Michael- First, don't take this point by point analysis as an attack (please!) as it isn't intended that way. But there is much in your note and questions that seems to me to be over-stating (stretching?) the facts just a bit. Also, I'm not a physiologist but I am trained in physiological psychology so I can partially answer some of your questions (and secondarily, I am a long time cyclist who has followed professional cycling since before Eddie had a nick-name). :)
First you said: "It appears that Tour de France investigators are committing all the mistakes that I was told in graduate school to avoid in experimental design." Well. They aren't doing research. The work the lab is doing is based on already done science (sic) but that's part of the problem, imho. The test results are standard procedures but my own readings and reports from physicians point out that the research on which the tests are based does not include the edges of the physiological "bell curve" that would be inhabited by members of the professional peleton (in English- the tests are not normalized for professional athletes). On the other hand, there isn't that much evidence that such a sample would generate results significantly different that those already obtained (so some of the absence of published results could be confirmation of the null hypothesis)- at least not in ways to invalidate the tests. There is theory to that effect but no systematic studies on that directly (again, that isn't my area of expertise but I haven't seen it). I urge anyone who knows differently to correct me on that! :) Then you said: "First re Landis they are not using a double-blind method procedure in evaluating the testosterone samples. The possibility of bias is there. Gee,asking the French to test an American champion is like I asking Christoher Green to evaluate a work in Afrocentric psychology." Michael- that isn't true. The athlete has an assigned number and the lab isn't supposed to know whose sample is being tested (it is specifically a double blind procedure by design). If they do there is a breech of protocol for the test (Landis has implied as much in some of his statements). My understanding of the procedures and the rep of the lab's work is that they generally do follow procedure on analysis of samples (French or no!). The questions about their procedures is in re their leaking of results (a finding of a recent UCI investigation following the accusations against a certain Mr. Armstrong- in that case they were doing research but releasing the name of the samples as if performing tests- possibly actionable- Leave that to the lawyers). Fact is that you are not correct. In addition, saying this was a French attack on Americans in no way explains how a vial that Landis signed when it was sealed, the seal wasn't broken till it was tested in front of one of Landis' representatives, contained abnormal (non-negative) findings and pointed to synthetic hormones (below). You went on to say, "The French seem to have a penchant to question American victories in these events." That is true of some French but to generalize to them all? Perhaps if you said the French media, I'd be inclined to agree (interestingly, this isn't true of the French members of the professional peleton or really of people who understand cycling well!). You also asked: "The other question is why in previous testings of Landis no induced testosterone was found and all of a sudden synthetic levels were found after the big win. Now I occasionally take vitamin supplements and I am constantly reminded that there is no difference between natural and synthetic supplements." Several points. The absence of previous synthetic hormones is something Landis points to. But it isn't necessarily true. The tests results were negative thus his ratio of testosterone to epi-testosterone was within limits (4/1 or less with 1/1 being normal- 11/1 being the non-negative result). Thus the test for synthetic testosterone wasn't done so we don't know what the earlier results would have been. Then you asked: "I am not certain as to how they can distinguish between natural and synthetic testosterone." Ahhh. There's the rub. Fact is they can't. Not really. They test for a ratio of carbon isotopes present in the testosterone (Carbon Isotope Ration test). The test they do checks for the ratio of two types of carbon isotopes. It is overly simplistic to say, as ESPN does on its web-site, that the ratio of one particular isotope to another isotope is different in synthetic versus natural testosterone. But that is the basic idea. In synthetic testosterone the ration of isotope for carbon 13 is higher. If your results exceed a certain ratio (defined within percentages normalized to the population, again!) your result is non-negative. Mr. Landis results were non-negative (normal is anything below 3 and his was 3.99 if Im getting the right numbers). So either he's a freak (possible but not proved), something was wrong with the test (possible but highly unlikely), something got into his system that skewed the results (his claim of alcohol, drugs prescribed, fatigue, etc) but there is no evidence to support his contentions toward any of that as of this time. Now as much as I really want to believe him, root for him as a US cyclist, detest the French press' snobbery, etc, etc. I don't have a shred of evidence that anything resulted in this test result other than that Mr. Landis may have cheated. If he produces evidence that the test was flawed, etc then his name is clear. Else, he is either guilty or one unlucky dude- either way he'll be stripped of the victory whether he cheated or not based on the tests. I'll just close by adding the following. I rooted for Floyd every day of the tour. I was devastated when he bonked. I was elated when he came back and won- damnedest thing I ever saw! It was a wonder filled event that displayed human suffering and tenacity. Then the doping result! I hope he can prove me wrong but right now the evidence seems to suggest that he did something very very human but outside the rules. Really, Im keeping my fingers crossed for him but without evidence . . . Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Albertson College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems
<<winmail.dat>>
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
