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.

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

rbr = railroaded by retards

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

Andy Coggan

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

rbr = railroaded by retards

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

Andy Coggan

"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 ;-)

"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 ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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