Psychology of doping denials?

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:13:04 +0100, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
wrote:


I think it's because of the moral issue that is made out of doping. It is
seen as something completely reprehensible which can only be done by bad
persons. The world doesn't work that way, ofcourse - sometimes good people
do bad things, or sometimes good people have different ideas about what is
acceptable behaviour.

Hamilton's fans don't want to see him as an evil guy, yet they believe that
admitting he took dope is the same as admitting that he is evil. I think a
good example is what Ryan Cousineau wrote in this thread: "...if you're the
kind of racer who is willing to dope, you're not likely the kind of person
who will feel much shame about lying about it." That implies that there are
two kinds of people - those who lie, cheat and don't feel any compulsions
about those things, as opposed to people who behave like good people and are
good by nature. If you dope, you're also likely to lie, all your
achievements are suspect, etc. In some cases this is justified - I too was
more inclined to believe Prentice Steffen when Hamilton tested positive,
thinking that if he did one thing, he was more likely to be the guilty party
in another case as well.

So Hamilton's defenders would rather view the facts in the light that is
most favorable to their hero, rather than adopt a nuanced view of his
behaviour. Perhaps this is because those same fans were incredibly harsh
when, for example, Richard Virenque was concerned. He is still considered to
be an asshole to the center of his being, even though he might be a very
kind-hearted person, who wouldn't hurt a soul. It's as if people feel the
need to be completely consequent in their judgement of someone's character.
Such a view is bound to collapse at some stage, because people are too
complicated to be viewed in such a simplistic fashion.


Very, very well said.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:13:04 +0100, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
wrote:


I think it's because of the moral issue that is made out of doping. It is
seen as something completely reprehensible which can only be done by bad
persons. The world doesn't work that way, ofcourse - sometimes good people
do bad things, or sometimes good people have different ideas about what is
acceptable behaviour.

Hamilton's fans don't want to see him as an evil guy, yet they believe that
admitting he took dope is the same as admitting that he is evil. I think a
good example is what Ryan Cousineau wrote in this thread: "...if you're the
kind of racer who is willing to dope, you're not likely the kind of person
who will feel much shame about lying about it." That implies that there are
two kinds of people - those who lie, cheat and don't feel any compulsions
about those things, as opposed to people who behave like good people and are
good by nature. If you dope, you're also likely to lie, all your
achievements are suspect, etc. In some cases this is justified - I too was
more inclined to believe Prentice Steffen when Hamilton tested positive,
thinking that if he did one thing, he was more likely to be the guilty party
in another case as well.

So Hamilton's defenders would rather view the facts in the light that is
most favorable to their hero, rather than adopt a nuanced view of his
behaviour. Perhaps this is because those same fans were incredibly harsh
when, for example, Richard Virenque was concerned. He is still considered to
be an asshole to the center of his being, even though he might be a very
kind-hearted person, who wouldn't hurt a soul. It's as if people feel the
need to be completely consequent in their judgement of someone's character.
Such a view is bound to collapse at some stage, because people are too
complicated to be viewed in such a simplistic fashion.


Very, very well said.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...


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

and I've got a great piece of tropical bottom land going cheap...lifetime
supply of bananas for the credulous.

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...


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

and I've got a great piece of tropical bottom land going cheap...lifetime
supply of bananas for the credulous.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:17:34 GMT, Darrell Criswell
wrote:

If I tested positive on three breath tests for DUI most people would
accept that I had been drinking while driving.

Well, there was the guy with the bowels that fermented grain (rice, if
I remember correctly), about a decade ago. Failed an established test
for reasons that took a trip to the hospital and a week-long stay to
figure out. About to lose his license at the time.

Why some people confuse supporting due process and the assumption of
innocence for a declaration of innocence is what confuses me. Maybe
they need to slow down and read. Way fewer than half of the
wait-and-see posts are actually proclaiming innocence, especially
since the gorilla is posting most of the wait-and-see posts.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:17:34 GMT, Darrell Criswell
wrote:

If I tested positive on three breath tests for DUI most people would
accept that I had been drinking while driving.

Well, there was the guy with the bowels that fermented grain (rice, if
I remember correctly), about a decade ago. Failed an established test
for reasons that took a trip to the hospital and a week-long stay to
figure out. About to lose his license at the time.

Why some people confuse supporting due process and the assumption of
innocence for a declaration of innocence is what confuses me. Maybe
they need to slow down and read. Way fewer than half of the
wait-and-see posts are actually proclaiming innocence, especially
since the gorilla is posting most of the wait-and-see posts.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:14:39 GMT, "Andy Coggan"
wrote:

rbr = railroaded by retards

Now that's hilarious! But, unfortunately, all-too-true...

Nothing, but nothing gets railroaded here. Too many natural
obstructionists. We will have some of the last to admit Kerry lost the
election, still posting in 2005.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:14:39 GMT, "Andy Coggan"
wrote:

rbr = railroaded by retards

Now that's hilarious! But, unfortunately, all-too-true...

Nothing, but nothing gets railroaded here. Too many natural
obstructionists. We will have some of the last to admit Kerry lost the
election, still posting in 2005.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:30:21 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

Well, people want to believe. Even I want to believe Tyler. I'm trying
to figure out how I could believe him, but I certainly wish for a world
where Tyler in specific, and racers in general, didn't cheat.

Well, people cheat on their taxes and run stop signs every day. People
screw aliens working on work visas and drive 2-3,000 pound vehicles
right on your bumper at 55 mph. There is a long lineof changes for a
better world.

OTOH, if Hamilton is guilty, I'm trying to get around how stupid some
people in the line of responsibility would have to be. If you cheat on
your taxes, don't do it on a red flag item. If you are going to
tailgate, don't do it to a car with light bars attached to the roof.
If you have a multi-million dollar operation going, don't do something
that will leave one of your titular leaders hung out to dry.

And I can't see two riders doing this with a shared bag and a couple
of needles. If there isn't a successful appeal, then the Phonak team
management shouldn't need a lifetime ban - people should simply refuse
to hire them on the grounds of incredible stupidity.

You can change your ways, but you can't get over dumb.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...