The Clinic is inherently anti-Sky / anti-Froome

[red_flanders]

The quote you cite of Steven Neese @ in the article you site http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ests-cyclists/ is quoted by you in isolation to other aspects of the article and thus out of context.

1. You ignore for example the words of Neese himself where he says,

"Although you can not directly know of the source of DEHP in the system, ....

What this means is what Neese says. It is not possible to know that any phthalates (DEHP) found in a sample came from a blood bag.

2. You neglected to quote that portion of the article where the author Brett Israel says,

"Experts — and Contador — say that these chemical residues are so widespread that there is too much doubt about how they got into an athlete's body."

This indicates there is a plethora of expert opinion that residues from plasticizers are so ubiquitous that they come from a vast array of sources other than blood bags. For example water bottles as just one of many other potential sources for a plasticizer.

3. You further neglected to cite Dr. Joe Braun from Mr. Israel's article you referenced the following,

"DEHP is the primary plasticizer in many medical supplies such as IV blood bags, which are about 40 percent DEHP. But it's also in food, and diet is the largest source of DEHP exposure, said Joe Braun, an epidemiologist at Harvard University. It apparently gets into food from use of some plastic food wraps and containers.

4. You neglect to mention the plasticizer test used in Contador's case was so suspect WADA cancelled its use.

" Due to the controversy, funding for the test to detect these chemicals was discontinued in November 2011."

5. You further neglect to cite that portion of the article where it states,

"The World Anti-Doping Agency funded research to develop a plasticizer test that would catch cheating cyclists, but so far it's not the smoking gun that many have hoped for. Plasticizers known as phthalates are used in everyday products, with possible toxic effects.

6. The article you cite states as follows,

"The WADA and the International Cycling Union said that the drug most likely came from an illegal blood transfusion, because the plasticizer spike was detected the day before he tested positive for clenbuterol. The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, agreed, overturning an earlier ruling by the Spanish cycling federation."

This is in fact NOT what the CAS agreed or even remotely decided in Contador's case. On the issue of the plasticizer theory of WADA and the UCI the CAS found as follows at paragraph 454 of its judgment, the following,

454. To sum up, for the above reasons, the Panel finds that although the blood transfusion theory is a possible explanation for the adverse analytical finding, in light of all the evidence adduced and as explained above, it is very unlikely to have occurred

Therefore like many posters in the Clinic your research is incomplete, distorted and a reckless misrepresentation of the actual facts and outcome in the Contador case.




Once again Dear Wiggo where your ceaseless ineptitude continues to manifest itself - double smack down. Do your research. And by the way - your welcome.

Strong post.

 

[Merckx index]

I wondered when Robbie was going to read that link and jump to the wrong conclusions. I considered telling him about it, but I figured he would find it on his own.

The quote you cite of Steven Neese @ in the article you site http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ests-cyclists/ is quoted by you in isolation to other aspects of the article and thus out of context.

1. You ignore for example the words of Neese himself where he says,

"Although you can not directly know of the source of DEHP in the system, ....

What this means is what Neese says. It is not possible to know that any phthalates (DEHP) found in a sample came from a blood bag.

This is like saying it's impossible to know the source of CO poisoning for someone who commits suicide by shutting the garage door and turning on the car engine, because there is CO present naturally in the atmosphere. In fact, studies which we discussed here before and which I discussed again a few weeks ago show that the concentration of DEHP in the urine spikes for 24-48 hr following a blood transfusion. Any scientist would recognize that the source of that DEHP has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to come from the blood bag. This was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I don't know of any scientist who objected to their conclusions.

2. You neglected to quote that portion of the article where the author Brett Israel says,

"Experts — and Contador — say that these chemical residues are so widespread that there is too much doubt about how they got into an athlete's body."

This indicates there is a plethora of expert opinion that residues from plasticizers are so ubiquitous that they come from a vast array of sources other than blood bags. For example water bottles as just one of many other potential sources for a plasticizer.

Again, you ignore the studies showing the spiking effect. As I have pointed out in this forum numerous times, studies with thousands of subjects have established a rough baseline of DEHP levels that come from sources such as water bottles, plastic food wrappings, etc. The spike following a transfusion is on the order of ten times this level, it correlates perfectly with the known pharmacokinetics of DEHP, and subsides back to baseline levels several days after the transfusion. You generally do not see spikes like this in individuals who have not transfused. I did discuss a couple of publications that reported large diurnal variations in DEHP levels, but I haven't seen any further confirmation of these studies.

3. You further neglected to cite Dr. Joe Braun from Mr. Israel's article you referenced the following,

"DEHP is the primary plasticizer in many medical supplies such as IV blood bags, which are about 40 percent DEHP. But it's also in food, and diet is the largest source of DEHP exposure, said Joe Braun, an epidemiologist at Harvard University. It apparently gets into food from use of some plastic food wraps and containers.

See my answers above. Diet is the largest source, because most people don't have a blood transfusion, and even those who do see a reduction to baseline several days after the transfusion. For diet not to be the largest source, someone would have to be transfusing every several days.

4. You neglect to mention the plasticizer test used in Contador's case was so suspect WADA cancelled its use.

" Due to the controversy, funding for the test to detect these chemicals was discontinued in November 2011."

There were probably several reasons for discontinuing the test, one of which was that the cat was out of the bag—riders were forewarned not to use DEHP-containing blood bags. Another reason is that the spike only lasts 24-48 hours, which means the rider has to be tested very soon after transfusion. All WADA tests are heavily slanted to avoid false positives, and it was clear this test would produce very few slam dunk cases where one could say that the DEHP must have come from a transfusion. Further complicating a test is that riders may transfuse different amounts of blood, and different amounts of DEHP might get into their system. Given the significant baseline level, the spike does have to be very high to satisfy WADA criteria. That doesn't mean that the very high levels reported for Contador were not highly indicative of doping, any more than LA's borderline EPO positive at the 2002 TdS was not indicative of his doping.

5. You further neglect to cite that portion of the article where it states,

"The World Anti-Doping Agency funded research to develop a plasticizer test that would catch cheating cyclists, but so far it's not the smoking gun that many have hoped for. Plasticizers known as phthalates are used in everyday products, with possible toxic effects.

See my previous answers.

6. The article you cite states as follows,

"The WADA and the International Cycling Union said that the drug most likely came from an illegal blood transfusion, because the plasticizer spike was detected the day before he tested positive for clenbuterol. The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, agreed, overturning an earlier ruling by the Spanish cycling federation."

This is in fact NOT what the CAS agreed or even remotely decided in Contador's case. On the issue of the plasticizer theory of WADA and the UCI the CAS found as follows at paragraph 454 of its judgment, the following,

454. To sum up, for the above reasons, the Panel finds that although the blood transfusion theory is a possible explanation for the adverse analytical finding, in light of all the evidence adduced and as explained above, it is very unlikely to have occurred

Therefore like many posters in the Clinic your research is incomplete, distorted and a reckless misrepresentation of the actual facts and outcome in the Contador case.

Did you read the Ashenden link I posted a couple of weeks ago? He discusses how his debunking of this view was not allowed.

I'll just add that Contador himself claimed he didn't take any supplements during that TDF, which makes the panel's conclusion that a tainted supplement was the most likely cause pretty unlikely.

Once again Dear Wiggo where your ceaseless ineptitude continues to manifest itself - double smack down. Do your research. And by the way - your welcome.

Again ("once again" is one of the commonest mistakes in the English language--it's redundant, would you say "twice again" or "three times again"?) Robbie, you refuse to engage with the evidence that is available in this forum.

 

[King Boonen]

Merckx Index, one thing. It's awhile since I read the reasoned decision but I'm pretty sure what was said about supplements was that he had not taken any that day and that he was taking the same supplements from the same stock as his teammates, none of whom tested positive and several of whom were tested on days they did take supplements. He also didn't test positive on days when he was tested and did take supplements. I'll double check tomorrow.

I think the panel also stated they believed his teammates when they said that no one saw Contador infuse blood, but didn't believe them when the said he didn't take any supplements that day. The whole thing was very odd from what I remember...

It is very clear how clenbuterol got into Contadors sample to anyone with knowledge in this area.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I wondered when Robbie was going to read that link and jump to the wrong conclusions. I considered telling him about it, but I figured he would find it on his own.


Merckx - it is time I take you head on in regarding this issue. I have downloaded your post. I am pretty busy right now but I will get back to you. I want to read the research you cited and do some of my own. Cheers.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Once again Dear Wiggo where your ceaseless ineptitude continues to manifest itself - double smack down. Do your research. And by the way - your welcome.

Uh huh.

For example the whole BP system is based on a threshold of 50% Hct.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The use of the word, "inherently" is entirely consistent with the OP's complaint. He's wrong, but that's another matter altogether.

Sorry man, I'm a stickler for language usage, and that isn't the right word. In any way. The Clinic isn't people, and as such, cannot be inherently anything unless there is something inherent in the code, and even if there is, it doesn't have anything to do with Froome.

Nope. "inherent" is not the right word.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I know exactly what inherent means thank you.

Evidently, you don't.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sorry man, I'm a stickler for language usage, and that isn't the right word. In any way. The Clinic isn't people, and as such, cannot be inherently anything unless there is something inherent in the code, and even if there is, it doesn't have anything to do with Froome.

Nope. "inherent" is not the right word.

Seriously? Coz English is the language that's spoken. No matter how much you want it to be the dictionary meaning. And in this instance, the dictionary meaning describes the OP's complaint as well, so you're kinda way off base.

To say The Clinic isn't people when it's so often referred to as a collective noun describing the people who post here is close to disingenuous. Again, no matter how much you want it to be so.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Seriously? Coz English is the language that's spoken. No matter how much you want it to be the dictionary meaning. And in this instance, the dictionary meaning describes the OP's complaint as well, so you're kinda way off base.

To say The Clinic isn't people when it's so often referred to as a collective noun describing the people who post here is close to disingenuous. Again, no matter how much you want it to be so.

Inherent: involved in the constitution or essential character of something

Sorry, it is not the right word in any way. You are simply wrong. Sorry.

To say "The Clinic" describes a place on the intertubes where people post. To say "The members of The Clinic" is what you're talking about. Even then, "inherent" is the wrong word, as I feel pretty certain that there isn't anything in anyone's essential character related to Sky or Froome.

Stick to science, you're better at it...cause you're kinda way off base...

BTW. "dictionary meaning" may be unimportant to you, but that doesn't change the fact that: words.have.meaning.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Seriously? Coz English is the language that's spoken. No matter how much you want it to be the dictionary meaning. And in this instance, the dictionary meaning describes the OP's complaint as well, so you're kinda way off base.

To say The Clinic isn't people when it's so often referred to as a collective noun describing the people who post here is close to disingenuous. Again, no matter how much you want it to be so.

But if you want to be wrong with the OP, be wrong. No skin off my back. I'll just retire to that place where words have meaning, and leave this nebulous, erroneous usage of words to those better suited.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Inherent: involved in the constitution or essential character of something

Sorry, it is not the right word in any way. You are simply wrong. Sorry.

To say "The Clinic" describes a place on the intertubes where people post. To say "The members of The Clinic" is what you're talking about. Even then, "inherent" is the wrong word, as I feel pretty certain that there isn't anything in anyone's essential character related to Sky or Froome.

Stick to science, you're better at it.

BTW. "dictionary meaning" may be unimportant to you, but that doesn't change the fact that: words.have.meaning.

Yes they do. And gay no longer means what it used to mean. The spoken language trumped and then usurped the dictionary definition. But in this instance, that is not a problem. The usage is correct.

Here's the etymology:

Inherently is the adverbial form of the adjective inherent. They both come from the Latin word inhaerere, meaning "adhere to," with the root haerere meaning "to stick." Synonyms for inherently include intrinsically and essentially.

See those synonyms? Essentially OP is saying, "All I see discussed is Froome and his doping" (a common complaint from many Sky devotees) - that's all you really discuss. It's an intrinsic part of the Clinic's conversation.

To wit:

When Froome crashed and then crashed out there were pages and pages of posts, many of which were very anti and showed huge amounts of vitriol, and few that didn't.

Today Contador crashes out and there is virtually nothing.

Discuss and debate ...

ie the discussion here is intrinsically anti-Froome. His thread title perfectly summarises his post.

As for "The Clinic" not referring to a collective noun, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. If anyone ever posted, "The Clinic" in an anthropomorphic fashion but actually meant the IT infrastructure in which its posts were stored I will eat my friggin hat. The precedence for this usage is vast.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But if you want to be wrong with the OP, be wrong. No skin of (off) my back. I'll just retire to that pace (place) where words have meaning, and leave this nebulous, erroneous usage of words to those better suited.

You're welcome.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes they do. And gay no longer means what it used to mean. The spoken language trumped and then usurped the dictionary definition. But in this instance, that is not a problem. The usage is correct.

Here's the etymology:



See those synonyms? Essentially OP is saying, "All I see discussed is Froome and his doping" (a common complaint from many Sky devotees) - that's all you really discuss. It's an intrinsic part of the Clinic's conversation.

To wit:


ie the discussion here is intrinsically anti-Froome. His thread title perfectly summarises his post.

As for "The Clinic" not referring to a collective noun, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. If anyone ever posted, "The Clinic" in an anthropomorphic fashion but actually meant the IT infrastructure in which its posts were stored I will eat my friggin hat. The precedence for this usage is vast.

Synonyms have individual meanings...that's why they aren't the same word...

Like I said, you stick to the things you know, and leave things like this to those better suited.

And using "anthropomorphic" doesn't make his use of "inherent" any more correct.

Sorry, you jumped on the wrong train junior. I had no beef with you, and was posting to the OP, but if you want to keep looking like an idiot, flog away dude. I'll continue to eat your lunch.

P.S. "Intrinsically" is the wrong word too. You wanna go for strike 3?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're welcome.

My typing errors make you being an idiot regarding the usage of language acceptable then...

Go crunch some numbers or something.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I changed my typing errors...like you did when you edited...that must have stung to have made an error, had to go back and correct it before you could let me see that you made a typing error too.

Man, what a loser.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I changed my typing errors...like you did when you edited...that must have stung to have made an error, had to go back and correct it before you could let me see that you made a typing error too.

Man, what a loser.

Ah here's the ChewbaccaD we know. Rising to the level of casting insults to prove his point. It's worked so well in the past.

Inherently is correct and fits this thread and its OP perfectly.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ah here's the ChewbaccaD we know.(<- a comma would have sufficed...see, I can do it too!) Rising to the level of casting insults to prove his point. It's worked so well in the past.

Inherently is correct and fits this thread and its OP perfectly.

You're wrong again.

But you're welcome too!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Look sweetie, I'm sure if we start talking about DNA and sh!t, you'll leave me in the dust...but in this instance, I'll run circles around you without breaking a sweat.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Synonyms have individual meanings...that's why they aren't the same word...

They have similar meanings. And can be used in place.

P.S. "Intrinsically" is the wrong word too.

No, it isn't.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on what the complain of the OP is, and perhaps offer a valid thread title that precis said complaint? Shouldn't be too difficult given the confidence high you are clearly experiencing?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

They have similar meanings. And can be used in place.

Not in this instance

No, it isn't.

Yes it is, unless you can explain to me how anyone here has, as an essential character element, a bias against Sky or Froome...because they don't...

Perhaps you can enlighten us on what the complaint(<- you're welcome again...) of the OP is, and perhaps offer a valid thread title that precis said complaint? Shouldn't be too difficult given the confidence high you are clearly experiencing?

Nope, I have no reason to create a troll thread. If the OP, and you his defender, want to go around using the English language like a free-form buffet, be my guest. I'll keep pointing it out.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ah here's the ChewbaccaD we know.(<- a comma would have sufficed...see, I can do it too!) Rising to the level of casting insults to prove his point. It's worked so well in the past.

Inherently is correct and fits this thread and its OP perfectly.

You're wrong again.

But you're welcome too!

"Would have sufficed" is not the same as, "you're wrong". It simply indicates an option, not a requirement. So in this instance, you're hurting your own argument.

Consider it a lesson in pacing. If. I. Want. To. Emphasis. Something. In. The. Written. Word. I. Can. Do that. Through sentence structure.

There's nothing inherently wrong with what I have written or how I have structured it. But what it does is what I was seeking to do: highlight your default behaviour: insult. Back bite. Denigrate. Again - using sentence structure to emphasise something rather than provide each verb in a comma separated list.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes it is, unless you can explain to me how anyone here has, as an essential character element, a bias against Sky or Froome...because they don't...

Now you're talking about whether the claim is correct, not the wording of the claim. The wording of the claim is correct - the claim itself is not. Which is what I said in the first place.

Are you starting to come around to my way of thinking? Chapeau!

Regardless, OP describes the essential character element in his opening post, providing evidence of his claim by summarising the post-crash posting for Froome and then Contador. A valid comparison.

I'm not defending OP, simply correcting your error.

I find it incredibly telling that you cannot summarise the OP (opening / original post) in a thread title. I'm not asking you to create a new thread - just do a precis of it so we can see what you think he's arguing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Now you're talking about whether the claim is correct, not the wording of the claim. The wording of the claim is correct - the claim itself is not. Which is what I said in the first place.

Are you starting to come around to my way of thinking? Chapeau!

Regardless, OP describes the essential character element in his opening post, providing evidence of his claim by summarising the post-crash posting for Froome and then Contador. A valid comparison.

I'm not defending OP, simply correcting your error.

I find it incredibly telling that you cannot summarise the OP (opening / original post) in a thread title. I'm not asking you to create a new thread - just do a precis of it so we can see what you think he's arguing.

No, I'm talking about the usage of an incorrect word.

Look, I get it, you don't understand what the word means, quit apologizing.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So no precis? The master of the English language is chickening out of a simple summary of OP?

Seems legit.

Peace out brother. Good luck with your lawyering.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

"Would have sufficed" is not the same as, "you're wrong". It simply indicates an option, not a requirement. So in this instance, you're hurting your own argument.

Consider it a lesson in pacing. If. I. Want. To. Emphasis. Something. In. The. Written. Word. I. Can. Do that. Through sentence structure.

There's nothing inherently wrong with what I have written or how I have structured it. But what it does is what I was seeking to do: highlight your default behaviour: insult. Back bite. Denigrate. Again - using sentence structure to emphasise something rather than provide each verb in a comma separated list.

Okay fine, but you can't justify leaving off the "t" in "complaint," right?

Again, quit apologizing. Just admit you're wrong and move on.