Pseudo-science

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Just telling how the coding of doping samples is done here in Finland.

that's fine and interesting, but it's not relevant to establishing whether or not there's a conflict of interest (as just explained neatly by thehog). Even Swart understands that

Swart: "If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined"

He's not working for the UCI and the work he does for SAIDS is coded and blinded, so where's the COI?

Its a very poor argument. Whilst he does not work directly for the UCI, SAIDS has a direct relationship with the UCI, CADF and WADA and supposedly follows their mandate. That is a COI. I'm not sure what "not working for the UCI" actually means?

that,
and we were talking about the COI of Swart working with SA athletes whilst at SAIDS.
Again, and is the 2nd or 3rd time I'm saying this:
If Swart understands and agrees that
(a) working for UCI + testing Froome = COI (which he does, he said so);
then he should understand and agree that
(b) working for SAIDS + CSA + testing/consulting SA athletes = (multiple) COI(s)
Swart admitting that (a) holds, but denying that (b) holds, that's odd.

Correct. The UCI will take the case from the Federation based on SAIDS findings. Its a COI, plain and simple.

Additionally its not for Swart (or Coe) or anyone to judge whether they have a conflict or not. You do not make your own determinations to that respect.

 

[harryh]

So you think there is a risk that SAIDS hide every coded and blinded positive doping test result if there is a risk that it can be coming from an athlete tested/consulted by Swart? Should Swart be fired from SAIDS because of that risk?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Whilst he does not work directly for the UCI, SAIDS has a direct relationship with the UCI, CADF and WADA and supposedly follows their mandate. That is a COI. I'm not sure what "not working for the UCI" actually means?

yeah, this in fact an important point.
It's the reason why Ross Tucker, when explaining what independent testing would entail, explicitly said that the tester(s) shoud have "no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/

 

[thehog]

Re:

So you think there is a risk that SAIDS hide every coded and blinded positive doping test result if there is a risk that it can be coming from an athlete tested/consulted by Swart? Should Swart be fired from SAIDS because of that risk?

He needs to be removed from the process, yes. Not fired. It's not only for the athletes he represents but for the ones he doesn't. I wouldn't want to be a rider who is not only competing against another rider but also their coach who works deep worth the AD. Especially when there is government and sponsorship money involved supporting individuals.

It's a terriable conflict on perception alone and should be remedied.

The other aspect is supplements. Swart sells his on supplements, does he profit personally for his work within the AD the production of his own supplements? He he access to information other supplement makers and athletes don't have. Him and his athletes are at advantage and he can profit directly and indirectly. Pure conflict.

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

So you think there is a risk that SAIDS hide every coded and blinded positive doping test result if there is a risk that it can be coming from an athlete tested/consulted by Swart? Should Swart be fired from SAIDS because of that risk?

He needs to be removed from the process, yes. Not fired. It's not only for the athletes he represents but for the ones he doesn't. I wouldn't want to be a rider who is not only competing against another rider but also their coach who works deep worth the AD.

Well, if I was a SA doper and Swart was dodgy, I would specifically compete against his athletes to minimize the risk to getting caught

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So you think there is a risk that SAIDS hide every coded and blinded positive doping test result if there is a risk that it can be coming from an athlete tested/consulted by Swart? Should Swart be fired from SAIDS because of that risk?

He needs to be removed from the process, yes. Not fired. It's not only for the athletes he represents but for the ones he doesn't. I wouldn't want to be a rider who is not only competing against another rider but also their coach who works deep worth the AD.

Well, if I was a SA doper and Swart was dodgy, I would specifically compete against his athletes to minimize the risk to getting caught

i actually have no understanding of what you just said. Makes no sense.

Regardless, considering SA and UK test their athletes so little, Swart and athletes are in full control to circumvent any potential issues.

Case in point:

 

[sniper]

Where I say that "there is no reason to question Swart", please note my full statement - "there is no reason to question his integrity as a scientist". And perhaps I should have been more clear in my language here, so allow me to elucidate. Because by this, I meant that I don't see any reason to believe, without subsequent evidence coming to my attention, that he is conducting any of his scientific research in anything other than an honest and unfraudulent manner. I don't believe he is falsifying data, for example, or intentionally mis-calibrating the ergo!
This doesn’t mean that I haven’t adopted a sceptical position with regards to the whole Froome-physiological-testing exercise. But at some point you have to put your trust in someone. Unless you’re personally going to train as a top sports physiologist and perform testing on Chris Froome, you need to trust that the person performing the testing has done it and reported it in an honest and robust manner. And I see no reason to believe that Swart has not done this - I personally don’t see a need to distrust his professionalism. Perhaps my burden of trust is lower than yours? And if so, that’s fine

yes it is lower, and - again with all due respect - i would argue it is to an important extent due to such low burdens of trust that fraud and cheating of all kinds flourish in present-day science and topsport.

This could be a good read for you or anybody:


Abstract

This article examines the issue of scientific misconduct and its implications on corrosion science research through a decade (2001–2011). An analysis is presented of an increasing body of cases in which allegations have been made and violations of legal and ethical research standards have been substantiated. The frequencies with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct, are discussed. In this review, the image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud. This review shows how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals, and how this can cause a waste of financial and human resources. Case examples illustrated and investigated in this review are related to corrosion science research. Recommendations toward the prevention and resolution of potential or actual instances of scientific misconduct in corrosion science research are proposed.

Keywords
Fabrication Fraud in corrosion science Weight loss measurements Misconduct Scientific publication

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11164-013-1079-2

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

So you think there is a risk that SAIDS hide every coded and blinded positive doping test result if there is a risk that it can be coming from an athlete tested/consulted by Swart? Should Swart be fired from SAIDS because of that risk?

He needs to be removed from the process, yes. Not fired. It's not only for the athletes he represents but for the ones he doesn't. I wouldn't want to be a rider who is not only competing against another rider but also their coach who works deep worth the AD.

Well, if I was a SA doper and Swart was dodgy, I would specifically compete against his athletes to minimize the risk to getting caught

i actually have no understanding of what you just said. Makes no sense.

Well, the test samples (and Swart's work for SAIDS) are coded and blinded. If Swart was dodgy he should cover up every positive test result of those competitions to which his athletes participate to ensure that his athletes woudn't get caught. So, free rides for all dopers

 

[djpbaltimore]

From the fraud article.

'Legally, scientific fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth [10, 35]. This definition does not include contradictory or misguided interpretations, mistakes, poor scientific and unprofessional practices, or even negligence, which can also cause truth to be misrepresented or misinterpreted [10, 35].'

Just from the vast amount of papers published in a given year (in all scientific disciplines), some are bound to contain fraud. I don't think anyone doubts that point. By the same token, the vast majority of papers published in a given year are legitimate scientific findings. That is why most scientists take published work at face value. But relating this back to the thread topic under discussion, the 'pseudo science' accusations do not fit the definition of fraud unless the researchers know that the athlete(s) being tested is (are) doping.

 

[Davesta]

Where I say that "there is no reason to question Swart", please note my full statement - "there is no reason to question his integrity as a scientist". And perhaps I should have been more clear in my language here, so allow me to elucidate. Because by this, I meant that I don't see any reason to believe, without subsequent evidence coming to my attention, that he is conducting any of his scientific research in anything other than an honest and unfraudulent manner. I don't believe he is falsifying data, for example, or intentionally mis-calibrating the ergo!
This doesn’t mean that I haven’t adopted a sceptical position with regards to the whole Froome-physiological-testing exercise. But at some point you have to put your trust in someone. Unless you’re personally going to train as a top sports physiologist and perform testing on Chris Froome, you need to trust that the person performing the testing has done it and reported it in an honest and robust manner. And I see no reason to believe that Swart has not done this - I personally don’t see a need to distrust his professionalism. Perhaps my burden of trust is lower than yours? And if so, that’s fine

yes it is lower, and - again with all due respect - i would argue it is to an important extent due to such low burdens of trust that fraud and cheating of all kinds flourish in present-day science and topsport.

I can respect that argument, and agree with it in broad terms.

In this particular case regarding Swart, would I be correct in assuming, given your reply, that you do see a need to distrust his integrity as a research scientist? You do believe he is conducting his work fraudlenty?
If so, I'd be interested to understand why.

 

[Davesta]

Re:

From the fraud article.

'Legally, scientific fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth [10, 35]. This definition does not include contradictory or misguided interpretations, mistakes, poor scientific and unprofessional practices, or even negligence, which can also cause truth to be misrepresented or misinterpreted [10, 35].'

Just from the vast amount of papers published in a given year (in all scientific disciplines), some are bound to contain fraud. I don't think anyone doubts that point. By the same token, the vast majority of papers published in a given year are legitimate scientific findings. That is why most scientists take published work at face value. But relating this back to the thread topic under discussion, the 'pseudo science' accusations do not fit the definition of fraud unless the researchers know that the athlete(s) being tested is (are) doping.

Given the OP and majority of the discussion, I think a title of "bad science" would better fit this thread.

"Pseudoscience", as far as I've always understood it, is the practice of presenting something (i.e. a concept or theory) as science, and using scientific-sounding language, but without adhering to or utilising the scientific method.

"Bad Science", on the other hand, would be to practice the scientific method "badly" - e.g. using poor study design, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, doctoring data or references etc...

 

[djpbaltimore]

Good points. I usually associate the term 'pseudo-science' with Astrology, Phrenology, Dianetics, etc.

Because the bar for publication in many scientific fields is not too terribly high, I think fraud is less likely to be the main problem in comparison to the preponderance of 'bad science'.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

From the fraud article.

'Legally, scientific fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth [10, 35]. This definition does not include contradictory or misguided interpretations, mistakes, poor scientific and unprofessional practices, or even negligence, which can also cause truth to be misrepresented or misinterpreted [10, 35].'

Just from the vast amount of papers published in a given year (in all scientific disciplines), some are bound to contain fraud. I don't think anyone doubts that point. By the same token, the vast majority of papers published in a given year are legitimate scientific findings. That is why most scientists take published work at face value. But relating this back to the thread topic under discussion, the 'pseudo science' accusations do not fit the definition of fraud unless the researchers know that the athlete(s) being tested is (are) doping.

Given the OP and majority of the discussion, I think a title of "bad science" would better fit this thread.

"Pseudoscience", as far as I've always understood it, is the practice of presenting something (i.e. a concept or theory) as science, and using scientific-sounding language, but without adhering to or utilising the scientific method.

"Bad Science", on the other hand, would be to practice the scientific method "badly" - e.g. using poor study design, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, doctoring data or references etc...

the title of the thread was a wink in the direction of Brailsford, Radcliffe and Seb Coe all of whom have been saying athletes shouldn't release any performance &/or blood data because of the danger of 'pseudo-scientists' wrongly interpreting said data.

anyway, good distinction you make between pseudo- and bad science. I'd suggest to further subdivide the 'bad science' category into (a) unintentionally bad science and (b) fraudulent science.
Although the thread I think is concerned with all three, most concerning of course is the latter category - fraudulent science: cases where science was or is being (ab)used to provide some form of PR for, or exonerate, drug cheats, or, in other cases, help them beat the antidoping system.

Will get to your other question later.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

"Pseudoscience", as far as I've always understood it, is the practice of presenting something (i.e. a concept or theory) as science, and using scientific-sounding language, but without adhering to or utilising the scientific method.

"Bad Science", on the other hand, would be to practice the scientific method "badly" - e.g. using poor study design, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, doctoring data or references etc...

Though I understand your point, I think the line is frequently blurred, because while pseudoscience may not use the scientific method, it generally claims that it does. If it didn't, it wouldn't even be pseudo in that respect. E.g., I would consider Creation "science" pseudoscience. It focuses on a legitimate scientific question--the origins of our species--and examines the same body of data that genuine evolutionary science is concerned with.

I think the contrast you're referring to is better defined in terms of belief systems or worldviews rather than methods. For example, when "bad science" is done in some physiological study--whether intentionally through fraud and/or unintentionally through error--it's done by researchers who accept the general, well-established literature on physiology.

By the way, there are at least two posters in this forum who believe in Creationism.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

From the fraud article.

'Legally, scientific fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth [10, 35]. This definition does not include contradictory or misguided interpretations, mistakes, poor scientific and unprofessional practices, or even negligence, which can also cause truth to be misrepresented or misinterpreted [10, 35].'

Just from the vast amount of papers published in a given year (in all scientific disciplines), some are bound to contain fraud. I don't think anyone doubts that point. By the same token, the vast majority of papers published in a given year are legitimate scientific findings. That is why most scientists take published work at face value. But relating this back to the thread topic under discussion, the 'pseudo science' accusations do not fit the definition of fraud unless the researchers know that the athlete(s) being tested is (are) doping.

my emphasis.......

well here is the problem....statistically a GT winner/contender is more likely than not to be doping...so why would that a not be a working assumption...discounting it by omission is bad science and specifically referencing lets say weight as being the 'answer' (and I know that was the article rather than the paper) as opposed to doping moves it along the continium from bad science towards fraud. That acknowledges that the scientific discourse involves the press...specifically in the case of he recent 'unfortunate events' where the magazine article was intrinsic to the whole process......

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

"Pseudoscience", as far as I've always understood it, is the practice of presenting something (i.e. a concept or theory) as science, and using scientific-sounding language, but without adhering to or utilising the scientific method.

"Bad Science", on the other hand, would be to practice the scientific method "badly" - e.g. using poor study design, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, doctoring data or references etc...

Though I understand your point, I think the line is frequently blurred, because while pseudoscience may not use the scientific method, it generally claims that it does. If it didn't, it wouldn't even be pseudo in that respect. E.g., I would consider Creation "science" pseudoscience. It focuses on a legitimate scientific question--the origins of our species--and examines the same body of data that genuine evolutionary science is concerned with.

I think the contrast you're referring to is better defined in terms of belief systems or worldviews rather than methods. For example, when "bad science" is done in some physiological study--whether intentionally through fraud and/or unintentionally through error--it's done by researchers who accept the general, well-established literature on physiology.

By the way, there are at least two posters in this forum who believe in Creationism.

my emphaisis again

....seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!???!?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

From the fraud article.

'Legally, scientific fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth [10, 35]. This definition does not include contradictory or misguided interpretations, mistakes, poor scientific and unprofessional practices, or even negligence, which can also cause truth to be misrepresented or misinterpreted [10, 35].'

Just from the vast amount of papers published in a given year (in all scientific disciplines), some are bound to contain fraud. I don't think anyone doubts that point. By the same token, the vast majority of papers published in a given year are legitimate scientific findings. That is why most scientists take published work at face value. But relating this back to the thread topic under discussion, the 'pseudo science' accusations do not fit the definition of fraud unless the researchers know that the athlete(s) being tested is (are) doping.

my emphasis.......

well here is the problem....statistically a GT winner/contender is more likely than not to be doping...so why would that a not be a working assumption...discounting it by omission is bad science and specifically referencing lets say weight as being the 'answer' (and I know that was the article rather than the paper) as opposed to doping moves it along the continium from bad science towards fraud. That acknowledges that the scientific discourse involves the press...specifically in the case of he recent 'unfortunate events' where the magazine article was intrinsic to the whole process......

agreed and well said.

Not sure if Swart agrees though.
David George (ex-USPS, ex-Barloworld) got popped in 2012, close to retirement, having made the switch back to MTB. Here Swart, in his capacity as SAIDS employer, gets interviewed about that case:
http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/evans-i-did-not-know-1419424

Jeroen Swart, a cycling coach, sports scientist and a member of the Doping Control Review Commission, said that George’s positive was proof that the system was working. When Nedbank tweeted a question asking if they should “pull the sponsorship of the whole team”, Swart replied: “Absolutely not. Punish the athlete, not the team.”

There was a sense that SAIDS had been targeting George for some time now. The rider has returned adverse samples before, and during his time with the South African-sponsored Barloworld team, was rested for two weeks after he was found to have a high hematocrit (volume of red blood cells) level of over the allowed limit of 50 percent. He never tested positive for EPO then, but questions were asked. Athletes are now required to record a blood sample which is kept in a “passport” against which subsequent blood samples can be measured.

“That’s the point of our [blood level] passport system,” said Swart. “Targeted testing based on probabilities of values being suspect. The more data points in the passport, the tighter the net becomes.”

That's from 2012.
With the caveat that it's an indirect quote, if he really thought in 2012 that 'the system is working', that doesn't bode well either for his integrity or for his wider knowledge of doping in topsport.

More generally, reading that, one is again left scratching one's head at Swart's triple role in the SA scene working for SAIDS and CSA whilst coaching/consulting/testing SA cyclists.
For instance, if George got target-tested (as the article seems to suggest), who decided that? Certainly not Swart I hope? At the time of George's positive, Swart was actively coaching several high-profle South African MTB-ers.

 

[thehog]

Wasn't Swart injecting MTBers with cortisone as well?

Finally I did get on the plane to Cape Town to see Dr Jeroen Swart as my injury had now worsened as a result of incorrect therapy as I spoke about and it required a corticosteroid injection. I needed to get right to the bottom of this once and for all.

http://www.ride.co.za/training/the-long-road-back-from-an-itb-injury/#.dpuf

Perhaps an MD did the injecting as that's a long way from sports science testing and coaching.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

my emphasis.......

well here is the problem....statistically a GT winner/contender is more likely than not to be doping...so why would that a not be a working assumption...discounting it by omission is bad science and specifically referencing lets say weight as being the 'answer' (and I know that was the article rather than the paper) as opposed to doping moves it along the continium from bad science towards fraud. That acknowledges that the scientific discourse involves the press...specifically in the case of he recent 'unfortunate events' where the magazine article was intrinsic to the whole process......

Go back to the OP, the topic of discussion was about a paper written by Dr. Swart that concerned well trained volunteers.

I imagine that most (likely all) recent GT winners are doping, but that is far from a proven fact. Science is not based on opinion, nor should it be. The definition of fraud I posted is pretty straightforward. Unless there is knowledge, there can be no fraud.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

my emphasis.......

well here is the problem....statistically a GT winner/contender is more likely than not to be doping...so why would that a not be a working assumption...discounting it by omission is bad science and specifically referencing lets say weight as being the 'answer' (and I know that was the article rather than the paper) as opposed to doping moves it along the continium from bad science towards fraud. That acknowledges that the scientific discourse involves the press...specifically in the case of he recent 'unfortunate events' where the magazine article was intrinsic to the whole process......

Go back to the OP, the topic of discussion was about a paper written by Dr. Swart that concerned well trained volunteers.

I imagine that most (likely all) recent GT winners are doping, but that is far from a proven fact. Science is not based on opinion, nor should it be. The definition of fraud I posted is pretty straightforward. Unless there is knowledge, there can be no fraud.

Science is based on observation, whereby an opinion is formed. The opinion forms over time. The flat earth theorem was based on science and observation, it made perfect sense at the time (with the available data).

Swarts "he just lost fat" is an opinion based on observing two data points.

 

[djpbaltimore]

True, observation is akin to collecting experimental data, leading to the formation of a hypothesis. One's opinion still does not equate to absolute knowledge which is a crucial factor in the legal definition of fraud that I posted yesterday.

 

[sniper]

Re:

True, observation is akin to collecting experimental data, leading to the formation of a hypothesis. One's opinion still does not equate to absolute knowledge which is a crucial factor in the legal definition of fraud that I posted yesterday.

to be sure, we've had some good discussion on this already:
viewtopic.php?p=1848597#p1848597
viewtopic.php?p=1848750#p1848750

Afaict, saying most GT winners are likely doped is not 'opinion' by any stretch of the meaning.
It's informed speculation, informed by a branch of science commonly known as "history".

That said, you're no doubt right wrt the legal definition of fraud.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

"Pseudoscience", as far as I've always understood it, is the practice of presenting something (i.e. a concept or theory) as science, and using scientific-sounding language, but without adhering to or utilising the scientific method.

"Bad Science", on the other hand, would be to practice the scientific method "badly" - e.g. using poor study design, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, doctoring data or references etc...

Though I understand your point, I think the line is frequently blurred, because while pseudoscience may not use the scientific method, it generally claims that it does. If it didn't, it wouldn't even be pseudo in that respect. E.g., I would consider Creation "science" pseudoscience. It focuses on a legitimate scientific question--the origins of our species--and examines the same body of data that genuine evolutionary science is concerned with.

I think the contrast you're referring to is better defined in terms of belief systems or worldviews rather than methods. For example, when "bad science" is done in some physiological study--whether intentionally through fraud and/or unintentionally through error--it's done by researchers who accept the general, well-established literature on physiology.

By the way, there are at least two posters in this forum who believe in Creationism.

my emphaisis again

....seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!???!?

No. Those posters don't post in the clinic. There are 16000 members here and 2 of them posting in a religion thread backed creationism. But there's free speech so it's allowed

What I find just as worrying is that there are people posting in the clinic who don't think brailsford and froome are serial liars, even as they get caught lying time and time again

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

True, observation is akin to collecting experimental data, leading to the formation of a hypothesis. One's opinion still does not equate to absolute knowledge which is a crucial factor in the legal definition of fraud that I posted yesterday.

to be sure, we've had some good discussion on this already:
viewtopic.php?p=1848597#p1848597
viewtopic.php?p=1848750#p1848750

Afaict, saying most GT winners are likely doped is not 'opinion' by any stretch of the meaning.
It's informed speculation, informed by a branch of science commonly known as "history".

That said, you're no doubt right wrt the legal definition of fraud.

They do lie and bend the truth an awful lot. Apparently the reason is because people will misinterpret data.

Anyway, all the others teams should be releasing data, I've written to Brian about it.

Brailsford, who has written to UCI president Brian Cookson on the matter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/12098509/Team-Sky-principal-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-calls-for-UCI-to-show-some-leadership-over-release-of-rider-data.html

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

my emphasis.......

well here is the problem....statistically a GT winner/contender is more likely than not to be doping...so why would that a not be a working assumption...discounting it by omission is bad science and specifically referencing lets say weight as being the 'answer' (and I know that was the article rather than the paper) as opposed to doping moves it along the continium from bad science towards fraud. That acknowledges that the scientific discourse involves the press...specifically in the case of he recent 'unfortunate events' where the magazine article was intrinsic to the whole process......

Go back to the OP, the topic of discussion was about a paper written by Dr. Swart that concerned well trained volunteers.

I imagine that most (likely all) recent GT winners are doping, but that is far from a proven fact. Science is not based on opinion, nor should it be. The definition of fraud I posted is pretty straightforward. Unless there is knowledge, there can be no fraud.

Science is based on observation, whereby an opinion is formed. The opinion forms over time. The flat earth theorem was based on science and observation, it made perfect sense at the time (with the available data).

Swarts "he just lost fat" is an opinion based on observing two data points.

The problem here is the use of "just"...it heavily implies there was no other reason for the improvment in Froome. No other reason. That moves it from an opinion to a conclusion. And a conclusion from a 'proper scientist'.

as stated previously Froome (Sky) 1 - Swart (and science) 0

Being outsmarted by Froome takes some doing..imagine how two brains Burnley feels about that