A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tyler won't forget all you doubters...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old November 17th 04, 09:52 PM
B. Lafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 17th 04, 11:59 PM
patch70
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old November 17th 04, 11:59 PM
patch70
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old November 18th 04, 08:54 AM
MagillaGorilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 18th 04, 08:54 AM
MagillaGorilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 18th 04, 11:10 PM
ea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 18th 04, 11:10 PM
ea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.