|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Psychology of doping denials?
"Darrell Criswell" wrote in message
... I am continually amazed at pro cyclists who repeatedly fail doping tests (Tyler Hamilton is the most recent one) and totally deny what are almost unrefutable facts, and try to act as if they were the person wronged. Hamilton has tried to go on as normal after failing three blood doping tests. While true there is still some pretty serious questions about the testing procedures that they were using. Personally if the tests are reliable I don't care if Tyler WAS blood doping, he should not be framed by faulty procedures. If I tested positive on three breath tests for DUI most people would accept that I had been drinking while driving. True but then the tests have very extensive testing procedures performed before the tests were approved to be used in courts. What makes Tyler act so innocent when the objective evidence indicates he is guilty, and he knows that he is guilty. We go back to the fact that he was informed that some of his blood tests were showing "questionable" as far back as LBL. If that's the case either Hamilton is the world's biggest idiot OR he's the innocent person he proclaims himself to be. Of course there is always a one in a multi-million chance that the methodology is flawed or he gives an anomalous result, but the chance of that is close to zero. You mean one in a million chances that a test that was only tested on a few hundred KNOWN POSITIVES and NO CONTROLS is that reliable? I'm opting for the world's biggest idiot myself but am flexible enough to wait for the results without reaching hard conclusions like you appear to be doing with about as much real information as you do on weather conditions on Titan. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
... rbr = railroaded by retards Now that's hilarious! But, unfortunately, all-too-true... Andy Coggan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
... rbr = railroaded by retards Now that's hilarious! But, unfortunately, all-too-true... Andy Coggan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message k.net... "Darrell Criswell" wrote in message ... I am continually amazed at pro cyclists who repeatedly fail doping tests (Tyler Hamilton is the most recent one) and totally deny what are almost unrefutable facts, and try to act as if they were the person wronged. Hamilton has tried to go on as normal after failing three blood doping tests. While true there is still some pretty serious questions about the testing procedures that they were using. Personally if the tests are reliable I don't care if Tyler WAS blood doping, he should not be framed by faulty procedures. If I tested positive on three breath tests for DUI most people would accept that I had been drinking while driving. True but then the tests have very extensive testing procedures performed before the tests were approved to be used in courts. What makes Tyler act so innocent when the objective evidence indicates he is guilty, and he knows that he is guilty. We go back to the fact that he was informed that some of his blood tests were showing "questionable" as far back as LBL. If that's the case either Hamilton is the world's biggest idiot OR he's the innocent person he proclaims himself to be. Of course there is always a one in a multi-million chance that the methodology is flawed or he gives an anomalous result, but the chance of that is close to zero. You mean one in a million chances that a test that was only tested on a few hundred KNOWN POSITIVES and NO CONTROLS is that reliable? I'm opting for the world's biggest idiot myself but am flexible enough to wait for the results without reaching hard conclusions like you appear to be doing with about as much real information as you do on weather conditions on Titan. Clear and quite cold. The weather on Titan ... that is. Bob C. Live long and prosper ;-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message k.net... "Darrell Criswell" wrote in message ... I am continually amazed at pro cyclists who repeatedly fail doping tests (Tyler Hamilton is the most recent one) and totally deny what are almost unrefutable facts, and try to act as if they were the person wronged. Hamilton has tried to go on as normal after failing three blood doping tests. While true there is still some pretty serious questions about the testing procedures that they were using. Personally if the tests are reliable I don't care if Tyler WAS blood doping, he should not be framed by faulty procedures. If I tested positive on three breath tests for DUI most people would accept that I had been drinking while driving. True but then the tests have very extensive testing procedures performed before the tests were approved to be used in courts. What makes Tyler act so innocent when the objective evidence indicates he is guilty, and he knows that he is guilty. We go back to the fact that he was informed that some of his blood tests were showing "questionable" as far back as LBL. If that's the case either Hamilton is the world's biggest idiot OR he's the innocent person he proclaims himself to be. Of course there is always a one in a multi-million chance that the methodology is flawed or he gives an anomalous result, but the chance of that is close to zero. You mean one in a million chances that a test that was only tested on a few hundred KNOWN POSITIVES and NO CONTROLS is that reliable? I'm opting for the world's biggest idiot myself but am flexible enough to wait for the results without reaching hard conclusions like you appear to be doing with about as much real information as you do on weather conditions on Titan. Clear and quite cold. The weather on Titan ... that is. Bob C. Live long and prosper ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
psycholist wrote:
Clear and quite cold. The weather on Titan ... that is. Well it is cold anyway, but not very clear (http://www.solarviews.com/eng/titan.htm) I wonder how many layers you would have to wear to cycle at -178C. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
psycholist wrote:
Clear and quite cold. The weather on Titan ... that is. Well it is cold anyway, but not very clear (http://www.solarviews.com/eng/titan.htm) I wonder how many layers you would have to wear to cycle at -178C. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MagillaGorilla wrote: Hey loser, You don't know any evidence. All you know is some test said he did something he says he didn't and the testing methodology is new. There is the possibility that some of these psoitives cases are false positives. And many denials of legitimate positives were due to inadvertant contamination which is consistent with an athlete who says they didn't take something illegal telling the truth (because they didn't think they did). Dumbass - How does "inadvertant contamination" yield a different set of antigens? I'm curious as to how that would happen. It sounds farfetched to me. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MagillaGorilla wrote: Hey loser, You don't know any evidence. All you know is some test said he did something he says he didn't and the testing methodology is new. There is the possibility that some of these psoitives cases are false positives. And many denials of legitimate positives were due to inadvertant contamination which is consistent with an athlete who says they didn't take something illegal telling the truth (because they didn't think they did). Dumbass - How does "inadvertant contamination" yield a different set of antigens? I'm curious as to how that would happen. It sounds farfetched to me. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote: Hey loser, You don't know any evidence. All you know is some test said he did something he says he didn't and the testing methodology is new. There is the possibility that some of these psoitives cases are false positives. And many denials of legitimate positives were due to inadvertant contamination which is consistent with an athlete who says they didn't take something illegal telling the truth (because they didn't think they did). Dumbass - How does "inadvertant contamination" yield a different set of antigens? I'm curious as to how that would happen. It sounds farfetched to me. thanks, K. Gringioni. First of all, I don't believe it is necessary to put a period (.) after your last name. I am not saying that Tyler's case is one of inadvertant contamination. I was just saying that in all those cases where athletes appealed, the vast majority of them simply said they didn't take the illegal substance INTENTIONALLY. What Tyler is doing in his case is somewhat ra he is saying the test is actually wrong. Obviously, it would be very difficult to have your blood accidentally contaminated with someone else's blood, so inadvertant contamination is not a plausible defense that appears to be in the cards for Tyler, nor would it even matter due to strict liability rules. Also, your question is wrong when you claim that the test determines Tyler has a different set of antigens. It CLAIMS to test for that, but in fact may actually be detecting something else like a genetic anonmaly that causes Tyler's red blood cells to have slight affinity differences that the test MISINTERPRETS as a red blood cell from another person. That would be one possible explanation for why Tyler has failed ALL the blood transfusions test he's been administered. Magilla |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The word is out: It's over. | packfiller | Racing | 3 | October 15th 04 06:22 PM |
L.A. Confidential Excerpt | 'Dis Guy | Racing | 3 | October 10th 04 05:31 AM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |