My (slightly tearful) reaction to the Armstrong news
#126
Upgrading my engine
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alamogordo
Posts: 6,218
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Look under #1.
Then you have the less scientific ways of passing tests like "donations" to the UCI.
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,875
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpy, Schwinn 974
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What I showed, in two lines of research was, "Here is what has been presented, the next logical step is obvious." The next logical step hadn't been appreciated by anyone else, but it was lying out there, ready to be jumped upon.
I had really low expectations. I just wanted to get into med school. My machinations worked, I had a 3.4 GPA, but profs said, "Admit this kid." Mostly I was interested in cool stuff, like radioactivity. Like I called Rosalyn Yallow, whose published method wasnt working. She gave me advisement on the phone. It totally worked. Fortunately I called her before she won the Nobel Prize. I have no idea why her Nobel-Prize-winning published stuff was crap. I only knew, "I'm really good in the lab, I've repliccated your published materials and methods, and it's not working, what am I doing wrong? And she shared with me her unpublished secrets.
"You aren't really using guinea pigs, you are using rabbits?" After harvesting antibodies from female, injectate-harmed NZ rabbits, I let them **** with male rabbits and make babies. I have no idea why I did it, but those rabbits really loved ****ing. I live in a place where rabbits nibble at stuff. That's okay.
#128
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't even know anymore. I can tell only tell you this stuff is in the archives. I know this sounds like a copout, but when I was an undergrad at Berkeley, they didn't have the journal articles I was looking for, I had to go over to UCSF to get to deeper-historic sources. When I was a stupid lab tech at UCSD, I had to find out what the Scripps Institute Library had that USC Bimed library didn't. When in Orange County, I had to go to UCLA Biomed to get to first-report sources. When at Harvard, I had to go deep into the basement stacks at Francis Countaway Library. Basement level 3, yeah I did that Information exists, but accessing it depends upon where you are.
What I showed, in two lines of research was, "Here is what has been presented, the next logical step is obvious." The next logical step hadn't been appreciated by anyone else, but it was lying out there, ready to be jumped upon.
I had really low expectations. I just wanted to get into med school. My machinations worked, I had a 3.4 GPA, but profs said, "Admit this kid." Mostly I was interested in cool stuff, like radioactivity. Like I called Rosalyn Yallow, whose published method wasnt working. She gave me advisement on the phone. It totally worked. Fortunately I called her before she won the Nobel Prize. I have no idea why her Nobel-Prize-winning published stuff was crap. I only knew, "I'm really good in the lab, I've repliccated your published materials and methods, and it's not working, what am I doing wrong? And she shared with me her unpublished secrets.
"You aren't really using guinea pigs, you are using rabbits?" After harvesting antibodies from female, injectate-harmed NZ rabbits, I let them **** with male rabbits and make babies. I have no idea why I did it, but those rabbits really loved ****ing. I live in a place where rabbits nibble at stuff. That's okay.
What I showed, in two lines of research was, "Here is what has been presented, the next logical step is obvious." The next logical step hadn't been appreciated by anyone else, but it was lying out there, ready to be jumped upon.
I had really low expectations. I just wanted to get into med school. My machinations worked, I had a 3.4 GPA, but profs said, "Admit this kid." Mostly I was interested in cool stuff, like radioactivity. Like I called Rosalyn Yallow, whose published method wasnt working. She gave me advisement on the phone. It totally worked. Fortunately I called her before she won the Nobel Prize. I have no idea why her Nobel-Prize-winning published stuff was crap. I only knew, "I'm really good in the lab, I've repliccated your published materials and methods, and it's not working, what am I doing wrong? And she shared with me her unpublished secrets.
"You aren't really using guinea pigs, you are using rabbits?" After harvesting antibodies from female, injectate-harmed NZ rabbits, I let them **** with male rabbits and make babies. I have no idea why I did it, but those rabbits really loved ****ing. I live in a place where rabbits nibble at stuff. That's okay.
#129
Senior Member
Ain't gonna happen.
Last edited by colombo357; 09-03-12 at 01:19 AM.
#130
Banned
I read several days the statement from the governing agency- wish I'd clipped it for here.
The methods were three fold according to them:
1. Blood doping- i.e. the Transufusions I described above
2. Cortisone- a pain killer, I think often injected, as Bernard Thevenet back in the '70's admitted to
, and
3. testosterone- not sure if that means steroids or what- some of you know his testicular condition so I have to wonder if he'd have some defense here.
at any rate- the charges are NOT about stimulants, but other performance enhancing substances and techniques- the transfusions are not really detectable, like the stimulant testing- I'm not sure about the cortisone and testosterone
but if others on the team were going to testify about a lot of use, then Lance could be on shaky ground I guess
The methods were three fold according to them:
1. Blood doping- i.e. the Transufusions I described above
2. Cortisone- a pain killer, I think often injected, as Bernard Thevenet back in the '70's admitted to
, and
3. testosterone- not sure if that means steroids or what- some of you know his testicular condition so I have to wonder if he'd have some defense here.
at any rate- the charges are NOT about stimulants, but other performance enhancing substances and techniques- the transfusions are not really detectable, like the stimulant testing- I'm not sure about the cortisone and testosterone
but if others on the team were going to testify about a lot of use, then Lance could be on shaky ground I guess
#131
moth -----> flame
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,916
Bikes: 11 CAAD 10-4, 07 Specialized Roubaix Comp, 98 Peugeot Horizon
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
It's a little known fact that bikeforums is an online feeder school for Mensa.
__________________
BF, in a nutshell
BF, in a nutshell
#132
out walking the earth
Does one need to be a member of mensa to beat a drug test or to provide insight into how it occurs? It seems between Hamilton's book, Kimmage's book, Vogt's book, Millar's book and a host of articles and interviews it's pretty clear that the knowledge of how to dose or use masking agents is out there. This is not rocket science...just chemistry.
#133
Senior Member
Does one need to be a member of mensa to beat a drug test or to provide insight into how it occurs? It seems between Hamilton's book, Kimmage's book, Vogt's book, Millar's book and a host of articles and interviews it's pretty clear that the knowledge of how to dose or use masking agents is out there. This is not rocket science...just chemistry.
#134
Senior Member
Just proves my long-held opinion that education and intelligence don't necessarily go together. There are such things as highly intelligent ignoramuses (ignorance being lack of sufficient information to come to an informed opinion).
#135
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think you are right. It is like having a computer with a high clock rate and bad software.
#136
Senior Member
#137
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#138
Upgrading my engine
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alamogordo
Posts: 6,218
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's a good podcast on the background of the case:
https://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
https://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
#139
Senior Member
Here's a good podcast on the background of the case:
https://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
https://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
#140
Upgrading my engine
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alamogordo
Posts: 6,218
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#142
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's a good podcast on the background of the case:
https://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
https://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
#143
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
where:
TN = true negative
FN = false negative
TP = true positive
FP = false positive
No test is going to be 100% accurate, which would mean that there are no false negatives and no false positives. When designing a blood doping assay that uses a binary classifier, the cut-point (i.e. the boundary between a "positive" and a "negative" result) would have been selected with the aim of minimizing false positives, for obvious reasons, with the result that the percentage of false negatives is relatively high.
If you wanted, you could set the cut-point such that there are very few false negatives, i.e. the test would be much more "sensitive" in detecting cyclists who were doping. But then there would almost certainly be a lot of false positives and no-one would believe that a "positive" result actually meant anything. Such a test would have little credibility with anybody.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, look up "receiver operating characteristic" in Wiki or somewhere. This is a very good article that I've used in giving a seminar to a group of statisitians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receive...characteristic
Note: I am not a statistician myself but I do run these sort of analyses. I'm often in the business of selecting cut-points when running correlative analyses on predictive biomarker data in oncology. Trust me, these are difficult and somewhat arbitrary decisions to make but there's no getting around making them if you want to have an assay with any actual utility. Sometimes I find myself defending a particular cut-point to journal reviewers, collaborators and the like. There are ways to optimize cut-point selection but these also have their limitations.
Last edited by ChasH; 09-04-12 at 01:26 PM.
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,875
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpy, Schwinn 974
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks AA, but my IQ has dropped by 20 points. Interestingly, their tests have really good puzzles. You can study them, get the answers, and learn what they are thinking, and re-frame your thinking to attack the tests. If you take the time to learn, you can join Mensa.
I have no idea why most Mensa members support Lance's innocence. What do I think? I don't know what he did. I know when I saw successful premeds drink caffeine, and drug-free I wasn't making the grade, but with it, I excelled. I learned from a pretty good biochemist (ultimately a billionaire biotech entrepreneur)that med students, interns and residents routinely took amphetimines in the 50s and early 60s to get through 36-48 hr no-sleep shifts. They learned to do what they had to, to get through grueling high-perforance regimens.
Amphetimines didn't work for me, for last-minute cramming in college. I learned that I really needed to take notes, make margin notes ASAP after class, rewrite them at night, go to office hours for clarification, study my xme-day and previous notes everynight, make high enough grades to get access to library stacks, camp out, read amazingly informative papers dating back nearly a century (starting with recent papers, reading their references, and then backtracking their references), so I could understand the evolution of scientific thought. I once came upon a Science article with a two-image hemoglobin drawing, with an accompanying red-green pair of glasses. "Oh, 3D hemoglobin structure, this is AMAZING. I SEE! Wow!"
Who comes up with this kind of stuff? Geniuses. Artistic scientists.
Back to Lance. I could envision a poor Dallas-project-raised youngster being informed he could dramatically improve his performance using drugs. And then, being helped to employ drug-detection-defeating agents. I can see how the technology was existent.
For example, I used Rosalyn Yallow's telephone-conversation methodology to get rabbits to produce antibodies to gastrin. I radiolabled the antibodies with Iodine-125. Centrifugation precipitated the gastrin, radiolabeled antibodies. We counted the precipitate. The gastrin left in the solute was really small. But you can majorly reduce circulating EPO by giving antibodies, and letting the immune system do the plasma removal.
Could Lance, or any other cyclist, beat EPO detection? Totally. How about the effects of EPO, generating red blood cells? Easy enough to beat, by diluting rbcs with salt solutions or salt and albumin solutions, to enable high rbc counts to be "masked" in simple hematocrit counts.
Did Lance use drugs, self-transfusions? I have no idea. In an era of rampant performance-enhancement, he was at the top in the TdF. He was a real athlete. Nobody says he didn't work really hard.
I have no idea why most Mensa members support Lance's innocence. What do I think? I don't know what he did. I know when I saw successful premeds drink caffeine, and drug-free I wasn't making the grade, but with it, I excelled. I learned from a pretty good biochemist (ultimately a billionaire biotech entrepreneur)that med students, interns and residents routinely took amphetimines in the 50s and early 60s to get through 36-48 hr no-sleep shifts. They learned to do what they had to, to get through grueling high-perforance regimens.
Amphetimines didn't work for me, for last-minute cramming in college. I learned that I really needed to take notes, make margin notes ASAP after class, rewrite them at night, go to office hours for clarification, study my xme-day and previous notes everynight, make high enough grades to get access to library stacks, camp out, read amazingly informative papers dating back nearly a century (starting with recent papers, reading their references, and then backtracking their references), so I could understand the evolution of scientific thought. I once came upon a Science article with a two-image hemoglobin drawing, with an accompanying red-green pair of glasses. "Oh, 3D hemoglobin structure, this is AMAZING. I SEE! Wow!"
Who comes up with this kind of stuff? Geniuses. Artistic scientists.
Back to Lance. I could envision a poor Dallas-project-raised youngster being informed he could dramatically improve his performance using drugs. And then, being helped to employ drug-detection-defeating agents. I can see how the technology was existent.
For example, I used Rosalyn Yallow's telephone-conversation methodology to get rabbits to produce antibodies to gastrin. I radiolabled the antibodies with Iodine-125. Centrifugation precipitated the gastrin, radiolabeled antibodies. We counted the precipitate. The gastrin left in the solute was really small. But you can majorly reduce circulating EPO by giving antibodies, and letting the immune system do the plasma removal.
Could Lance, or any other cyclist, beat EPO detection? Totally. How about the effects of EPO, generating red blood cells? Easy enough to beat, by diluting rbcs with salt solutions or salt and albumin solutions, to enable high rbc counts to be "masked" in simple hematocrit counts.
Did Lance use drugs, self-transfusions? I have no idea. In an era of rampant performance-enhancement, he was at the top in the TdF. He was a real athlete. Nobody says he didn't work really hard.
#145
moth -----> flame
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,916
Bikes: 11 CAAD 10-4, 07 Specialized Roubaix Comp, 98 Peugeot Horizon
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I think my IQ has dropped 20points just reading this thread.
__________________
BF, in a nutshell
BF, in a nutshell
#147
Senior Member
Does Tyler Hamilton's book give any clues as to how they did it? There's a pro who has admitted to doping.
I know when I was in high school for our physicals we needed to compete in sports we had to take a piss test. The guy next to me offered to buy my cup of piss, but it'd taken me like 15 minutes to work it out so I wasn't giving it up to anyone. I'm sure professional athletes have more stringent controls on them than that, but I heard of a pro football player getting busted with something called the Whizzinator.
I know when I was in high school for our physicals we needed to compete in sports we had to take a piss test. The guy next to me offered to buy my cup of piss, but it'd taken me like 15 minutes to work it out so I wasn't giving it up to anyone. I'm sure professional athletes have more stringent controls on them than that, but I heard of a pro football player getting busted with something called the Whizzinator.
__________________
Bikes: 1996 Eddy Merckx Titanium EX, 1989/90 Colnago Super(issimo?) Piu(?),1990 Concorde Aquila(hit by car while riding), others in build queue "when I get the time"
Bikes: 1996 Eddy Merckx Titanium EX, 1989/90 Colnago Super(issimo?) Piu(?),
#148
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bossier City, La
Posts: 628
Bikes: 70's Motobecane, 89 Centurion Ironman
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
https://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ughts-and.html
Look under #1.
Then you have the less scientific ways of passing tests like "donations" to the UCI.
Look under #1.
Then you have the less scientific ways of passing tests like "donations" to the UCI.
#149
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Great thread. It's quite apparent that there are a whole host of methods to dope and avoid detection, and remember that Armstrong hired the best positive-test-evading expert in the world, Michele Ferrari, to help him exclusively. So they were probably using masking agents, techniques and maybe even PEDs that nobody else even knew about, much less could test for.
But something not mentioned yet is that the premise that he never failed a test is false. From a review of Hamilton's book:
The USADA has already indicated their suspicions of the UCI's involvement in protecting Armstrong. Who knows where this might go.
But something not mentioned yet is that the premise that he never failed a test is false. From a review of Hamilton's book:
The 2011 60 Minutes story on Armstrong’s doping reported that he had once failed a drug test in 2001 at the Tour of Switzerland, a story Hamilton backs up: “Yes, Lance Armstrong tested positive at the Tour of Switzerland.” He describes an encounter with Armstrong just after Stage 9 of the race. “You won’t ****ing believe this,” he allegedly told Hamilton. “I got popped for EPO.” According to the 60 Minutesinvestigation, the UCI stepped in after the positive test, requesting that “the matter go no further,” and then set up a meeting between the lab’s director, Armstrong, and team director Johan Bruyneel. The insinuation is clear: Lance was using connections within the UCI to help his cause. Hamilton describes a climate in which this doesn’t seem at all far-fetched. “Sometime after that, I remember Lance phoning Hein Verbruggen from the team bus ... and I was struck by the casual tone of the conversation. Lance was talking to the president of the UCI, the leader of the sport. But he may as well have been talking to a business partner, a friend.”
#150
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, in a way. A more scientific way of putting it is that the negative predictive value (TN/(TN + FN)) of the doping test is relatively low, while the positive predictive value (TP/(TP+FP)) is relatively high - but not necessarily high in absolute terms.
where:
TN = true negative
FN = false negative
TP = true positive
FP = false positive
No test is going to be 100% accurate, which would mean that there are no false negatives and no false positives. When designing a blood doping assay that uses a binary classifier, the cut-point (i.e. the boundary between a "positive" and a "negative" result) would have been selected with the aim of minimizing false positives, for obvious reasons, with the result that the percentage of false negatives is relatively high.
If you wanted, you could set the cut-point such that there are very few false negatives, i.e. the test would be much more "sensitive" in detecting cyclists who were doping. But then there would almost certainly be a lot of false positives and no-one would believe that a "positive" result actually meant anything. Such a test would have little credibility with anybody.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, look up "receiver operating characteristic" in Wiki or somewhere. This is a very good article that I've used in giving a seminar to a group of statisitians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receive...characteristic
Note: I am not a statistician myself but I do run these sort of analyses. I'm often in the business of selecting cut-points when running correlative analyses on predictive biomarker data in oncology. Trust me, these are difficult and somewhat arbitrary decisions to make but there's no getting around making them if you want to have an assay with any actual utility. Sometimes I find myself defending a particular cut-point to journal reviewers, collaborators and the like. There are ways to optimize cut-point selection but these also have their limitations.
where:
TN = true negative
FN = false negative
TP = true positive
FP = false positive
No test is going to be 100% accurate, which would mean that there are no false negatives and no false positives. When designing a blood doping assay that uses a binary classifier, the cut-point (i.e. the boundary between a "positive" and a "negative" result) would have been selected with the aim of minimizing false positives, for obvious reasons, with the result that the percentage of false negatives is relatively high.
If you wanted, you could set the cut-point such that there are very few false negatives, i.e. the test would be much more "sensitive" in detecting cyclists who were doping. But then there would almost certainly be a lot of false positives and no-one would believe that a "positive" result actually meant anything. Such a test would have little credibility with anybody.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, look up "receiver operating characteristic" in Wiki or somewhere. This is a very good article that I've used in giving a seminar to a group of statisitians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receive...characteristic
Note: I am not a statistician myself but I do run these sort of analyses. I'm often in the business of selecting cut-points when running correlative analyses on predictive biomarker data in oncology. Trust me, these are difficult and somewhat arbitrary decisions to make but there's no getting around making them if you want to have an assay with any actual utility. Sometimes I find myself defending a particular cut-point to journal reviewers, collaborators and the like. There are ways to optimize cut-point selection but these also have their limitations.
Further, the cut-points are known to the riders' doctors, so they can design regimens that allow them to dope without testing positive. There is a plethora of evidence that this is exactly what happens, especially for the rich riders like Armstrong who can afford the best doctors.