| |
Main
Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:33:11
From: dwjones45
Subject: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
could someone explain to me the reasoning behind the justin gatlin's 8 year
ban from the sport? it makes no sense to me simply because there is no way
justin is going to be able to come back at the age of 32 after an 8 year
ban. it is impossible in my opinion. therefore wouldn't it be more honest to
say that he has been banned from the sport life for testing positive a
second time?
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 18:35:09
From:
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
dwjones45 wrote:
> it makes no sense to me simply because there is no way
> justin is going to be able to come back at the age of 32 after an 8 year
> ban. it is impossible in my opinion.
_
not at all. Michael Johnson won Sydney Gold in 2000 1 month or so
before his 33rd Birthday at 400m. it's not at all impossible for him to
comeback and earn a spot on the relay team or something like that at
age 32.
i'm not saying it's advisable or likely or anything of the sort.
However it's not at all impossible for him to compete at the Olympic
and Pro level at age 32 in sprinting events.
Example? He can move to most any country in the world, earn
citizenship, and in 8 years could easily be the #1 sprinter in that
country and enter the Olympics under the flag of that country.
Early 30's is not too long in the tooth to be world class competitive
in Sprinting.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:52:24
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"dwjones45" <dwjones45@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:WbudnVgO5K9YbnHZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com...
> could someone explain to me the reasoning behind the justin gatlin's 8
year
> ban from the sport? it makes no sense to me simply because there is no way
> justin is going to be able to come back at the age of 32 after an 8 year
> ban. it is impossible in my opinion. therefore wouldn't it be more honest
to
> say that he has been banned from the sport life for testing positive a
> second time?
>
As I understand it, while he can't appeal the charge, he can appeal the 8
year suspension. Whatever you think about snitches, I admire the guy for
admitting guilt. Mark McGuire wouldn't be a suicidal wimp today if he had
stood up like a man when he testified before congress, and most would have
forgiven him by now.
A more important issue is the integrity of the whole testing regime, and the
publicity-seeking head of WADA Dick Pound condemning athletes in public
before they've been found guilty certainly doesn't help. As I understand it,
WADA, and other doping agencies are changing the parameters of many tests
without scientific review, and they continually fail to publish the science
about the tests, such as false-positive rates, etc. Not only does this set a
bad precedent, it turns the anti-doping agencies into political tools, which
of course means they can't be entirely trusted.
-Tony
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:03:58
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
In article <sHlHg.5965$jX.2404@trndny06 >,
"Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> A more important issue is the integrity of the whole testing regime, and the
> publicity-seeking head of WADA Dick Pound condemning athletes in public
> before they've been found guilty certainly doesn't help. As I understand it,
> WADA, and other doping agencies are changing the parameters of many tests
> without scientific review, and they continually fail to publish the science
> about the tests, such as false-positive rates, etc. Not only does this set a
> bad precedent, it turns the anti-doping agencies into political tools, which
> of course means they can't be entirely trusted.
DIck Pound is a complete idiot, if only because he doesn't go by "Rich"
or "Richard."
When the head of WADA is damning athletes for test results that violate
every WADA protocol, there are big problems. When the head of WADA is
making claims that one third of NHL players are using
performance-enhancing druges, there are big problems. When test results
get leaked before the B sample is even tested, there are big problems.
Not that I don't think there are a ton of dopers out there. But, geez,
at some level it's getting to be just a big witch hunt, with people
presumed guilty without sufficient evidence.
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 02:54:51
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-6B93D2.21035824082006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <sHlHg.5965$jX.2404@trndny06>,
> "Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A more important issue is the integrity of the whole testing regime, and
the
> > publicity-seeking head of WADA Dick Pound condemning athletes in public
> > before they've been found guilty certainly doesn't help. As I understand
it,
> > WADA, and other doping agencies are changing the parameters of many
tests
> > without scientific review, and they continually fail to publish the
science
> > about the tests, such as false-positive rates, etc. Not only does this
set a
> > bad precedent, it turns the anti-doping agencies into political tools,
which
> > of course means they can't be entirely trusted.
>
> DIck Pound is a complete idiot, if only because he doesn't go by "Rich"
> or "Richard."
>
> When the head of WADA is damning athletes for test results that violate
> every WADA protocol, there are big problems. When the head of WADA is
> making claims that one third of NHL players are using
> performance-enhancing druges, there are big problems. When test results
> get leaked before the B sample is even tested, there are big problems.
>
> Not that I don't think there are a ton of dopers out there. But, geez,
> at some level it's getting to be just a big witch hunt, with people
> presumed guilty without sufficient evidence.
Exactly. When both Ullrich and Basso were kicked out of the Tour-de-france
without a shred of hard evidence, it basically sucked for everyone. The
riders pro-tour contracts enable them to be tried in public and be presumed
guilty. Not a good situation when the accusing country (Spain) has a lot to
be gained by 1) bringing down other stars when it's own has been brought
down (Herras) and 2) certain spanish stars (Valverde etc.) had a great
chance to win the Tour without them.
The whole doping scene in all sports is a god-awful mess. There are no easy
answers, but legalization with dor supervision would be better than what
we have now IMO. If you get the shit on the regulated market, it would be
better for everyone. To argue that 'it would be a bad example for kids' is a
joke, and anyone who grew up in the last 40 years knows that. Kids these
days have easy access to *any* drug, for sports or recreation. Legalize and
try to regulate all of it I say. Kids are probably even more drawn to things
that are deemed bad for you or illegal anyway.
-Tony
> --Harold Buck
>
> "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
>
> -Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 08:36:53
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
In article <%DtHg.11524$St4.7092@trnddc01 >,
"Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> The whole doping scene in all sports is a god-awful mess. There are no easy
> answers, but legalization with dor supervision would be better than what
> we have now IMO. If you get the shit on the regulated market, it would be
> better for everyone. To argue that 'it would be a bad example for kids' is a
> joke, and anyone who grew up in the last 40 years knows that. Kids these
> days have easy access to *any* drug, for sports or recreation. Legalize and
> try to regulate all of it I say. Kids are probably even more drawn to things
> that are deemed bad for you or illegal anyway.
The simple argument against legalization is that I shouldn't have to
take drugs that will take years off my life just to compete in sports.
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:03:24
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-C9A361.08365325082006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <%DtHg.11524$St4.7092@trnddc01>,
> "Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The whole doping scene in all sports is a god-awful mess. There are no
easy
> > answers, but legalization with dor supervision would be better than
what
> > we have now IMO. If you get the shit on the regulated market, it would
be
> > better for everyone. To argue that 'it would be a bad example for kids'
is a
> > joke, and anyone who grew up in the last 40 years knows that. Kids these
> > days have easy access to *any* drug, for sports or recreation. Legalize
and
> > try to regulate all of it I say. Kids are probably even more drawn to
things
> > that are deemed bad for you or illegal anyway.
>
> The simple argument against legalization is that I shouldn't have to
> take drugs that will take years off my life just to compete in sports.
>
> --Harold Buck
Well, do we really know that? It's the perfect scare tactic for those
against legalization. I haven't researched it, but I've heard the big scare
about steriods casuing long-term problems, for example, is way overblown. Of
course with anything you can overdo it, but it would be far better under a
dor's supervision.
The number of people who can compete in sports for a living is very small,
and they're going to do stuff anyway. I'd like to think you could stop it,
but it's an arms race between the drug testers and the athletes, with the
tests becoming more indirect and obscure to try to detect things that can't
be detected - and with no openness about the testing science, which is
patently unfair to the athlete. There have been notable false positives
where the athlete was exhoneratted later, and because of the indirectness of
many of the tests, and the politics of the whole thing it's never going to
be a fair system.
-Tony
>
> "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
>
> -Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 15:14:03
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Well, do we really know that? It's the perfect scare tactic for those
> against legalization. I haven't researched it, but I've heard the big scare
> about steriods casuing long-term problems, for example, is way overblown. Of
> course with anything you can overdo it, but it would be far better under a
> dor's supervision.
They already have "dors supervision". The problem is, the dor is optimising
for performance, not safety (if they were optimising for that, the athlete
wouldn't take anything)
What makes you think that anyone is going to follow your more relaxed and permissive
set of rules ? IMO it's going to be easier to break them.
> The number of people who can compete in sports for a living is very small,
> and they're going to do stuff anyway. I'd like to think you could stop it,
> but it's an arms race between the drug testers and the athletes, with the
always will be. The thing is, we have reasonable hope that the tests catch up
eventually. There have been a large number of big name busts recently. Maybe
some of the athletes will decide it's not worth it any more.
> tests becoming more indirect and obscure to try to detect things that can't
> be detected -
I don't see that as a trend.
> and with no openness about the testing science, which is
> patently unfair to the athlete.
Well, there's no openness about the cheating methods either (-;
> There have been notable false positives
Would you care to name some of them ? I mean, cases where an athlete was actually
found guilty and faced some sort of ban.
Note that you'd still have all of these problems if you tried to go with your regulated
doping model (in fact worse arguably, since presence of a substance would no
longer indicate guilt).
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:22:51
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrneeu4tr.gj6.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, do we really know that? It's the perfect scare tactic for those
> > against legalization. I haven't researched it, but I've heard the big
scare
> > about steriods casuing long-term problems, for example, is way
overblown. Of
> > course with anything you can overdo it, but it would be far better under
a
> > dor's supervision.
>
> They already have "dors supervision". The problem is, the dor is
optimising
> for performance, not safety (if they were optimising for that, the athlete
> wouldn't take anything)
>
> What makes you think that anyone is going to follow your more relaxed and
permissive
> set of rules ? IMO it's going to be easier to break them.
While many of the top athletes are under dor's supervision, amatuers and
up-and-coming athletes probably are not. There wouldn't be disclosure of
methods as those would be proprietary advantages. But if it were legal,
there would be nothing to stop athletes from confiding in dors. I agree
that some consequences of this would be bad, and that I don't know how it
would all work out. I'm just a sick-of-this-shit cycling fan, and I know
that in the past cyclists used dope. I don't care about that, I just want to
see them race, and I see political movites and this unfair trial-in-public
of the athletes detracting from cycling and other sports.
> > The number of people who can compete in sports for a living is very
small,
> > and they're going to do stuff anyway. I'd like to think you could stop
it,
> > but it's an arms race between the drug testers and the athletes, with
the
>
> always will be. The thing is, we have reasonable hope that the tests catch
up
> eventually. There have been a large number of big name busts recently.
Maybe
> some of the athletes will decide it's not worth it any more.
It's an evolving situation obviously, so I don't know if they are catching
up or not. That they have caught some big fish recently is interesting, but
if you read about the Floyd Landis situation, for example, you hear the lab
doing the testing saying there was no possibility of error on the isotope
test, but then you hear the manufacturer of the testing equipment saying
that's not the case at all. If the testing regimes were open about their
science and criteria, I might trust them more, but they have not been
forthcoming in publishing their criteria, and as I understand it, sometimes
change the test parameters without scientific review.
> > tests becoming more indirect and obscure to try to detect things that
can't
> > be detected -
>
> I don't see that as a trend.
More and more the tests are statistical in nature, measuring doping
side-effects. At the same time, in some cases, they haven't revealed
important information about the tests, such as the false-positive rates.
Some of the tests are openly disputed by leading biological scientists.
> > and with no openness about the testing science, which is
> > patently unfair to the athlete.
>
> Well, there's no openness about the cheating methods either (-;
>
> > There have been notable false positives
>
> Would you care to name some of them ? I mean, cases where an athlete was
actually
> found guilty and faced some sort of ban.
This is one guy I heard about, don't know if there are others.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug10news
> Note that you'd still have all of these problems if you tried to go with
your regulated
> doping model (in fact worse arguably, since presence of a substance would
no
> longer indicate guilt).
I wouldn't regulate it. I guess I'm a bit of a mix of libertarian and
anarchist ;)
-Tony
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:46:28
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> While many of the top athletes are under dor's supervision, amatuers and
> up-and-coming athletes probably are not. There wouldn't be disclosure of
> methods as those would be proprietary advantages. But if it were legal,
> there would be nothing to stop athletes from confiding in dors. I agree
That has to do with laws governing access to drugs, not rules set by sporting
bodies. Anyone can get medical advice on performance enhancing drugs that are
sold legally, such as various pro-hormones, stimulants, etc.
> that some consequences of this would be bad, and that I don't know how it
> would all work out. I'm just a sick-of-this-shit cycling fan, and I know
I agree that the situation is much worse in cycling.
Cycling is a big money sport, and most of the leading competitors do not live
in a small rural hill town in Ethiopia or Kenya, so the resources exist to do
frequent testing. The leading competitors have a lot of financial resources, so
unless the testers are well equipped, the dopers will always win.
> It's an evolving situation obviously, so I don't know if they are catching
> up or not. That they have caught some big fish recently is interesting, but
> if you read about the Floyd Landis situation, for example, you hear the lab
> doing the testing saying there was no possibility of error on the isotope
> test, but then you hear the manufacturer of the testing equipment saying
> that's not the case at all. If the testing regimes were open about their
> science and criteria, I might trust them more, but they have not been
> forthcoming in publishing their criteria, and as I understand it, sometimes
> change the test parameters without scientific review.
I think they'd be giving dopers an advantage if they were completely open.
>> I don't see that as a trend.
>
> More and more the tests are statistical in nature, measuring doping
> side-effects.
Sorry, I just don't buy this. I understand that they *are* statistical
in nature, I don't believe your claim that they are becoming any more so.
Some of the "old" cheating methods (like blood doping with your own blood are)
are impossible to detect with a direct test.
> At the same time, in some cases, they haven't revealed
> important information about the tests, such as the false-positive rates.
How can you measure false positive rates ? Think really carefully before you
answer this.
> Some of the tests are openly disputed by leading biological scientists.
There's a lot at stake, so you'd expect them to be disputed.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 20:26:23
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrneeuab5.m3r.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> > At the same time, in some cases, they haven't revealed
> > important information about the tests, such as the false-positive rates.
>
> How can you measure false positive rates ? Think really carefully before
you
> answer this.
Double blind studies perhaps? I'm far from an expert, but I know false
positives is a big issue in drug testing, not only in athletics, but also in
workplace drug testing. A childhood friend of mine was suspened from his job
based on a drug test, and while I haven't been as close to him in recent
years, I believed him when he said he was innocent. In his subsequent
research and legal battle, he found out that the depression medication he
was on at the time has been know to produce false positives on certain drug
tests. Fighting a legal battle over such a thing for an individual is a
*huge* pain in the ass. The companies don't care about the small percent of
people who get caught out in such false positives, but it definitely does
happen, and to more people than you might think.
Some links (none of which I've read completely):
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm (amusing site name)
http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/drugtesting/
http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol2/winter/gleason.htm
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/drugtest.php
Your admonition to think carefully before answering suggests that you don't
think false postive rates can be measured. If that's the case, please
enlighten us, as you seem to enjoy doing on other science related issues.
-Tony
> > Some of the tests are openly disputed by leading biological scientists.
>
> There's a lot at stake, so you'd expect them to be disputed.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:13:56
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrneeuab5.m3r.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>> On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> > At the same time, in some cases, they haven't revealed
>> > important information about the tests, such as the false-positive rates.
>>
>> How can you measure false positive rates ? Think really carefully before
>> you answer this.
>
> Double blind studies perhaps?
Who are the subjects for your study ?
If the subjects are not athletes, can you extrapolate the results to a population
of professional athletes ?
If the subjects are athletes, how do you know that your control group is clean ?
The problem is that they often *do* know something about the false positive rates
(or they could estimate them from known data), but athletes have such
extraordinary physiology that they can test positive for reasons that would be
unthinkable in the general population. Exceptional physiology is a common
defense used by athletes -- sometimes succesfully as in the link you provided,
and sometimes less so as with Tyler Hamilton's case.
Because athletes are likely to be somewhat exceptional, it is all the more important
to have an arbitration process that enables athletes to dispute a finding, and handle
test positives on a case by case basis.
Professional cyclists, unlike your friend, generally do have the resources to mount
an effective defense.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:46:05
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrneeuq0k.jah.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrneeuab5.m3r.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> >> On 2006-08-25, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> > At the same time, in some cases, they haven't revealed
> >> > important information about the tests, such as the false-positive
rates.
> >>
> >> How can you measure false positive rates ? Think really carefully
before
> >> you answer this.
> >
> > Double blind studies perhaps?
>
> Who are the subjects for your study ?
>
> If the subjects are not athletes, can you extrapolate the results to a
population
> of professional athletes ?
>
> If the subjects are athletes, how do you know that your control group is
clean ?
>
> The problem is that they often *do* know something about the false
positive rates
> (or they could estimate them from known data), but athletes have such
> extraordinary physiology that they can test positive for reasons that
would be
> unthinkable in the general population. Exceptional physiology is a common
> defense used by athletes -- sometimes succesfully as in the link you
provided,
> and sometimes less so as with Tyler Hamilton's case.
All of what you've said makes it questionable whether or not they can come
up with a representative control population on which to test the tests.
> Because athletes are likely to be somewhat exceptional, it is all the more
important
> to have an arbitration process that enables athletes to dispute a finding,
and handle
> test positives on a case by case basis.
Right, and it shouldn't be made public and the athlete tried in the press
immediately before that process has happened.
> Professional cyclists, unlike your friend, generally do have the resources
to mount
> an effective defense.
As you know, many professional athletes avoid eating certain things (poppy
seeds are the most obvious) and taking common medications because they might
test postive for something. I'm not saying that most cases end up in an
unjust suspension or ban from sports, but it does force the accused athlete
into the global media spotlight (if he/she is well-known), and less
well-known athletes could well not have the money to properly defend
themselves.
The presumption of guilt is what is troubling to me. Add to that the
improper statements and behavior of the testing bodies and you have a system
that to me appears to be headed more towards politicization than a tightly
controlled just system. Perhaps you have far more faith in institutions than
me. I suspect that many things start out with the best of intentions, but
that people figure out how to rig the system in their favor over time. The
US government is a prime example of how a system can become rotten to the
core. Laws are written by interested (and invested) 3rd parties and passed
in the dead of night without anybody else (by and large) ever reading them.
Look at what's happening in science. While it has never been immune from the
politics of the time, it appears that science is being twisted more and more
to political ends, with politicians in this administration editing science
reports to change the findings. The point here is that when you're giving
power over the outcome of popular and lucrative sporting events to 3rd party
institutions, you can't assume them to be doing things fairly.
In the case of workplace testing, I for one don't trust the corporations or
the testing labs to bear the burden of proving someone guilty before ruining
their lives at the very least in the short term.
-Tony, (who's spell check isn't working ;)
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 16:46:12
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
On 2006-08-26, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> All of what you've said makes it questionable whether or not they can come
> up with a representative control population on which to test the tests.
Yes, so it's hard to establish exact false positive rates.
> Right, and it shouldn't be made public and the athlete tried in the press
> immediately before that process has happened.
I agree. That's improper.
But I don't think that's a reason for scrapping the whole testing program.
> As you know, many professional athletes avoid eating certain things (poppy
> seeds are the most obvious) and taking common medications because they might
> test postive for something. I'm not saying that most cases end up in an
> unjust suspension or ban from sports, but it does force the accused athlete
> into the global media spotlight (if he/she is well-known), and less
> well-known athletes could well not have the money to properly defend
> themselves.
I don't buy this idea of yours that there are large numbers of false positives...
> The presumption of guilt is what is troubling to me. Add to that the
The reason that the public and the media generally presume guilt once a suspension
is issued, is that overwhelmingly, the accused athletes really are guilty. You
need to do much better than trot out one example of a cyclist who was able to mount
a succesful defense to convince me that large numbers of innocent athletes are
being banned.
> improper statements and behavior of the testing bodies and you have a system
> that to me appears to be headed more towards politicization than a tightly
> controlled just system.
My take on it is that cycling is a big money sport, and really could use its own
federation/testing bodies so that the testers have access to the same funding pool
as the dopers.
> ehe
> US government is a prime example of how a system can become rotten to the
> core.
The US government is a prime example of a system that works. It's also an example
of a system that has an exceptional ability to correct itself, because different
arms of government tend to scrutinise each other.
The bottom line is, everyone wants to live in the US, because the system works.
> Laws are written by interested (and invested) 3rd parties and passed
> in the dead of night without anybody else (by and large) ever reading them.
Poppycock. Tinfoil beanie stuff.
> Look at what's happening in science. While it has never been immune from the
> politics of the time, it appears that science is being twisted more and more
> to political ends, with politicians in this administration editing science
> reports to change the findings.
Poppycock again. Scientists at universities continue to do their work.
The "edited" reports you are whining about are the ones issued by the administration.
One might hope that these reports don't reflect the political views of the
administration, but that strikes me as a bit of a pipe dream.
Fortunately, thanks to the free press, and thanks to other scientists who are free to
do their work and criticise those press releases, we do know what is going on.
> The point here is that when you're giving power over the outcome of popular
> and lucrative sporting events to 3rd party institutions, you can't assume
> them to be doing things fairly.
Those institutions are under a lot of scrutiny, and there is a lot money that is
prepared to fight them if they screw up. You don't have to trust the character of
everyone at those institutions, it's enough to trust the leverage of big money.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 08:36:15
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
In article <P1JHg.37$pX3.29@trnddc07 >,
"Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Double blind studies perhaps? I'm far from an expert, but I know false
> positives is a big issue in drug testing, not only in athletics, but also in
> workplace drug testing.
And, if you've taken some probability and statistics courses, you'll
realize that even if the false positive rates is only 2% and the true
positive rate is 99%‹which sounds pretty good, right‹that doesn't tell
you very much. You also need to know the percentage of drug users in the
population to figure out what you really want to know. For example,
suppose
P(person uses drugs) = 0.05
P(positive test given that person uses drugs) = 0.99
P(positive test given that person does NOT use drugs) = 0.02
What you really want is:
P(person uses drugs given that they had a positive test)
You have to use Bayes' Theorem to calculate this, and you come up with:
P(person uses drugs given that they had a positive test) = 0.72
Thus, if a person tests positive in this situation, there's a 28% chance
that they're clean! The problem is that there are so many people who are
clean that the false positive rate, while small, generates a large
number of false positives. The extreme case is if P(person uses drugs) =
0, then P(person uses drugs given that they had a positive test) = 0 as
well, since in that case ALL positives will be false positives.
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:54:04
From: steve common
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote:
> P(person uses drugs) = 0.05
You're not talking about pro cycling then; that or the decimal place
slipped some way to the left :- >
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:47:08
From: Lowtuc Zowtuc
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a
|
Hay! He allways can come to RR.....: >)
1111 miles
week so far=3Doff,15,16,17,and 7so far,
year =3D close to 5 a day.
days ride =3D 10.4 close to.
well to make 5 a day would chafe to walk .0022 , =D7 235 days is it....
crim here in flint on saturday. and 10.4 a day and 4.78 o something in
week 33.521 at 33.022 a week...
oh hell-o.
last year 13.3 retard.
year befor 7.5 or 7.4 alexander the great.
and this year. close to 5 a day.....
or 10.4 every time I ride....
10 mile crim race in well week 33........
flint michigan.
field of dream. 1 of 3 houses in 4 years looks like a gov sign on
it....so zero sold. butt on good note. they got a dust cloud of seed and
fert......so green grass so the same people can work again for years
cutting grass........point field of dream and ythere moter bike for
tree stands.....
Hay as long as the grass is green.....
me...report for info at gov and latter sept 11.......jury duty
posible....
mad painter...were my money?...iI know denide.......
rr...wht a ride.....
Bite me , in the mud.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:03:24
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifeti...
|
In article <2442-44EDBBEC-45@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net >,
LowtucZow007@webtv.net (Lowtuc Zowtuc) wrote:
> Hay! He allways can come to RR.....:>)
>
> 1111 miles
> week so far=off,15,16,17,and 7so far,
> year = close to 5 a day.
> days ride = 10.4 close to.
> well to make 5 a day would chafe to walk .0022 , × 235 days is it....
>
> crim here in flint on saturday. and 10.4 a day and 4.78 o something in
> week 33.521 at 33.022 a week...
> oh hell-o.
> last year 13.3 retard.
> year befor 7.5 or 7.4 alexander the great.
> and this year. close to 5 a day.....
> or 10.4 every time I ride....
> 10 mile crim race in well week 33........
> flint michigan.
> field of dream. 1 of 3 houses in 4 years looks like a gov sign on
> it....so zero sold. butt on good note. they got a dust cloud of seed and
> fert......so green grass so the same people can work again for years
> cutting grass........point field of dream and ythere moter bike for
> tree stands.....
>
> Hay as long as the grass is green.....
>
> me...report for info at gov and latter sept 11.......jury duty
> posible....
>
> mad painter...were my money?...iI know denide.......
>
> rr...wht a ride.....
>
> Bite me , in the mud.
Do you have to fail a literacy test to get a webTV account?
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:36:49
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
Tony S. wrote:
> If
> McGuire had stepped up and admitted his own use more publicly I'm sure he
> would be in a better place personally and publicly right now.
IMO, I don't think so. Public opinion is very hypocritical. When Pete
Rose was denying that he bet on baseball, the public/media was
demanding that he tell the truth. They were telling him that if he came
clean, his chances for reinstatement would be much higher. Well,
eventually, he did admit. And what happened? His public image went even
further down the toilet.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:21:34
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
Bucky wrote:
> Or would you rather have him "stand up
> like a man" like Jose Cansenco and admit his own use, write a tell-all
> book for his own profit.
Jose never would have done it if he wasn't broke. It was for his $$$
gain. But now he's the hero. Big Mac should just come clean and talk
about the past. He doesn't hold any records (at least any that he set
after using) and he already looks bad in alot of peoples eyes. Some
even question if he will get into the Hall of Fame. Baseball could
actually use the information and it would help the future of the game.
Since he does not want to talk about the past.
John
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:07:36
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
Tony S. wrote:
> As I understand it, while he can't appeal the charge, he can appeal the 8
> year suspension.
That's what I read too, that this gives him a chance to be reinstated
earlier than 8 years.
> Mark McGuire wouldn't be a suicidal wimp today if he had
> stood up like a man when he testified before congress, and most would have
> forgiven him by now.
I actually respected McGwire for being honest before congress. He
essentially admitted that he used performance enhancing drugs when he
said that he was not here to talk about the past. If you couldn't
figure out that that was a euphemism for, "yeah, I did," then that's
your own fault. Would you rather have him lie like Rafael Palmeiro,
Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds? Or would you rather have him "stand up
like a man" like Jose Cansenco and admit his own use, write a tell-all
book for his own profit. Seriously, out of all the suspected steroid
users, whom do you respect the most? For me, it's McGwire. He's the
only who essentially admitted it like a man.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:46:39
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote in message
news:1156457255.964751.42340@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tony S. wrote:
> > As I understand it, while he can't appeal the charge, he can appeal the
8
> > year suspension.
>
> That's what I read too, that this gives him a chance to be reinstated
> earlier than 8 years.
>
> > Mark McGuire wouldn't be a suicidal wimp today if he had
> > stood up like a man when he testified before congress, and most would
have
> > forgiven him by now.
>
> I actually respected McGwire for being honest before congress. He
> essentially admitted that he used performance enhancing drugs when he
> said that he was not here to talk about the past. If you couldn't
> figure out that that was a euphemism for, "yeah, I did," then that's
> your own fault. Would you rather have him lie like Rafael Palmeiro,
> Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds? Or would you rather have him "stand up
> like a man" like Jose Cansenco and admit his own use, write a tell-all
> book for his own profit. Seriously, out of all the suspected steroid
> users, whom do you respect the most? For me, it's McGwire. He's the
> only who essentially admitted it like a man.
If you think he was being honest, even though it's true that we could all
read through the lines, then why did he shrink into a corner and is
considered by so many to have let everyone down? You don't necessarily have
to name names as Canseco did to be a stand up guy -- in his case if he had
NOT named names, since he was the first, nobody would have believed him. If
McGuire had stepped up and admitted his own use more publicly I'm sure he
would be in a better place personally and publicly right now.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:00:15
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: what is truly the difference between an 8 year ban and a lifetime ban?
|
dwjones45 wrote:
> could someone explain to me the reasoning behind the justin gatlin's 8 year
> ban from the sport? it makes no sense to me simply because there is no way
> justin is going to be able to come back at the age of 32 after an 8 year
> ban. it is impossible in my opinion. therefore wouldn't it be more honest to
> say that he has been banned from the sport life for testing positive a
> second time?
Does the ban involve/include coaching. For most track athletes thats
what comes next. I wonder if a lifetime ban would prevent him from
being a coach some day (if that is what he wants to do).
|
|
