I cant begin to match Tim Shearmans comprehensive discussion of Michael Sylvesters post on Landis failing a drug test (reproduced below), but I do have a couple of questions for Michael:
Michael wrote: >The French seem to have a penchant to question >American victories in these events. Do you have anything whatever to justify this suggestion? I dont follow cycle racing, but I know that the Tour de France is notorious for its multiple drug scandals in recent years, and contestants from several countries have been disqualified. >But there is also a lesson that can be learned >re French bias and that comes from some questionable >ethological findings that is, if scientists are >looking for something they may find it. Such was said >of British ethologist Jane Goodall looking for >specific behaviors in chimpanzees. Michael: 1. Please tell us who said this about Jane Goodall. 2. Please give either (i) an example of such an assertion (ii) a citation where one can find such assertions. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ ------------------------------------------------ Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:04:50 -0600 Author: "Shearon, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Tour de France/Research design > > 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."=20 > 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 it=92s = > web-site, that the =93ratio of one particular isotope to another isotope = > is different in synthetic versus natural testosterone=94. 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=92 results were non-negative (normal is = > anything below 3 and his was 3.99 if I=92m 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.=20 > > 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.=20 > > 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, = > I=92m keeping my fingers crossed for him but without evidence . . .=20 > > Tim > > > _______________________________ > Timothy O. Shearon, PhD > Professor and Chair Department of Psychology > Albertson College of Idaho > Caldwell, ID 83605 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
