to solving a problem is fixation and with respect I am suggesting you are fixated on the erroneous assumption that problem solving such as whether or not there is reasonable doubt on facts and evidence in any given case is a statistical exercise.

People process information, weigh it, evaluate it, consider it, assess its logic and assess its credibility based on a myriad of factors - but rarely if at all say well the probability that a particular solution to the problem is x% and therefore that is the answer to the problem.

For example the statistical mean can give us an average score on a data set. But when the data contains outlier scores, then the mean score is useless in understanding the true meaning of the data set. The data is skewed and biased and misrepresents the true picture of how most of the students did on the exam!

 

[Kicker661]

OK, I get the 56,381 number for 2012, just from urine samples. But CB is listed by WADA as an anabolic agent, not as a beta2-agonist. The two U.S. labs reported a total of 144 positives for anabolic agents. We don't know how many of those positives were from CB, but we can make a good guess from the overall data. There were 2279 positives for anabolic agents world-wide that year, of which 98 were for CB, or 4.3%, If we assume the same proportion for the U.S., we get about 6 positives for CB, or 0.01 %. This is in the range of the world-wide proportion of 0.03%, though slightly lower.

Urgh 2hrs sleep must have me hallucinating as i was flicking through the files.

The other thing to consider is that the drugs of choice won't necessarily be the same across the globe. Clen is probably the most well known but i knew a number of athletes in the US who used T3 instead among other things. Then guys from outside the US would be huge fans of Clen. Possibly something to consider when looking at the rates.


Links to the 4 years -

2009
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/S...ADA_2009_LaboratoryStatisticsReport_Final.pdf

2010
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/R...es/WADA_2010_Laboratory_Statistics_Report.pdf

2011
http://www.conade.gob.mx/Documentos/Sust_prohibidas/ESTADISTICAS 2011 LABORATORIOS ACREDITADOS.pdf

2012
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/R...012-Anti-Doping-Testing-Figures-Report-EN.pdf

 

[Merckx index]

Thank you for your considered reply. I regret I have to continue to take issue with your misunderstanding of the concept of reasonable doubt. I also have a degree in psychology and I have enough 4th year level statistics, neuropsychology and cognitive psychology courses under my belt to understand that the human brain does not process information in the statistical manner you suggest.

There are a myriad of means about how the brain can best solve a problem such as the proof beyond a reasonable doubt problem. These include how the problem is represented in the mind, or as the Gestaltist's would have it by restructuring the problem or by using "initial stage-goal stage" thinking exemplified by the Tower of Hanoi problem or means-end analysis or analogical transfer etc.

One of the fundamental obstacles to solving a problem is fixation and with respect I am suggesting you are fixated on the erroneous assumption that problem solving such as whether or not there is reasonable doubt on facts and evidence in any given case is a statistical exercise.

People process information, weigh it, evaluate it, consider it, assess its logic and assess its credibility based on a myriad of factors - but rarely if at all say well the probability that a particular solution to the problem is x% and therefore that is the answer to the problem.

I don't disagree with you that there are other ways of solving some problems. I do disagree with you if you think these other ways are more appropriate for people weighing evidence--those are not my words, they are those of the legal system. There are many kinds of problems confronting us, and I was only talking about the quite restricted kind that judges and juries generally deal with--did someone do something or not? I won't claim that they operate 100% by reason or statistics, sometimes there is room for some creative leap of imagination, but by far the most important part of the process is statistical. That is unquestionably the case in doping cases, which of course is the topic of this thread. If I ever have to be judged for something I'm alleged to have done, I certainly hope that this is the way the judgment will be made.

Beyond that, as I noted earlier, the modern view of the brain does support the concept of statistical processing very heavily. Even when we engage in some creative leap in imagination, it's underlain by a weighing process among neurons. Most neuroscientists, I think, accept the notion that there are many processes competing for consciousness, and those that win out are those that have some advantage in number and/or intensity of neuronal activity. Again, just because you, at your level of the individual, don't interpret what you have just done as part of a statistical process doesn't mean that that isn't what happened at some lower level that you aren't aware of. There is an enormous body of psychological evidence that demonstrates that people very frequently have very little understanding of the real reasons why they arrive at some decision. Political beliefs are a treasure trove in this respect.

Now these same kinds of studies also show that people quite often don't follow good statistical reasoning in their deliberations. They are asked simple questions about which is more likely, and depending on how the question is phrased, majorities may get it wrong. If that is your point, I agree completely. But my point is I don't want people like this on a jury to decide my fate.

For example the statistical mean can give us an average score on a data set. But when the data contains outlier scores, then the mean score is useless in understanding the true meaning of the data set. The data is skewed and biased and misrepresents the true picture of how most of the students did on the exam!

You are surely aware that dealing with outliers is a well-established part of statistics? When I say statistics, I don't mean simply totalling up values and taking the mean. If there is fixation going on, I would say it's in viewing statistics as some simple numbers game. It's a far more complex process than that. I'm not a statistician, there are probably people here who know more about the subject than I do, but I do have enormous respect for what it has been able to accomplish.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

For example the statistical mean can give us an average score on a data set. But when the data contains outlier scores, then the mean score is useless in understanding the true meaning of the data set. The data is skewed and biased and misrepresents the true picture of how most of the students did on the exam!

Hi Robbie,
You can always take the medianinstead of the mean if you suspect there are outliers skewing the results. It's not so complex really.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And if you have the data graphed, noticing the outliers is even easier, as is generating a good feel for the mean / average student result.

 

[Franklin]

I was NOT saying that we should be satisfied with a system where a few false positives were inevitable. I was NOT saying that if only one in a thousand athlete tests positive falsely, we should pat ourselves on the back. To repeat, I was saying that using all the positives, and assuming all of them are innocents—which unquestionably overexaggerates the situation—the situation STILL approaches that we have with other drugs, none of which Franklin was complaining about. I didn’t hear him moaning about how unfair the bio-passport is, how unfair the EPO test is, etc, but the likelihood of a false positive in those tests is probably in the range of the WORST CASE SCENARIO of CB. Get it?.

Oh now you blame me for focussing on CB in the thread about MR testing positive on CB.

 

[Franklin]

I have to defend Franklin a little here. He isn’t saying that, he’s saying there is a danger of someone testing positive as a result of eating meat in Europe. Not often, but maybe once in a while. I still dispute that, of course.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of burning the strawman as if I said CB contamination is happening often. Indeed, if it happens (debatable!) it's extremely rare. There is zero contention there and that people are trying to fling that at my point to make it stick is bizarre.

Yet I'm at a loss why you dispute that contamination is possible. I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is indeed possible.

1. Canada appologized for CB infected horsemeat hitting the European market. So we have a case already.
2. We know that the origin of meat is misslabeled.
3. We know that Horsemeat was able to pass as veal for years. So the tests are hardly waterproof, nor is it extremely unlikely every piece of meat is tested.

Is it likely that someone ingests so much meat in Europe that he tests positive on CB? No. Again, everyone trying to pin that on me needs to reread my posts a few times. But it's certainly possible.

Now if we look at how these things work in the sport world we see that all of a sudden the burden of proof is at the athlete's feet.

I'm glad I'm not the only one here who has some issues with that.

 

[RownhamHill]

No offence ibn my complete disagreement with you, but all those judgements you made:

probably guilty (not definitely)
complacent job
consequence of guilty verdict (you're not omniscient ;-))
etc

are based on statistical analysis that happens in your head, unknowingly, given you are estimating the effect of all those things, and then weighing them up against each other before making your decision.

It could not be more mathematical / statistical if you tried.

Then consider the chance that you were on that jury for that trial. Another statistical variable in and of itself.

No offence taken at your disagreement, but I don't agree with your analysis. Take those judgements:

probably guilty (not definitely) - obviously this was a statistical probability analysis, we agree, but to clarify my use of probably here: I definitely did think he was (probably) guilty (obviously notwithstanding I'm not omniscient!). If I'd based my judgement simply on probability of guilt I would have convicted, no doubt.

complacent job - I'm not sure how a value judgement about someone's competence is a statistical analysis is it? I didn't estimate whether he'd done a bad job, but made an observational deduction - person x accuses person y of lying; person x presents absolutely no supporting evidence that person y is lying other than he 'probably' was: therefore person x (whose specific job as prosecutor is to present evidence) is doing a bad job. As I say I 'definitely' think that person y probably was lying, but there was a complete absence of evidence presented to back up my own internal statistical analysis. I can't see how observing someone doesn't present evidence, and making a value judgement on that is statistical analysis.

consequence of guilty verdict (you're not omniscient ;-)) - no I'm not omniscient, but I did know, as an absolute fact, that a guilty verdict would have meant a custodial sentence as defined by statute (the probability of that was literally 1, so no 'internal estimation' was needed). I just didn't think that was 'fair', based on my own sense of morality and ethics; depriving someone of their liberty is a pretty 'big' decision, and ultimately, I took the view that even if the guy probably was definitely guilty, the very fact of sending him to prison (in and of itself) would have been wrong in the abstract, and I didn't want to do that.

Look, I'm definitely not disagreeing that internal statistical analyses happen literally all the time to inform the judgements we make about the world. But inform is the key word there - sometimes (as in my case as a jurist) humans handwave the data because it doesn't match with the attitudinal judgements we're making based on our own internal value systems.

I also suspect that some people are more likely to handwave their internal probability judgements than others, and the people who wouldn't would find that incomprehensible. But I can't know that for sure.

 

[Franklin]

In the age of science, every educated person understands that reason is based on statistics. If you come to the conclusion that someone is innocent, you do it on the basis of statistics, whether you recognize that you are doing this or not. Just because you don't present cold, hard numbers doesn't mean that this isn't what the human brain is doing. You are weighing various factors, which is a statistical process. You are asking yourself how likely something is, which is probability, which leads to statistics.

You ran straight into a few formal fallacies here.

 

[frenchfry]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of burning the strawman as if I said CB contamination is happening often. Indeed, if it happens (debatable!) it's extremely rare. There is zero contention there and that people are trying to fling that at my point to make it stick is bizarre.

Yet I'm at a loss why you dispute that contamination is possible. I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is indeed possible.

1. Canada appologized for CB infected horsemeat hitting the European market. So we have a case already.
2. We know that the origin of meat is misslabeled.
3. We know that Horsemeat was able to pass as veal for years. So the tests are hardly waterproof, nor is it extremely unlikely every piece of meat is tested.

Is it likely that someone ingests so much meat in Europe that he tests positive on CB? No. Again, everyone trying to pin that on me needs to reread my posts a few times. But it's certainly possible.

I think we can all agree that clenbuterol contamination is possible to varying degrees according to the country or region.

The interesting question is what we do with this information with regards to the anti-doping effort.

The hard-liners will argue for strict liability, it is up to the athletes to control what they ingest and from the moment the presence of a banned substance is proven a sanction is justified. Without strict liability, virtually all anti-doping efforts through testing would be useless.

Others might argue that not only a positive must be proven, but also how the banned substance got into the athlete's system, and will tend to think that if contamination is possible (at least contamination from everyday acts like eating beef), no matter how small the probability, no doping positive from that substance should be sanctioned as there is no way to prove the intent.

Middle ground might be that if the existence and origin of the contamination can be proven, that the sanction be reduced or waived.

Now if we look at how these things work in the sport world we see that all of a sudden the burden of proof is at the athlete's feet.

I'm glad I'm not the only one here who has some issues with that.

You keep coming back to this point.

I believe that the burden of proof is on the anti-doping authorities to prove the existence of a banned substance in the athlete's body. This is how it should be.

You are correct in that it is up to the athlete to prove the positive is from contamination. However strict liability means that the athlete is totally responsible for what he ingests and therefore the provenance is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. You may or may not agree with this but this is another debate and, as mentioned above, one that is fundamantal to the success of anti-doping efforts.

 

[Franklin]

You are correct in that it is up to the athlete to prove the positive is from contamination. However strict liability means that the athlete is totally responsible for what he ingests and therefore the provenance is, strictly speaking, irrelevant..

I'm sorry, but that's quite simply not the case. If that was the case there would be no contention, but indeed Contamination is ruled as being outside the sphere of influence of an athlete and thus ground for aquittal. To reuse your phrase:

"You may or may not agree with this but this is another debate and, as mentioned above, one that is fundamantal to the success of anti-doping efforts"