Jump to content

MB.

Members
  • Content Count

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MB.

  • Rank
    Who is Betty Ford anyway?
  1. MB.

    Floyds Defence

    I think that Parky's on the money... none of it makes sense... test -ve one day, +ve the next... but you don't take steroids for next day performance. The bottom line is that the current tests are all suspect and prone to error, and simply set out to suggest cheating, but they don't actually prove anything. So, unless there is a witness who actually saw Landis stuff a super-dooper up his pooper... then there is only one person who knows the truth. Personally... (now there's something novel) ...I suspect that, given the situation, the French and TdF are of a mind to boot him, because of his relationship with Armstrong, and the UCI will go along for the ride because of the damage it's doing to the sport. If I were Landis... I'd probably NOT be handing over my B-Sample, as it's unlikely to save him. 10 years from now we may be able to revisit the samples and prove conclusively, one way or the other... but either way now... it's going to be of cold comfort to all the players involved.
  2. MB.

    Floyds Defence

    But then I guess you also read 'Positive result just doesn't add up: doping doctor' Don't think so... it's just another urine test... albeit more statistically accurate.
  3. MB.

    Landis

    The SMH mentioned today that there's a carbon isotope test which can distinguish between natural and synthetic forms of testosterone and epitestosterone, but doesn't know whether it was used in Floyd's case. 217539[/snapback] Yeah Webby.. I saw the reference, and assume it refers to the work of Graham Trout and his team... who are working on Steroid and EPO detection at the CSIRO. It's definitely a step forward, but I can't say that I'd be happy to put someone in front of a firing squad based on it. The work is based on measuring variations in Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 levels. To quote from the 2003 paper:: (the CSIRO copy protect their pdf's so please excuse any typos) "The difference in carbon isotope ratio [13c to 12c] between the gonadal and synthetic steroids, although small, is statistically significant and measurable." There's that word again... statistics... albeit more accurate stats. It then goes on to explain how diet can affect the readings, how the source of the steroid can affect the readings, how some of their test results were not quite as expected (meaning they don't fully understand the metabolic pathways involved) how it can flag something for attention, and be suggestive of endogenous administration, but can't actually identify a substance. In the summary they spell out how what they really need to do is come up with some form of metabolic markers and use blood testing. They pretty much nail it themselves... they need to do more work to find isolatable metabolic markers, which they can then use to produce indisputable tests.
  4. MB.

    Landis

    I'll take your word on the numbers, and yes... it looks bad... but it's not a smoking gun. The "allowable ratio" is essentially based on statistics... and those statistics are based on samples of conditions that are not totally reproducible and/or applicable. If you have a marker that can be identified, or a metabolite that you know should not be present (e.g. A metabolite of cocaine) then your decisions about doping can be reasonably definitive... e.g. Wendall was a gonner. But when you are trying to determine normal vs. abnormal levels of naturally occurring metabolites... this is always going to be problematic... for the reasons previously outlined. Don't misunderstand me here... if he is guilty... and clear evidence can be produced... he should be drop-kicked out of the sport. However... the system we use for this particular area of doping control, is FAR from definitive, and even an extreme variation may be *possible* without doping being a fact. In accepting such a statistical based system, you need to realise that it means we are going to execute the odd innocent man, in order to catch all the guilty... and personally, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
  5. MB.

    Landis

    Ah Yes... 'and on the 8th day, god created the Internet Explorer... and man too, became Omniscient'
  6. MB.

    Landis

    It means... yes/no/maybe... The problem is that it's a really complex feedback and chaos-like system... poke it in one area, in a certain way, and something totally unexpected may happen. I don't recall the last time anyone did an experiment on an elite cyclist, who has a hip injury, and takes cortisone injections, 17 stages into the TdF, who drank a beer the night before, after having bonked, then pushing himself to near collapse... etc etc. In other words... this is a sample of one, in a unique experiment... and we are going to try and "normalise" the results... if you tried this caper in most other areas of science, you'd get laughed out the door.
  7. MB.

    Landis

    Of course... the other problem with this whole mess, is the f*ing Internet. Now, you don't need to be qualified to talk like an expert... you just need to be able to use Google and gather a few snippets of info... and bingo... (or should that be voila) you can spout off with your own "researched" assessment of the situation, and avoid the need to deal with any professional analysis. Unfortunately... one of the big things that studying BioChem and Physiology taught me, is that there is no such thing as a simple process. Biological systems, including chemistry and physiology are more akin to a chaos systems, than to mathematical rules. Measuring metabolites of testosterone is not like measuring metabolites of cocaine... the reasons, methods and pathways leading to a particular reading are NOT fully understood, and can NOT be definitive... despite what you may pick up on the Internet and TV. Once we start talking about basing decisions on normal/abnormal measurements of naturally occurring metabolites... we are almost (stretching it a bit to make the point) getting into something akin to predicting weather... we are getting better at getting it right MOST of the time... but we still get it wrong, and still learn new things.
  8. MB.

    Political Sub Forum

    Now THERE is a scary combination... nuclear powered whales... they blow... they glow... they're mad as hell... and they's a huntin' for japanese...
  9. MB.

    Landis

    Yes... testing for metabolites (intermediates and products of metabolism) and making a call based on normal/abnormal levels of those, is always going to be controversial, as the plain facts are that we cannot say, with a high degree of certainty, that we fully understand all the pathways and processes involved in their production... as we currently understand about 2 parts of FA on how the human body works. Furthermore... anyone who has done stats will know that what we are talking about here is trying to decide what is normal and abnormal, in a sample of population distribution that, in itself, is already clearly abnormal... it's a fairly bizarre concept... and I'm glad no-one's life is on the line with these decisions.
  10. ...where everyone is eckied off their face and would happily hump a lamp post... if it would just stand still for long enough.
  11. MB.

    o/t Speed Skate

    Never skated... but always imagined it looked like a bit of a "Convoy"
  12. Would this be from the same reliable study sources that claim men have generally had 2 to 4 times as many partners as women ??
  13. MB.

    Political Sub Forum

    Bad-Back Compo scammers ?? Oh I forgot... you have a bad back, don't you...
  14. MB.

    Political Sub Forum

    ...not to mention the price of spare parts.
  15. MB.

    IMNZ Finishers shirts

    So... does that mean Michael Jackson also gives out 'Finishers' shirts Edit:: Bugger (so to speak) TBNZ beat me to the punch line.
×
×
  • Create New...