What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

[Mrs John Murphy]

LOL. Good old selective moderating again Susan. Funny how only some personal attacks get moderated isn't it. Ah yes, Susan rules of moderating - one rule for posters you like, another for posters you don't like.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The key question is for what purpose "proof" of doping will be put.

If the sanction is to be a meaningful ban and loss of livelihood, then "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't seem an unreasonable level of proof to call for. Tests and multiple eye-witness accounts are probably the only things that can be used here. I'm not picking on Hog here as he is an insightful and entertaining poster, but some of his "proof" would get laughed out of court, if indeed he wasn't arrested for trying to present it for wasting everyone's time. That's not to say he's not right, though. All the things he highlights should definitely be triggers for further detailed investigations..

If the proof is just to convince fellow forum members or fans then it doesn't really matter, other than as a debating point. We can believe what we like and whoever we fanboys might favour at the moment, in 10 years time, that rider will be history anyway, so whether it's by retirement or a doping bust, we fanboys are well prepared for the inevitable departure of our heros from the stage. It's just a matter of timing. And there will always be another rider or another sport for those of us of a fanboy disposition to follow.

 

[noddy69]

If two people were working with members of the Escobar family and travelling to Mexico on a regular basis - questions would be asked? It would be a fair and reasonable assumption to make that they're involved in drug trafficking.

Person x, Person y, Escobar family members -> Mexico -> Drugs.

Wiggins/Froome -> Rogers/Yates/Julich (LANCE) -> Tenerife -> Extremem weight loss -> Absurd Tour performances - Ferrari.

What's unconfirmed in regards to this? Sounds like critical reasoning based on fact.

I mean you thought Ferrari was banned worldwide! Not sure how astute your critical reasoning is going. Sounds skewed to me!

Hog the reasoning looks good, in fact you have a fair point and its worth people looking into in more detail. The only issue I have is the way you put it forward. Its not 100% proof. Thats all, if you said its shady and people need to look into it to get real evidence cause you know its going on just dont have enough to prove it then you would be spot on.....all about how you word it.

Eh hope thats not construed as an attack on your writing style !!!

 

[Krebs cycle]

Are you a scientist?

This is not a loaded or deragatory question.

In my experience, Scientists get all wrapped up in this kind of academic discussion.

Also in my experience, the 80/20 rule more than fits any complex negotiation.

You spend most of your time arguing over those circumstances that are the least likely to occur.

So, what does the record look like since the Sydney Games? We have achieved the following:

1. At least one entire sport in complete and utter disrepute.
2. No EPO false positives.

The scientists have been taken advantage of by the forces that want to perpetuate the status quo = doping.

Dave.

You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. It wasn't Parisotto, Ashenden and co that got hung up about false positives..... it was the IOC lawyers who did (who are paid to protect their masters). For this reason the EPO-off model did not get sanctioned for the Sydney Games but they ran the model anyway and 8 samples came back positive.

It is the lawyers and big wigs that have brought the sport into complete and utter disrepute and I think you know that.

 

[noddy69]

You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. It wasn't Parisotto, Ashenden and co that got hung up about false positives..... it was the IOC lawyers who did (who are paid to protect their masters). For this reason the EPO-off model did not get sanctioned for the Sydney Games but they ran the model anyway and 8 samples came back positive.

It is the lawyers and big wigs that have brought the sport into complete and utter disrepute and I think you know that.

Care to expand on big wigs ?

 

[D-Queued]

You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. It wasn't Parisotto, Ashenden and co that got hung up about false positives..... it was the IOC lawyers who did (who are paid to protect their masters). For this reason the EPO-off model did not get sanctioned for the Sydney Games but they ran the model anyway and 8 samples came back positive.

It is the lawyers and big wigs that have brought the sport into complete and utter disrepute and I think you know that.

I did not misrepresent what you wrote, let alone totally. I was commenting on your observation.

How about if I accuse you of total lack of comprehension?

One of us would be a lot closer to the mark.

Of course it was the 'lawyers' (and big wigs?) that were pushing back on the EPO test.

My point was your observation was correct, but it could not and does not infer that the test itself was likely to produce any false EPO positive. In other words, that there was rational concern about burden of proof.

You wrote this:

As you probably can guess, my position on doping is that the burden of proof needs to be pretty strong. I have a good reason for this position ...

Hello.

My point is that, in fact, you DO NOT have a good reason for that position when you are relying on arguments in a protracted negotiation.

Finally, as noddy69 asked, please expand on bigwigs?

Dave.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

But just remember that the world we live in is not always easily passed through with binary logic, and just because you turn one switch off, doesn't mean you have to turn another identical one on. [Borrowed from someone's recent blog].

 

[armchairclimber]

Wiggins - history of anti doping - history of winning clean - not Italian/Spanish/American/Australian - CLEAN

 

[peterst6906]

My point was your observation was correct, but it could not and does not infer that the test itself was likely to produce any false EPO positive.

Not being loaded or derogatory, but I think this quote is the flip side of the statement you made to Krebs. It shows that in many cases lawyers don't understand science (or the limits of what scientists are able to do while sticking to good science) and so don't understand the significance of issues around method validation.

Having dealt with many lawyers on both sides of criminal law over the years, very, very few have had anything more than a high school level grasp of the science underlying arguments they have been making. I've almost slapped myself sometimes with the stupidity of lines of questioning, both when sitting in court listening to testimony and when being questioned.

However, I think whether scientists are offering what they consider good scientific arguments/answers, or lawyers are looking at legal aspects, rarely are either of these groups the ultimate decision makers about the introduction of a test. There are a lot of groups/people involved and each of them has an important part to play.

The scientists have to be pedantic about the science because that's the role they are expected to play; and it's different (but complimentary) to the role that the lawyers are expected to play.

When executive management finally make a decision to introduce a test, it's on the basis of all of the information they have and not on any single one perspective (but all of the perspectives are needed).

I would add though, that your experience that scientists get hung up on academic arguments, perhaps shows a limited experience in dealing with scientists. Outside the academic community (eg. in industry), scientists are almost always very practically focused (but those same scientists will become very conservative in a court of law and generally stick to factual statements rather than give opinion evidence unless accepted by the courts as an expert and asked to provide opinion evidence).

That last part of the last sentence I have often found also to be true when providing answers to questions about test introduction. When asked for an answer relating to science, scientists stick to scientifically valid answers. Most are able to offer an opinion, but the questions are rarely framed that way.

 

[armchairclimber]

Proof is, by its very nature, incontrovertible.
To prove that a rider is doping you either need positive tests of multiple corroborated witness testimonies, backed by secondary paper trails.

It's why the clinic is never going to be much more than entertainment. Sure, some good questions are asked and good debates had but beyond that, it's immaterial. The constituency is tiny. Beyond these four cyber walls, no-one gives a monkey's about Hog's, Benotti's, Dr M's, mine or anyone else's opinion.

There are some who mean something outside of here: Race Radio and acoggan for instance. That'll be because they are actually well enough informed to be relevant.

 

[Grandillusion]

Wiggins - history of anti doping - history of winning clean - not Italian/Spanish/American/Australian - CLEAN

Bit overconfident in those jingoistic assertions. I would have thought MJM's and hogs ruminations might have given you a little food for thought.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Proof is, by its very nature, incontrovertible.
To prove that a rider is doping you either need positive tests of multiple corroborated witness testimonies, backed by secondary paper trails.

It's why the clinic is never going to be much more than entertainment. Sure, some good questions are asked and good debates had but beyond that, it's immaterial. The constituency is tiny. Beyond these four cyber walls, no-one gives a monkey's about Hog's, Benotti's, Dr M's, mine or anyone else's opinion.

There are some who mean something outside of here: Race Radio and acoggan for instance. That'll be because they are actually well enough informed to be relevant.

You spent the first half of your post giving what is a legal basis for 'proof' and how it is derived.

Then the rest giving out about an online forum - which, hate to break it to you is not a legal setting.

 

[D-Queued]

Not being loaded or derogatory, but I think this quote is the flip side of the statement you made to Krebs. It shows that in many cases lawyers don't understand science (or the limits of what scientists are able to do while sticking to good science) and so don't understand the significance of issues around method validation.

Having dealt with many lawyers on both sides of criminal law over the years, very, very few have had anything more than a high school level grasp of the science underlying arguments they have been making. I've almost slapped myself sometimes with the stupidity of lines of questioning, both when sitting in court listening to testimony and when being questioned.

However, I think whether scientists are offering what they consider good scientific arguments/answers, or lawyers are looking at legal aspects, rarely are either of these groups the ultimate decision makers about the introduction of a test. There are a lot of groups/people involved and each of them has an important part to play.

The scientists have to be pedantic about the science because that's the role they are expected to play; and it's different (but complimentary) to the role that the lawyers are expected to play.

When executive management finally make a decision to introduce a test, it's on the basis of all of the information they have and not on any single one perspective (but all of the perspectives are needed).

I would add though, that your experience that scientists get hung up on academic arguments, perhaps shows a limited experience in dealing with scientists. Outside the academic community (eg. in industry), scientists are almost always very practically focused (but those same scientists will become very conservative in a court of law and generally stick to factual statements rather than give opinion evidence unless accepted by the courts as an expert and asked to provide opinion evidence).

That last part of the last sentence I have often found also to be true when providing answers to questions about test introduction. When asked for an answer relating to science, scientists stick to scientifically valid answers. Most are able to offer an opinion, but the questions are rarely framed that way.

1. I agree. Completely

2. Perhaps I oversimplified in my earlier post. I have a tremendous amount of experience with scientists in business, however.

There is often a huge gap between scientists and engineers. When it comes to the practical focus you suggest, this is what typically distinguishes engineering (and business) from science. Scientists have theorems, engineers have design tables and safety factors, while business people have Profit and Loss.

Dave.

 

[silverrocket]

There is currently a bit of a revolution in how scientists/statisticians are evaluating "proof". It has traditionally been very binary: a result is either "statistically significant" or not. This has been based on an arbitrary numerical threshold that tries to balance the odds against getting either a false positive or a false negative. Typically this balance has been adjusted to account for whether the consequences of a false positive were "worse" than those of a false negative. For example, when determining whether a chemical will damage ecosystems when dumped into our environment it is generally considered more important to avoid a false negative: i.e. erring on the side of caution. For doping thresholds clearly the greater concern is false positives, since they are career destroying compared to false negatives, which allow cheating.

The binary approach is changing, however, and "weight of evidence" approaches are becoming more in fashion. This avoids the yes/no approach to proof, and provides comparisons that allow a more holistic approach to evaluating evidence and probabilities. I believe this approach is more in line with how people naturally assess evidence.

 

[peterst6906]

There is often a huge gap between scientists and engineers. When it comes to the practical focus you suggest, this is what typically distinguishes engineering (and business) from science. Scientists have theorems, engineers have design tables and safety factors, while business people have Profit and Loss.

Yes, absolutely huge differences between all three groups, even when ultimately working towards the same goals.

Particularly in industry they all work within the same basic framework, trying to maintain profitability within a regulatory regime imposed by government and an ethical regime imposed by senior management and the industry sector.

I think all 3 groups regularly make compromises to achieve the required end. A chemist for example might change a reagent to a cheaper raw material even if the yield from a reaction is lower if that ultimately still makes more profit. Engineers might accept less than optimal reaction conditions in a process if that saves operating costs and/or a business analyst might accept higher costs associated with a safety measure, in order to ultimately protect lives and the company reputation.

 

[armchairclimber]

You spent the first half of your post giving what is a legal basis for 'proof' and how it is derived.

Then the rest giving out about an online forum - which, hate to break it to you is not a legal setting.

That was precisely my point. It isn't a legal setting. It's froth. Fun, sometimes interesting but froth. What constitutes "proof" here is a moveable and meaningless feast.

 

[armchairclimber]

Bit overconfident in those jingoistic assertions. I would have thought MJM's and hogs ruminations might have given you a little food for thought.

Jingoistic? Moi?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That was precisely my point. It isn't a legal setting. It's froth. Fun, sometimes interesting but froth. What constitutes "proof" here is a moveable and meaningless feast.

If that was your point all along - then why bring legalize in to it?

To the highlighted - proof is proof in a court, in a forum "proof" is entirely individual. I have no problem if a poster remain skeptical or believing, it's a forum - I do have a problem when they apply different standards to different riders or teams.

 

[martinvickers]

Not being loaded or derogatory, but I think this quote is the flip side of the statement you made to Krebs. It shows that in many cases lawyers don't understand science (or the limits of what scientists are able to do while sticking to good science) and so don't understand the significance of issues around method validation.

Having dealt with many lawyers on both sides of criminal law over the years, very, very few have had anything more than a high school level grasp of the science underlying arguments they have been making. I've almost slapped myself sometimes with the stupidity of lines of questioning, both when sitting in court listening to testimony and when being questioned.

However, I think whether scientists are offering what they consider good scientific arguments/answers, or lawyers are looking at legal aspects, rarely are either of these groups the ultimate decision makers about the introduction of a test. There are a lot of groups/people involved and each of them has an important part to play.

The scientists have to be pedantic about the science because that's the role they are expected to play; and it's different (but complimentary) to the role that the lawyers are expected to play..

Lawyers, at least in common Law (anglo-phone) countries, are overwhelmingly from a humanities, liberal arts background.

As an example, when I went to Uni to do my law degree, eleven others from my Upper 6th form came to do it too (a number that was well outside the norm, but anyway...). Of those 11, 1 left within weeks - of the other ten, only 1 - me - had a mainly science (maths, physics & chemistry along with english) a-level background - the rest had all done English, classics, history, languages etc. - I think maybe 1 other had done a Maths a-level, but with other humanities.

Of those 10, maybe seven of us ended up as practising lawyers.

Where lawyers really, really tend to fall down is statistics - the famous Dr Roy Meadows debacle was caused by both doctors and Lawyers not understanding statistical information.

 

[martinvickers]

If that was your point all along - then why bring legalize in to it?
.

Because in the real, non-Clinic world, riders have both Legal rights, and lawyers.

And because inventing your own level of proof before making accusations is a good route to a defamation suit, and penury.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because in the real, non-Clinic world, riders have both Legal rights, and lawyers.

But you are in the Clinic - take the wig and gown off - no-one here passes judgements, no rider gets sanctioned here.

And because inventing your own level of proof before making accusations is a good route to a defamation suit, and penury.

Really?
So you have no opinion on people doping?
You have no threshold that you go by to determine what you constitute doping?

 

[ElChingon]

1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?

 

[thehog]

1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?

Absolutely brilliant!

So apt & so true. Post of the centry!

 

[cineteq]

1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?

+1 Good stuff. All symptoms checked except...

I'm not seeing being affected by a random illness, I don't know ... let's say Bilharzia? And being able to recover in few weeks and win races.

PS: No. 1 sounds like Wiggo

 

[martinvickers]

But you are in the Clinic - take the wig and gown off - no-one here passes judgements, no rider gets sanctioned here.

The Clinic is not separate from real life - it exists within it, and is subject to it, including its laws...

Really?
So you have no opinion on people doping?

Of course I do. As It happens, i think they should be jailed.

You have no threshold that you go by to determine what you constitute doping?

"I constitute doping" makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps you could reword this.