|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"g-spot" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote: ...It's truly a labor of love. Dumbass, Only hookers and porn stars labor at love. One can no more blame a man for where his penis goes that one can blame a compass for pointing North. But love my friend, love is another matter.-- Raoul Julia in Tequila Sunrise |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
MagillaGorilla Wrote: Very easy...the test's sensitivity may be too imprecise annd turn positive only if blood cells are slightly dimorphic for whatever reason (i.e. genetic, medical). In sickle-cell anemia, not every red blood cell is sickle-shaped, nor is every sickle-shaped RBC the same, and there each red blood cell would have a different affinity at certain receptor sites (i.e. antigens). I would suspect sicke-cell anemic patients to also register suspicious responses under this test. My god, you make up some rubbish. The shape of a red cell in no way affects the antigens that are displayed on its surface. Go to a haematology lab and look at some blood films. Everybody has some anisocytosis, poikylocytosis, spherocytes. reticulocytes etc. Surprise, surprise, these have no effect on FACS results. Give up! You are just making yourself sound silly. Are you sure that you are not Tyler trying to sow some seeds of doubt with bogus non-scientific arguments? -- patch70 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
MagillaGorilla Wrote: Very easy...the test's sensitivity may be too imprecise annd turn positive only if blood cells are slightly dimorphic for whatever reason (i.e. genetic, medical). In sickle-cell anemia, not every red blood cell is sickle-shaped, nor is every sickle-shaped RBC the same, and there each red blood cell would have a different affinity at certain receptor sites (i.e. antigens). I would suspect sicke-cell anemic patients to also register suspicious responses under this test. My god, you make up some rubbish. The shape of a red cell in no way affects the antigens that are displayed on its surface. Go to a haematology lab and look at some blood films. Everybody has some anisocytosis, poikylocytosis, spherocytes. reticulocytes etc. Surprise, surprise, these have no effect on FACS results. Give up! You are just making yourself sound silly. Are you sure that you are not Tyler trying to sow some seeds of doubt with bogus non-scientific arguments? -- patch70 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of a red blood cell's surface may in fact affect the electrical
charge of certain surface cell receptors and thus its affinity to bind to an antibody. I'm sure you know that because every freshman bio major does.... Magilla patch70 wrote: MagillaGorilla Wrote: Very easy...the test's sensitivity may be too imprecise annd turn positive only if blood cells are slightly dimorphic for whatever reason (i.e. genetic, medical). In sickle-cell anemia, not every red blood cell is sickle-shaped, nor is every sickle-shaped RBC the same, and there each red blood cell would have a different affinity at certain receptor sites (i.e. antigens). I would suspect sicke-cell anemic patients to also register suspicious responses under this test. My god, you make up some rubbish. The shape of a red cell in no way affects the antigens that are displayed on its surface. Go to a haematology lab and look at some blood films. Everybody has some anisocytosis, poikylocytosis, spherocytes. reticulocytes etc. Surprise, surprise, these have no effect on FACS results. Give up! You are just making yourself sound silly. Are you sure that you are not Tyler trying to sow some seeds of doubt with bogus non-scientific arguments? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of a red blood cell's surface may in fact affect the electrical
charge of certain surface cell receptors and thus its affinity to bind to an antibody. I'm sure you know that because every freshman bio major does.... Magilla patch70 wrote: MagillaGorilla Wrote: Very easy...the test's sensitivity may be too imprecise annd turn positive only if blood cells are slightly dimorphic for whatever reason (i.e. genetic, medical). In sickle-cell anemia, not every red blood cell is sickle-shaped, nor is every sickle-shaped RBC the same, and there each red blood cell would have a different affinity at certain receptor sites (i.e. antigens). I would suspect sicke-cell anemic patients to also register suspicious responses under this test. My god, you make up some rubbish. The shape of a red cell in no way affects the antigens that are displayed on its surface. Go to a haematology lab and look at some blood films. Everybody has some anisocytosis, poikylocytosis, spherocytes. reticulocytes etc. Surprise, surprise, these have no effect on FACS results. Give up! You are just making yourself sound silly. Are you sure that you are not Tyler trying to sow some seeds of doubt with bogus non-scientific arguments? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
MagillaGorilla wrote in message ...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: Most people believe he's innocent because the concept of homologous bloood transfusions defies empirical knowledge (why not auto-transfuse since you know it's not detectable? how do you type the blood? how do you find a donor? who helps you do this complex procedure?) and because the test results have to be "interpreted by experts after it is labeled 'suspicious.'" Not exactly a mass spec result, now is it? You still don't know the science behind the test and your blind acceptance of it is a disgrace to the concept of due process. Dumbass - If the test is that bad, why did he fail 3 out of 3 and no one else except his teamate got even 1 positive? thanks, K. Gringioni. I already explained this. But I'll do it again. 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.] So let's assume the blood transfusion test is a bad test and has a high false positive rate. Given the number of tests done (say 500-1000), two or three false positives are what you would expect, and really no more than that. 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. 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? Let's see what Tyler's scientific experts come up with. USADA will post a detailed .pdf file on their website after the CAS hearing listing all the details of Tyler's scientific defense, and we can read that. I'm not going to guess what his experts and attorney are going to use as a defense because that's just retarded and serves no purpose. But to sit here and just call the guy guilty because you're guessing at the reliability of a test using flawed logic (i.e. how come there's only 2 positives out of all those tested? why are the only positives on the same team?)...is a quite reckless. This isn't a mass spectrometer test, you know. Magilla Magilla, you talk some smack - the guy is guilty as hell. 3 out of 4 positives (counting the "switch") and his teammate busted for the same offense. Nevermind Oscar with the EPO and the team doc bailing. Probably the doc went so Phonak can at least try to salvage entry into the league. The test you try to discredit has apparently been around for years just new to the sports world. Tyler just couldn't accept he's the rider he is. He wanted his glory and he got it but now he has to pay the price. He shoulda asked Zuelle but then again he's got a lot more to lose then Alex. It's not this is anything new either. I am sure you have read the excerpts from LA Confidential - yeah i know those journalists are just out to get lance so they are ****. I thought Julich's comment was prescient. But you are right, he will most likely get to keep his medal, "i don't go to bed with no whore and i don't wake up with no whore, that's how i live with myself, i don't know how you do it kid (Wall St.)" He's the one that has to look in the mirror every day. Robert Millar looks pretty admirable these days |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
MagillaGorilla wrote in message ...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: Most people believe he's innocent because the concept of homologous bloood transfusions defies empirical knowledge (why not auto-transfuse since you know it's not detectable? how do you type the blood? how do you find a donor? who helps you do this complex procedure?) and because the test results have to be "interpreted by experts after it is labeled 'suspicious.'" Not exactly a mass spec result, now is it? You still don't know the science behind the test and your blind acceptance of it is a disgrace to the concept of due process. Dumbass - If the test is that bad, why did he fail 3 out of 3 and no one else except his teamate got even 1 positive? thanks, K. Gringioni. I already explained this. But I'll do it again. 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.] So let's assume the blood transfusion test is a bad test and has a high false positive rate. Given the number of tests done (say 500-1000), two or three false positives are what you would expect, and really no more than that. 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. 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? Let's see what Tyler's scientific experts come up with. USADA will post a detailed .pdf file on their website after the CAS hearing listing all the details of Tyler's scientific defense, and we can read that. I'm not going to guess what his experts and attorney are going to use as a defense because that's just retarded and serves no purpose. But to sit here and just call the guy guilty because you're guessing at the reliability of a test using flawed logic (i.e. how come there's only 2 positives out of all those tested? why are the only positives on the same team?)...is a quite reckless. This isn't a mass spectrometer test, you know. Magilla Magilla, you talk some smack - the guy is guilty as hell. 3 out of 4 positives (counting the "switch") and his teammate busted for the same offense. Nevermind Oscar with the EPO and the team doc bailing. Probably the doc went so Phonak can at least try to salvage entry into the league. The test you try to discredit has apparently been around for years just new to the sports world. Tyler just couldn't accept he's the rider he is. He wanted his glory and he got it but now he has to pay the price. He shoulda asked Zuelle but then again he's got a lot more to lose then Alex. It's not this is anything new either. I am sure you have read the excerpts from LA Confidential - yeah i know those journalists are just out to get lance so they are ****. I thought Julich's comment was prescient. But you are right, he will most likely get to keep his medal, "i don't go to bed with no whore and i don't wake up with no whore, that's how i live with myself, i don't know how you do it kid (Wall St.)" He's the one that has to look in the mirror every day. Robert Millar looks pretty admirable these days |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Marital discord - Hamilton | crit pro | Racing | 9 | September 27th 04 12:42 PM |
Tyler Not Cleared, Lab Blunder | never_doped | Racing | 2 | September 25th 04 06:33 AM |
Why condemn Tyler so fast? | Ronde Chump | Racing | 8 | September 25th 04 05:22 AM |
Olympic Pick Contest: finaler | Dan Connelly | Racing | 2 | August 19th 04 04:44 AM |
Tyler Hamilton Foundation Kick-Off | Richard Adams | Racing | 0 | November 10th 03 08:25 PM |