Tyler won't forget all you doubters...

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
The case against Tyler' is more compelling than the case against Pantani,
IMHO.

You are now the master of understatement. :-)

patch70 wrote:
MagillaGorilla Wrote:

Also, although SOME of the base methodology in the homologous
transfusion test has been tried and tested, the test itself is new and
has only been performed on less than 25 people prior to its
implementation. You are incorrect to imply the test has been around
for years. Why would they get published in a journal for a test that,
according to you, is old technology?


FACS testing has been around for many years. This test for homologous
transfusions is just using it on a different population. Just because
the only published study was of ~25 people does not mean that it has
not been more broadly validated. We are led to believe that it has been
done on 100's of athletes at the olympics and since then.



And so Tyler and Santi could be the first false positives - what's the
problem?

But you still didn't answer my question: if blood transfusions are
detectable for 120 days and EPO is detectable for 5-9 days after
injection, why would Tyler opt for the one that has a much longer half life?

Surely you would concede that someone smart enough to blood type another
person's blood would know what everyone who reads cyclingnews knows.

Of course this doesn't make Tyler innocent, but it sure is suspicious.

I will await the arbitration hearing.

Magilla

patch70 wrote:
MagillaGorilla Wrote:

Also, although SOME of the base methodology in the homologous
transfusion test has been tried and tested, the test itself is new and
has only been performed on less than 25 people prior to its
implementation. You are incorrect to imply the test has been around
for years. Why would they get published in a journal for a test that,
according to you, is old technology?


FACS testing has been around for many years. This test for homologous
transfusions is just using it on a different population. Just because
the only published study was of ~25 people does not mean that it has
not been more broadly validated. We are led to believe that it has been
done on 100's of athletes at the olympics and since then.



And so Tyler and Santi could be the first false positives - what's the
problem?

But you still didn't answer my question: if blood transfusions are
detectable for 120 days and EPO is detectable for 5-9 days after
injection, why would Tyler opt for the one that has a much longer half life?

Surely you would concede that someone smart enough to blood type another
person's blood would know what everyone who reads cyclingnews knows.

Of course this doesn't make Tyler innocent, but it sure is suspicious.

I will await the arbitration hearing.

Magilla

Well, at least you are capable of writing more than 2 sentence repsonses
like most people in here.

Your statements are reasonable, but I wouldn't guess at Tyler's guilt or
that he will get off on some technicality.

Remember, the WADA EPO test has been successfully refuted twice by
scientists. And nobody talks about that.

Magilla

patch70 wrote:

MagillaGorilla Wrote:

You wouldn't expect the false positive rate for a bad test to be more
than say 1 in 300 or so, maybe 1 in 500. [BTW, an acceptable false
positive rate is like 1 in 450,000.]


How do you come up with this rubbish? The acceptable false positive
rate is different for every test!!! It varies whether you are really
trying to detect something and not miss any in which case you don't
mind a false positive or two; or whether you are trying to confirm
something and don't want to get it wrong so cannot accept even a minor
risk of false positives. It is also completely dependent on the prior
probablility for positivity of the person being tested!

MagillaGorilla Wrote:

As for them both being on the same team, that is more problematic but
might likewise have a plausible explanation. We don't know if the test
will be predisposed to turning a false positive based on some common
medicine, food, supplement, medicine, etc. that Phonak riders use
exclusively.


You are stretching it a lot there. What evidence do you have for any
supplements being adsorped onto red cell surfaces? This is
extraordinarily unlikely. What is the probability of these bits of
supplement also cross reacting with human antigens that are being
tested for? Again, about zero.

MagillaGorilla Wrote:

There's also a chance that the two are completely unrelated - if you
think about how many teams there are in pro cycling who were tested for
blood transfusions (what maybe 15 or 20?). So would it be shocking that
two false positives ended up on the same team? No. As a matter of fact,
the chances would be 1 in 20, which is 5%. If I told you there was a 5%
chance your airline would crash, would you fly on it?


Perhaps more likely is that the other teams don't use homologous
transfusions. They have the choice of riders being clean or using Epo
to get the same effect as transfusing.

If you multiply all your probabilities, the chance of Tyler & Santi
Perez both being innocent are about 1 in 10 to the power of 10!

Yes we all have to wait & see what happens, but if he does get off
this, I would predict that it is only on a technicality rather than
actual innocence.

Well, at least you are capable of writing more than 2 sentence repsonses
like most people in here.

Your statements are reasonable, but I wouldn't guess at Tyler's guilt or
that he will get off on some technicality.

Remember, the WADA EPO test has been successfully refuted twice by
scientists. And nobody talks about that.

Magilla

patch70 wrote:

MagillaGorilla Wrote:

You wouldn't expect the false positive rate for a bad test to be more
than say 1 in 300 or so, maybe 1 in 500. [BTW, an acceptable false
positive rate is like 1 in 450,000.]


How do you come up with this rubbish? The acceptable false positive
rate is different for every test!!! It varies whether you are really
trying to detect something and not miss any in which case you don't
mind a false positive or two; or whether you are trying to confirm
something and don't want to get it wrong so cannot accept even a minor
risk of false positives. It is also completely dependent on the prior
probablility for positivity of the person being tested!

MagillaGorilla Wrote:

As for them both being on the same team, that is more problematic but
might likewise have a plausible explanation. We don't know if the test
will be predisposed to turning a false positive based on some common
medicine, food, supplement, medicine, etc. that Phonak riders use
exclusively.


You are stretching it a lot there. What evidence do you have for any
supplements being adsorped onto red cell surfaces? This is
extraordinarily unlikely. What is the probability of these bits of
supplement also cross reacting with human antigens that are being
tested for? Again, about zero.

MagillaGorilla Wrote:

There's also a chance that the two are completely unrelated - if you
think about how many teams there are in pro cycling who were tested for
blood transfusions (what maybe 15 or 20?). So would it be shocking that
two false positives ended up on the same team? No. As a matter of fact,
the chances would be 1 in 20, which is 5%. If I told you there was a 5%
chance your airline would crash, would you fly on it?


Perhaps more likely is that the other teams don't use homologous
transfusions. They have the choice of riders being clean or using Epo
to get the same effect as transfusing.

If you multiply all your probabilities, the chance of Tyler & Santi
Perez both being innocent are about 1 in 10 to the power of 10!

Yes we all have to wait & see what happens, but if he does get off
this, I would predict that it is only on a technicality rather than
actual innocence.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:49:36 -0600, Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote:
The case against Tyler' is more compelling than the case against Pantani,

What case against Pantani?

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:49:36 -0600, Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote:
The case against Tyler' is more compelling than the case against Pantani,

What case against Pantani?

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Tyler, this is not the best way to build good will for the bike shop
you'll
be opening in Marblehead.

RIGHT ON ! ))

Tyler, this is not the best way to build good will for the bike shop
you'll
be opening in Marblehead.

RIGHT ON ! ))

Actually, I'll bet his bike shop would do OK. There's that diehard
contingent that believes that he's innocent because he's a nice guy.
K. Gringioni.


After five years he'd be scraping to make a decent living like all the
other
guys in the retail side of the industry.


Yeah ... Ron Kiefel is really hurting for cash ...

Guys like Boyer learned to look for rewards that arn't exactly monetary.
A little French, and a handy tire lever