Michael Rogers positive for clenbuterol

[frenchfry]

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"

You refuse to try to understand the point I am attempting (poorly?) to make, I think I will give up and leave you with your certitude.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

And as a defence lawyer you should know that jail is filled with 100% innocent people.

So you are saying 98 positives out of 250,000 samples clearly demonstrates world wide tainted meat causing a mammoth amount of positives. Glad you made that clear.

This is a total misrepresentation of what I said. My comment was directed towards the suggestion by Merckx that an analysis of the concept of reasonable doubt cannot be reduced to a statistical analysis. Please read other peoples comments in their proper context before mouthing off with some irrelevant drivel!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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.

You see, you have proved my point. The median is simply another indicator of central tendency. The emphasis here is on the words "indicator" and "tendency." The median simply divides the distribution of the data set into two parts such that demonstrate an equal number of scores above and below the median.

It puts a different context on the data set than does the mean. Therefore we now have two statistics that are indicators of central tendency but have totally different meanings. This is why decision making and problem solving cannot be reduced to a statistical analysis

These statistics are not all that helpful until you get to standard deviation that can identify variance. But then again variance simply shows that statistics are not absolute and have inherent problems. Statistics are merely estimators. Would you make an important decision based on a mere estimate or a tendency? I doubt it.

 

[hrotha]

Statistics are merely estimators. Would you make an important decision based on a mere estimate or a tendency? I doubt it.

Huh? People do that all the time. It's the basis of market research, PR, political campaigns, huge etcetera.

 

[Merckx index]

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.

I think you’re saying you wouldn’t convict just on “probably”. How is that not statistical reasoning? Surely you don’t think statistical reasoning demands one always go with the majority? Surely you can understand that we can distinguish degrees of probability—again, statistically--and don’t assign guilt until the degree is very high? If we were unable to do that, we couldn’t distinguish preponderance of evidence, in civil cases, and beyond reasonable doubt, in a murder trial.

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.

Again, you seem to have a very narrow view of statistics. The fact that you began with “value judgment” is enough to show it is statistical. Value refers to some relative amount on a scale, and that’s handled statistically.

In this case, why do you think someone who presents no evidence for a claim is doing a bad job? Because in your extensive life experience, you have found that claims are usually supported by evidence. So you are in effect constructing a scale—amount of evidence supporting a claim—and putting that person at one end of it. I’m sure if he presented some weak evidence, you would have a better, but still not really good, view of him. If he had presented strong evidence, you would have a much better view of him.

This doesn’t mean that your evaluation of the person is linearly related to the amount or strength of evidence he presents. But it surely is related, in the sense that the more or stronger the evidence, the better the job in your view.

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.

Our legal system does make a simple, binary distinction: guilty or not guilty. But that doesn’t mean that we determine guilt in this fashion. We determine the degree that we believe there is guilt, and somewhere on this scale, we find it’s enough for commitment to a verdict of guilt. People may differ where they find the degree sufficient—just as CAS allows arbiters to find guilt anywhere between preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt—but the fact that there is variation in where the line is drawn (which in itself is probably determined in large part statistically), doesn’t mean that the framework in which a line is drawn is not constructed statistically.

If you saw someone commit a sadistic, brutal murder, no doubt you would have no problem thinking it fair to convict that person to life in prison, or perhaps death. Why? Because on the scale of evidence, witnessing a crime is essentially 100%. That’s as sure as you can be. But if your evidence is somewhat lower on the scale, you may not consider that verdict fair. Why? Because, whether you realize this or not, you have a concept of what is fair based on your degree of certainty. This is statistical reasoning.

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.

And as I’ve been trying to explain, our internal value systems operate statistically. What you call handwaving is just individual variation in where on the scale of evidence guilt is set. There is nothing whatsoever about this that is incompatible with statistics. You seem to think that statistics is supposed to provide a definite answer, the same for everyone. I think some others are arguing on this basis. But that is not what I mean when I say that we reason statistically. Of course the line is drawn somewhat differently by everyone. In this sense, statistics is value free. Statistics tells us what the probability of something is, but individuals vary in what probability is high enough for them to assign guilt.

You see, you have proved my point. The median is simply another indicator of central tendency. The emphasis here is on the words "indicator" and "tendency." The median simply divides the distribution of the data set into two parts such that demonstrate an equal number of scores above and below the median.

To repeat, you’re greatly oversimplifying statistics. Human beings have a need often to make a simple binary distinction, as between guilty or not guilty. But statistics is not by any means confined to doing this. Statistics is completely compatible with grades of guilt, as in preponderance vs. beyond reasonable doubt.

It puts a different context on the data set than does the mean. Therefore we now have two statistics that are indicators of central tendency but have totally different meanings. This is why decision making and problem solving cannot be reduced to a statistical analysis

On the contrary, it’s humans who demand different kinds of meanings, and find them in different interpretations of statistics. I think you also are assuming that statistics is supposed to provide one definite answer for everyone. Of course, people interpret statistics differently, that doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t make use of them.

Huh? People do that all the time. It's the basis of market research, PR, political campaigns, huge etcetera.

Not to mention our economic system, our approach to climate change, our decisions about going to war, how best to help other countries. There isn’t any major political or social decision I’m aware of that isn’t made in large part by reference to statistics. At the social level, this is widely acknowledged. My point is that this occurs at the individual decision level as well, but people are not as aware of it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Huh? People do that all the time. It's the basis of market research, PR, political campaigns, huge etcetera.

Good luck in the lottery of life!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

To repeat, you’re greatly oversimplifying statistics. Human beings have a need often to make a simple binary distinction, as between guilty or not guilty. But statistics is not by any means confined to doing this. Statistics is completely compatible with grades of guilt, as in preponderance vs. beyond reasonable doubt.

On the contrary, it’s humans who demand different kinds of meanings, and find them in different interpretations of statistics. I think you also are assuming that statistics is supposed to provide one definite answer for everyone. Of course, people interpret statistics differently, that doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t make use of them.


This is sheer logical nonsense. Statistics are not based on populations, but on samples (which are often skewed, biased and unreliable) and extrapolating a statistic from a data set as to a general rule as to what the population would do is sheer folly.

Recent elections in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta were so far off base the pollsters looked like amateurs (Google it).

The statistics I cited i.e. the mean and the median, together with the mode are statistics of central tendency. They are pretty basic statistics used all the time. BUT each statistic tells a different story about the central tendency. This is why you cannot use statistical analysis when you are talking about problem solving about the guilt or innocence of a person in a legal process, when we are talking about the complex information processing systems we have in our brains.

You are really struggling to support a rather specious argument about their validity as the means to solve a problem.

 

[Franklin]

You are really struggling to support a rather specious argument about their validity as the means to solve a problem.

And the claim that it is how reason works is running into some well known fallacies which are adressed in Logos. In other words, the claim itself is not supported by how we define Logic and reason. Statistics have their place, but to equate it with how reason works is just nonsense.

 

[hrotha]

Good luck in the lottery of life!

Yes, perfect example: I don't buy lottery tickets because I know the odds.

 

[Merckx index]

This is sheer logical nonsense. Statistics are not based on populations, but on samples (which are often skewed, biased and unreliable)

So there are no statistics whatsoever in a census, which collects information from an entire population?

and extrapolating a statistic from a data set as to a general rule as to what the population would do is sheer folly.

That must be why Western countries are constantly plagued with shortages of necessary goods, because the people furnishing these goods are completely unable to predict demand for them from their statistical models. It must also be why we are totally clueless about what the population of our countries will be in the future, because statistical models of growth are so useless. We can of course never build new highways, hospitals, or schools, because it would be sheer folly to estimate the numbers of people making use of them in the future. And I'll be sure to advise my colleagues to stop working on their statistical model of cancer progression,because the samples such models are based on are often skewed, biased and unreliable.

Recent elections in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta were so far off base the pollsters looked like amateurs (Google it).

Try googling Nate Silver.

I don't know what happened in Canada. There are many factors that can account for a discrepancy between polls and actual results, most of which do not reflect on the pollsters. Polls of course do not predict human behavior in the future, they indicate what people are thinking at a particular moment. Despite all the claims that the pollsters blew it, they fairly accurately predicted the numbers for all the minor parties, and even for the two majority parties, the discrepancy was not much more than the usual +/- 5% error. The fact that these results caused so much outcry reflects the fact that pollsters are expected to, and usually do, much better.

Exit polls, which are of course correlated in time with elections, are highly accurate in the U.S. Elections are routinely called when only a small fraction of the vote is in, and these calls are almost never wrong.

The larger point, though, is that statistics applied to human behavior are of course more uncertain than statistics applied to static situations, such as contamination of meat. Trying to argue against the one by pointing out occasional flaws in the other is disingenuous. This discussion began with a debate about the probability of testing positive for CB in Europe from eating contaminated meat. The fact that very occasionally pollsters predict an election wrong is irrelevant to this argument. It's also irrelevant to the argument that people use statistics in their reasoning. I didn't say that reasoning was always accurate, on the contrary, I emphasized that it frequently isn't.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

So there are no statistics whatsoever in a census, which collects information from an entire population?

Nate Silver is an extraordinary exception in his predictions but so what. One guy out of the thousands of pollsters in North America. The fact is no poll, PR company, or study ever studies the population. It is too expensive

A census is not a statistic. It is a counting of the number of people in a population. In Canada filling out a census card is no longer mandatory so who knows what our population is?

Once again the problem with stats is that they are based on samples. In fact unless a statistic is based on a sample it is not a statistic.

And of course samples can be replete with sampling error. e.g. no random sampling, biased sampling, failure to measure a sample on several dimensions, the sample contains substantially fewer cases than the population etc., etc., etc.,

Good luck drawing inferences unless these factors are not accounted for!

 

[Bushranger]

And the claim that it is how reason works is running into some well known fallacies which are adressed in Logos. In other words, the claim itself is not supported by how we define Logic and reason. Statistics have their place, but to equate it with how reason works is just nonsense.

What a load of crap. This is a simple case. He ingested clen. He tested positive. How he ingested it is not the issue. That defense has been tried and does not work. Let him now take the medicine that the authorities will administer. At least he knows where it's coming from.

 

[Franklin]

What a load of crap. This is a simple case. He ingested clen. He tested positive. How he ingested it is not the issue. That defense has been tried and does not work. Let him now take the medicine that the authorities will administer. At least he knows where it's coming from.

What a load of crap. That defense has been tried and does indeed work very well.

And yes, that's a bloody fact: The manner of ingestion does matter in being sentenced or not. That you deny it while Cas made a huge ruling on this with the Mexican scandal is amusing.

Sure, MR might be found guilty, but it's not a slamdunk. I'm tired of the huge disappointments when people are already shouting how this or that case will surely be this or that riders downfall.

Why not wait and see?

 

[proffate]

Statistics are merely estimators. Would you make an important decision based on a mere estimate or a tendency? I doubt it.

An allegory: RobbieCanuck must go to the grocery store to acquire food. There's a tendency for reduced traffic at midday and more in the evening. Unwilling to make an important decision on the basis of observed tendencies, RobbieCanuck stays in and starves to death.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

An allegory: RobbieCanuck must go to the grocery store to acquire food. There's a tendency for reduced traffic at midday and more in the evening. Unwilling to make an important decision on the basis of observed tendencies, RobbieCanuck stays in and starves to death.

The flaw in your logic is this. Robbie Canuck must go to the grocery store to acquire food. He goes and gets the food irregardless of the hours of reduced traffic. The hours of reduced traffic are irrelevant because he needs the food. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs that motivates people to do what they do!

 

[Master50]

The flaw in your logic is this. Robbie Canuck must go to the grocery store to acquire food. He goes and gets the food irregardless of the hours of reduced traffic. The hours of reduced traffic are irrelevant because he needs the food. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs that motivates people to do what they do!

not to mention irregardless is not a word either. Try regardless. double negative means the opposite of your point. but why does RC not care about the hours of reduced traffic? Regardless of need there is still an influence of efficiency. I shop for groceries because I need food too. I shop Sunday evening because it is quiet and of course works with my schedule. It is not a logical stretch to use efficiency as an influence.

 

[webvan]

What a load of crap. That defense has been tried and does indeed work very well.

And yes, that's a bloody fact: The manner of ingestion does matter in being sentenced or not. That you deny it while Cas made a huge ruling on this with the Mexican scandal is amusing.

Sure, MR might be found guilty, but it's not a slamdunk. I'm tired of the huge disappointments when people are already shouting how this or that case will surely be this or that riders downfall.

Why not wait and see?

The onus is on him to prove he didn't ingest it voluntarily to get a reduced sanction. So far he only seems to have a "I raced in China" excuse, that won't fly, if only because warnings were issued about meat in China, so how he could still have eaten tainted meat ?

 

[Ferminal]

not to mention irregardless is not a word either. Try regardless. double negative means the opposite of your point. but why does RC not care about the hours of reduced traffic? Regardless of need there is still an influence of efficiency. I shop for groceries because I need food too. I shop Sunday evening because it is quiet and of course works with my schedule. It is not a logical stretch to use efficiency as an influence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

 

[Panda Claws]

The flaw in your logic is this. Robbie Canuck must go to the grocery store to acquire food. He goes and gets the food irregardless of the hours of reduced traffic. The hours of reduced traffic are irrelevant because he needs the food. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs that motivates people to do what they do!

Maslow's pyramid is an interesting piece of philosophy (partly in the field of psychology too yes, but heavily critisised there) but by no means science or fact. I have not read everything here, nor do I intend to, but how can you be so dismissive of statistics or empirical data and then take Maslow's musings as fact?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

not to mention irregardless is not a word either. Try regardless. double negative means the opposite of your point. but why does RC not care about the hours of reduced traffic? Regardless of need there is still an influence of efficiency. I shop for groceries because I need food too. I shop Sunday evening because it is quiet and of course works with my schedule. It is not a logical stretch to use efficiency as an influence.

Check your Oxford English Dictionary. Irregardless is a blend of irrespective and regardless, and is as legitimate a word as exists. It is both an adverb and an adjective. Your problem is you don't know when to use it. I hope you don't starve waiting for the consumer traffic to slow down when you go shopping.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Maslow's pyramid is an interesting piece of philosophy (partly in the field of psychology too yes, but heavily critisised there) but by no means science or fact. I have not read everything here, nor do I intend to, but how can you be so dismissive of statistics or empirical data and then take Maslow's musings as fact?

I didn't say Maslow's theory of needs was fact. Please read my comments in context before responding. It is a common error made by many on the Clinic Forum.

Maslow's theory is a theory of motivation. We all have needs and these needs motivate our behaviour. Like many psychological theories it provides a framework for the study of human growth and development. As we develop as humans we have needs such as physiological (air, breathing etc.), safety (security of the person), love and belonging (family), esteem (self confidence) and self actualization (problem solving and acceptance of facts) Maslow says we acquire these needs according to a hierarchy of needs.

It is a theory that has inherent common sense validity. If you read it you will find it has a "gut appeal" although it was not overly empirically tested. He studied people who were in the top 1% of significant levels of achievement such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Schweitzer and Albert Einstein all of whom achieved significant levels of self understanding and of reality.

I note you did not provide any sources for your claim it was "...heavily critisised..." (spelled criticized, by the way). It has been replaced in clinical psychology by attachment theory which studies the long term inter personal relationships we have with others.

Read Maslow's book, Motivation and Personality

 

[pastronef]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...China-and-Mexico-due-to-Clenbuterol-risk.aspx

UCI instructs World Cycling Centre athletes not to consume meat in China and Mexico due to Clenbuterol risk

 

[Dazed and Confused]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...China-and-Mexico-due-to-Clenbuterol-risk.aspx

UCI instructs World Cycling Centre athletes not to consume meat in China and Mexico due to Clenbuterol risk

Rogers will go down in history for the man who dodged the most bullets.

 

[webvan]

Not sure how this would help him since the risk has been known for years, at least since the noise made by the Contador positive. How could he be stupid enough to eat meat in China? Saxo can't afford to bring their own food to races if need be? The only thing that makes sense is another likely "echo" positive like what happened to Bertie.

 

[Netserk]

Not sure how this would help him since the risk has been known for years, at least since the noise made by the Contador positive. How could he be stupid enough to eat meat in China? Saxo can't afford to bring their own food to races if need be? The only thing that makes sense is another likely "echo" positive like what happened to Bertie.

Yes it's so easy to import food into China. Very.